Red, Green, and Blue

The world has been talking about the proactive measures announced by China in order to reduce its carbon emissions, increase renewable energy use and improve energy efficiency. But its neighbor, India, too is now is in a remarkable transition from an environmental underdog one who projected itself as a weak and helpless sufferer of the natural calamities that the changing climate threatens to bring in the future.

With changing international scenarios the domestic policies of India changed as well. With the change in Washington, many developing countries changed their stance and announced slew of proactive measures which they had fiercely opposed in the past. Even though they all are still opposed to mandatory emission reduction targets they have announced forest conservation plans as well as massive renewable energy projects. Read the rest of this entry »

Mean Joe Green #77: The State of Our Energy Future: Titanic #2 (Cartoon)

With ‘clean coal’ and nuclear power likely to play a larger-than-expected role in climate change legislation, are we heading for an iceberg? Literally, no–they’re all melting. Figuratively, maybe…

Follow Mean Joe Green on Twitter at @GreenCartoons

Mean Joe Green Cartoon Archive

When Joe Romm over at the Indispensable Climate Progress (I capitalize indispensable because the blog should just always be called that) gets going, he really gets going. Read the rest of this entry »

Olympia Snowe’s support of the finance committee draft puts health care back in play, but without a public option. The Graham-Kerry compromise climate bill would start to cap carbon, but also allow coal to cash in. Can Obama’s progressive base settle for incrementalism? If Arriana Huffington speaks for the movement, HOPE may not hold out in the face of so little CHANGE during the 2010 mid-terms. </p>

After so much bad news on health care, the White House and Senate Dems are clinging to Senator Olympia Snowe’s support of the Finance Committee draft bill. While the bill does deliver on some of the key provisions the White House wanted - including insurance company restrictions on applicants with pre-existing medical conditions - it does not include a public option. What’s more, with CBO costing the “bipartisan” bill out somewhere north of $800 billion, there is little doubt that as amendments are made and more scrutiny is placed on estimated Medicare savings, a $1 trillion price tag is going to put Snowe’s support at risk (to say of nothing of some already-reluctant Democrats.

Similarly, the climate bill strategy that Senators John Kerry and Lindsey Graham proposed in their New York Times Op-Ed may make passage more likely as some pundits have argued. But, it cannot please progressives to see so many giveaways already - before the Senate has even begun trading horses in earnest. The Graham/Kerry compromise promises to make America “the Saudi Arabia of clean coal,” polishes the drills for more domestic drilling, and lifts restrictions to allow for faster proliferation of new nuclear plants. Not exactly the kind of thing that will warm hearts among hardcore conservationists.

But, a health care bill that restricts companies from discriminating against pre-existing conditions and a cap-and-trade regime (even one with a price collar and a lot of allowances) mean something to the progressive base, right? Not necessarily.

Arianna Huffington, a thought leader of the progressive movement, lambasted Obama and the incremental approach over the weekend on This Week and again on NPR’s On Point. Huffington’s argument is that “No Child Left Behind” is a cautionary tale that the Obama White House should study well. In her reckoning, the Act made no real progress in improving American education, but it gave the Washington establishment cover to say, “we dealt with education,” sapping momentum for any real and renewed action on the issue in the Obama administration.

Could the same happen to Obama’s health care and climate agendas if the Dems take pennies on the dollar for all of the political capital POTUS has invested? And will their base settle for the incrementalist approach anyway? He might have been able to argue the “old college try” if hopes had not been so high, promises so lofty, and the stage seemingly so well set (including the sort-of supermajority in the Senate). Instead, with little more than promises on progressive hot-buttons like Iraq and Afghan deescalation, Gitmo closings, repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” health care and climate change, patience among progressives is wearing thin.

The political calculation is tricky. The White House - and Dems facing fights in the 2010 mid-terms - might be better to take outright losses on these watered-down bills, hold their line, and position the GOP as obstructionists in order to reenergize the progressive base.

Photo credit (CC) JD Lasica, socialmedia.biz

The news that President Barack Obama had been selected as the Norwegian Nobel committee’s 2009 peace prize winner was met with a near-unanimous non-partisan international response: “Huh?” Even in the President’s own acceptance speech, the chord struck was not so much disagreement as shock.

It is good to see that there are still some surprises in the world, and - in particular - in politics. Still, truly shocking political events - and reactions to them - are rare. Careful observers can see most Hill happenings coming from miles down the road and months ahead of schedule. We know some things will happen already, still our political and media culture waits out the inevitable before allowing events to capture headlines, ride roughshod over public opinion and exert themselves on political discourse.

Borrowing a page from Maureen Dowd’s “imaginings” playbook, this trip to 2010 explains how Washington’s worst-kept secrets will effect the climate change bill by collaring the President and Congressional Dems, and threatening our collective energy future.

FEBRUARY 10, 2010
WASHINGTON, DC

REACTION MIXED AS SENATE CLIMATE BILL GOES TO FLOOR
Critics Assail Compromises While Some Laud Any Action in Time of Political Turmoil

The Senate will likely take up floor debate of its climate bill this week after the proposed legislation was released from committee with considerable compromise put in place to help win votes from reluctant Senators who are facing election-year political pressure and mounting disappointing news about the economy and the war in Afghanistan.

The White House and Congressional Democratic leaders had hoped to have a climate change bill in place before the global climate change conference held in Copenhagen last December. Instead, American negotiators went to the United Nations conference with only the promise of continued domestic effort on greenhouse gas reduction, and observers felt that the Copenhagen conference’s result was all too similar to the Kyoto agreement it was supposed to build upon. While the world left Denmark with a resolution that features very strong aspirational emissions targets, there remains no enforcement mechanism in place, and it is unlikely that the world’s leading emitters will ratify any of the agreement’s most restrictive standards.

The Copenhagen failure took much of the momentum away from domestic climate change legislation, and action on energy and environmental reform has been further hampered as time gets closer to 2010’s mid-term elections and bad news on the economy mounts. Consistent with moribund projections, holiday sales figures were down for a second consecutive year, and the markets took a tumble as cautious investors reacted to retailers’ figures.

The tumble followed earlier market reaction to early January’s fourth quarter earnings announcements, which showed that in spite of stirring signs of economic strength, real recovery is still far from solidified.

The combination of slow sales and low earnings had brought markets back to a point where many observers felt valuation had leveled off from last fall’s slight recovery bubble. But, as final confirmation of double-digit unemployment became reality with last week’s announcement of jobless figures, the market dropped further.

All of the disappointing economic news made it impossible to get a climate change bill to the floor of the Senate without strong trade protections put in place for the domestic industries that are the most energy-intensive.

The protections spurred objections from global trading partners and concerns from observers worldwide that embedding carbon leakage tariff adjustments into the legislation amounts to protectionism and may further stunt economic recovery. Still, Senate negotiators had to include the provisions to win support from Midwestern Democrats who want both to claim progressive credentials by voting for a climate bill, but also needed any such bill to deliver not only protections - but also dollars - for heavy-emitting industries that employ their constituents.

The bill is expected to be debated next week after hearings on the President’s dismissal of General Stanley McChrystal are complete. In late 2009, Obama dismissed McChrystal from his post as commanding general in Afghanistan amid a very public disagreement about troop levels and strategy. The President has faced immense criticism from all sides after dismissing McChrystal. Republicans have criticized him for putting his own “yes man” in charge of executing the plan that McChrystal concocted because he subsequently adopted the recommendation to elevate troop levels. From his left, Obama has faced accusations that escalation is the wrong course and is a repudiation of the “call to action” that he received with his Nobel Peace Prize award last October.

Pundits had expected the Senate climb to be more difficult even than the House’s trials in passing the Waxman-Markey climate bill in early summer last year. Senate rules, election-year pressures and the fact that the House bill relied on heavy support from very populous blue states to win passage all spelled trouble for the Senate bill. Also, Obama’s own clout on the Hill was heavily damaged after last year’s failure to pass a strong health care bill.

Trade protections, heavy dilution of greenhouse has emissions targets, watered-down fuel and building energy efficiency standards, and huge cash handouts to utilities and the oil, gas and coal industries are just some of the elements of the final Senate bill that are drawing fire. As they did for the much-stronger Waxman-Markey bill, leading green groups like Greenpeace are opposing the Senate bill. Others insist that while the bill is imperfect, an incremental approach to energy and environmental legislation may be the best way to proceed.

Whatever the result, it now seems highly unlikely that the House and Senate could possibly agree on a bill in conference committee during this session, and any climate change legislation will likely have to wait until after mid-term elections. Of course, by that time, President Obama will be ramping up his own re-election bid and with hurt feelings among many of the constituencies that supported him in 2008 (gay rights groups and anti-war activists chief among them), Obama may choose to take on some more mainstream initiatives and leave climate change to the side for a while

Take it for what it is: my imagination. Except that we already know that most of this WILL certainly happen. What we don’t know yet, is how we’ll react.

After a campaign that resulted not only in victory, but in the transcendence of Barack Obama to something beyond a political figure and the elevation of David Axelrod to membership in the Rove/Carville College of Cardinals in American political life, the White House has not had much time to bask in victory’s glow. The economy remains in the tank, Afghanistan is drawing more frequent comparisons to Vietnam, and the health care and climate change fights have been taxing.

Yesterday, Obama hopped a plane to Denmark for a whirlwind Scandinavian tour where it was thought that his presence and pitch might push Chicago’s bid for the 2016 Olympics across the goal line. Instead, ChiTown did not make it out of the first round of balloting. Safe to say that if the White House knew that, Obama would not have made the trip. The failure marked the first - and probably last - time that a sitting US President schilled in front of an IOC selection committee.

The miscalculation is a familiar one. Just after Labor Day, POTUS addressed a joint session of Congress to drive home his point on the urgency of health care reform happening this year. Now barely into October, the only Senate health care bill thought to have a chance on the floor emerged from committee with no bipartisan support. And, as October begins it is clear that if any health care reform bill is signed in 2009, it will not include the now notorious “public option.”

In both cases, the White House made the decision to put their guy out there, but - evidently - no one counted the votes beforehand. The situation is eerily similar to the early administration flubs in the appointments process (i.e., the Daschle false start and the Judd Gregg quagmire). Any good party whip knows that you do not bring a bill to the floor until you know how the roll is going to be called.

As a result of Denmark, Obama winds up wearing a piece of a defeat that was inevitable and it was not even his fight. The Chicago Olympics story is clearly being played up for everything - and more - than its worth by the Right, but it is worth considering why - given that the Chicago bid was circling the drain - Obama let himself get dragged down with it?

When the call came asking for his support, White House staffers should have told the Chicago team to spend 48 hours having coffee with everyone who held a vote, and bring back their tally. If it looked close, then Obama has a tough call to make. But, if they cannot bring back a straw poll or if they bring back numbers that show the Windy City being blown away, then the White House has an easy answer: “love to help, but…”

As the world closes in on December’s big UN climate change conference — back in Copenhagen — it begs the question: is the White House strategy informed by good ground-level information on where other parties sit? Clearly, that strategy includes putting pressure on reluctant Senators with the prospect (read: threat) of EPA regulation of emissions in the absence of comprehensive legislation, even something as watered-down as Waxman-Markey. The upside to handing things off to Lisa Jackson is that it may force the hands of some of the upper Midwest Dems Obama needs to get to 60. And, even if it is not enough of a prod to move a bill through the Senate, it allows Obama to fly his flag in Copenhagen.

But, what if they are not close to 60? What if the lever is not the right one to swing the votes they need. Based on their recent due diligence, it is difficult to say whether the White House even knows where their votes are, who can be swung, and how. That said, should they roll the dice with an EPA plan? How will the inevitable backlash inside the US look on the global stage?

Strong political interests are already lining up against the idea of an executive power move on carbon, and with a lot of Dems looking more vulnerable for the mid-terms in 2010, you have to wonder if the move does not just paint Obama back into a corner and have allies running in the other direction on climate change.

On the campaign trail - in spite of Reverend Wright - Obama earned the gloss “No Drama Obama.” A little less than a year into his tenure as President, the shine is wearing off.

Flickr photo by RobBeer.

Exelon became the latest utility to leave the US Chamber of Commerce over the business group’s opposition to House climate change legislation. California’s Pacific Gas and Electric announced its decision to leave the Chamber in the climate change/cap-and-trade flap last week, quickly followed by New Mexico’s PNM Resources.

The House Waxman-Markey bill has drawn criticism for being too friendly to utility companies, who would be handed a large percentage of the carbon credit allowances created. That criticism has come not only from environmental advocates who are concerned that free allowances will undermine the value of a cap, but also from other business interests who see the credits creating a potential windfall for utilities - especially those who already generate much of their power from cleaner fuels.

The Chamber’s opposition to Waxman-Markey is understandable when you consider that they represent a broad cross-section of business sectors, including many that did not fare as well in the negotiations as Waxman-Markey took shape. For their part, the Chamber has responded to the recent defections by noting that it only opposes the House bill itself, and is not opposed to the idea of climate-change legislation. According to their COO David Chavern, “Congress should do everything it can to promote and incentivize technology development and other policies that allow us to control carbon in ways that don’t trash the economy.” The fact that the Chamber’s site was unavailable on the morning of Exelon’s announcement indicates that the public may not be ready for so nuanced a position.

Might the departures be a harbinger of movement away from the Chamber across the entire utility sector? Or, should they be viewed as evidence of a fracture within the industry? Utilities that rely more heavily on coal and other dirty fuels share the Chamber’s concerns about cap-and-trade’s impact on the cost of their power. By contrast, PG&E, PNM, Exelon and others that are already invested heavily in cleaner fuels can afford to appear green. It may even be profitable.

The Chamber is in the news right now, but the place to watch as the Senate picks up debate of its own bill will be the utility trade group, Edison Electric Institute, which represents the investor-owned companies on both signs of the fuel type divide. EEI has already been engaging Senate leaders in a way that tries to split the difference for its membership: they are not running from Waxman-Markey, but they have some suggestions for improvement on the Senate side.

This dust-up may be all the more costly for utilities, their trade group and the Chamber if long-term discord is fomented for naught. The Senate will need 60 votes to get a bill. It will be tough to get there as Democrats hailing from industrial and agricultural states have the 1993 BTU Tax debacle in their memories and a 2010 election year in their sights. And, with political fallout that could be even more dramatic than the squabbles that are now unfolding in the business community, there may not be a Senate climate bill in 2009. Either way, the utility industry will be left to mend fences. The questions now are whose fences, and how many?

San Francisco based power utility Pacific Gas & Electric has announced it will leave the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in protest over the organization’s “extreme” position on climate change.

Last month the Chamber of Commerce called for a “trial” on climate science as a means to thwart efforts in Congress to pass climate legislation, stymie the EPA’s endangerment finding regarding CO2 emissions, and needlessly continue to sow discord and confusion over the issue. It is an extremist position with which PG&E apparently wants no association. On a company blog post yesterday entitled Irreconcilable Differences, their position was made clear.

Read the rest of this entry »

After spending some time bringing together Israel and Palestine for a handshake photo-op in New York, President Obama turned his attention to a problem that may prove equally daunting: global cooperation on climate change.

In his first UN appearance since taking the Oval Office, Obama staked a lofty position for the US, promised that the US is “determined to act,” and that the US “will meet our responsibility to future generations.” Chinese President Hu Jintao matched Obama’s rhetoric, pledging that the Chinese would commit to a host of progressive steps around renewable energy and emissions reductions, but also cautioning that developing economies like China’s “should not … be asked to take on obligations that go beyond their development stage.”

The summer saw a lot of pre-positioning in advance of Copenhagen, and with today’s UN General Assembly marking the beginning of a series of mini-summits in the lead-up to December’s big climate change conference, the volume on those announcements will only increase along with their frequency and grandeur.

Still, with Obama facing an uphill battle on domestic climate change legislation and China hiding behind their “developing” status, Copenhagen is threatening to become little more than a public relations event with little real concerted action. The US will have to avoid making the push for global leadership on climate change into a new breed of arms race that would find Obama and US policymakers at a significant disadvantage against the Chinese in the following ways:

Paying Lip Service is Costly – China, India and other developing countries want the US-led West to subsidize their carbon reduction efforts. If the West balks and no comprehensive global agreement emerges, the US could still find itself saddled with costly commitments made in going toe-to-toe with China as a demonstration of leadership and willingness to cooperate. For example, at the UN, President Jintao made the headline-grabbing promise to plant enough new trees in China to cover the area of Norway. Jintao also promised to get China to 15% renewable energy within 10 years, a much more ambitious timeline than any US plan. While it may not represent the kind of economy-crippling commitment that China fears will result from a global agreement, these programs will be costly, and Obama has his hands full just trying to pay for health care.

Democracy’s Dilemma - Not only is Obama hamstrung by health care, an increasingly troublesome war in Afghanistan, and an economy that is still teetering; but, he also has the mettlesome matters of bipartisanship, political pressure and budget restraints. While a strongly Democratic House could barely pass a weakened climate bill, Jintao and the Chinese have a one-party system overseeing a command economy that gives the Chinese a lot more adaptability as circumstances dictate in Copenhagen, in the world press, and on the geopolitical landscape.

The World Won’t Grade on a Curve - The Chinese are already crying foul over efforts to stifle their economy for the sake of climate change action and the world community is not expecting much from the world’s fastest growing economy and most voluminous emitter. Commitments like those above are enough to make a splash and convince the world that China really is trying. By contrast, Senators from Obama’s own party are refusing to discuss the prospect of domestic climate change legislation unless it includes trade protections. That kind of opposition in his own party makes a lot of his words ring hollow while the Chinese will certainly be able to deliver on whatever proposals they float. There are no handicaps in this game, so even if they overshoot on a much lower standard, the Chinese promise to steal Obama’s thunder.

Conventional wisdom says you should never enter a land war in Asia. The same might be said for wars of words.

Flickr photo.

Recently the Food and Agriculture organisation (FAO) of the UN reported that millions more people may find themselves facing long term hunger and even starvation, in east Africa.

Climate change affects Africa

El Nino is blamed for changing rainfall patterns, and that, combined with inadequate harvests and increasing conflict has led to a drop in cereal production already affecting Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia. This could lead to an increase in the number of people relying on food aid.

Already more than 20 million people are receiving food assistance in the Horn of Africa region and their numbers are only likely to increase further towards the end of the year as El Nino drives heavy rains across the region, leading to mudslides on tree-denuded hillsides and the destruction of crops close to harvest time. The same rains often destroy roads and other infrastructure required to bring food aid and medicine into the region and can kill livestock or cause epidemic diseases in animals or human populations, all of which add to the complexity of managing food security in a region where conflict is endemic and border raids and ‘tribal’ disagreements are a standard response to poverty.

Horn of Africa countries badly hit

The worst hit country at present is Somalia, where the FAO claims that around half the population already need some form of aid; either food or medical supplies or both. Ethiopia is also expected to tip into reliance on emergency aid, as the second harvest of the year has failed and that means that food aid reliance could rise from 1.3 million to over six million people.

Kenya and Uganda are both expecting poor harvests, and Uganda has an even more disastrous prognosis as the ongoing unrest between government forces and rebels has forced people off their land or led them to stay barricaded in their compounds, resulting in less cultivation and a probably halving of the harvest of staple food crops. The current violence has left more than a million people in Uganda struggling with food security and the number is expected to rise steadily throughout the next twelve months, according to FAO experts.

Somali roadside wreckage courtesy of Carl Montgomery at Flickr under a creative commons licence