Red, Green, and Blue

When Scott Brown’s Senate win in Massachusetts brought the forty-first vote against health care to the Republican caucus, Washington shifted its focus to other items that started high on the legislative agenda in 2009, but found their way to the back burner in the health care battle royale. A comprehensive energy reform and climate change bill climbed right to the top of the list.

After all, the House already passed the Waxman-Markey bill in 2009, and the Senate has its own promisingly tri-partisan gang of three (Democrat John Kerry, Republican Lindsey Graham and Independent Joe Liebermann) who seem to have the makings of a compromise bill. Now, as the White House makes it clear that the State of the Union will mark a shift in focus from deeply-detailed and controversial policy reform to bread-and-butter middle class issues (like daycare subsidies, student loan reform, and middle class tax relief), the path to Senate appproval of a climate and energy bill seems to lie in adoption of the same central principle that will drive the Obama SOTU message: JOBS!

Post-Copenhagen: Redefining Climate Progress

The jobs-first focus will inevitably push a lot of the more aggressive green tech/clean tech proposals to the side. To get a bill this year, Kerry and Graham are looking to a few trump cards that most people probably did not expect to see as the big beneficiaries of a climate change bill in this session: oil, coal and nuclear.

Their compromise bill - pitched by Graham not as a climate bill, but as a path to “energy independence” - would “provide subsidies to kick-start construction of nuclear power plants, encourage the development of technology that would bury carbon emissions created by the burning of coal, and promote offshore drilling,” according to a Boston Globe story.

How did these technologies - anything but new or green - get back on the agenda and get in line for huge government investment?

Three Words: Oil, Gas and JOBS

First, the ambitious green plays that led the Obama and Democratic agenda for a climate bill back in spring 2009 do not offer enough brisk stimulation to the economy, something that advocates of a climate bill will need to get the bill through this year. The legislative environment has been tough and bitterly-divided all year, but now - with the Massachusetts special Senate election still ringing in the perked-up ears of Democrats in vulnerable 2010 seats - even the Democratic caucus is likely to be more divided and less willing to take risky votes as an undivided whole.

Put simply, there are certain job gains to be had in established industries and with well-known companies in the more conventional fossil fuel programs. Green jobs have been - and remain, in large part - a centerpiece of the climate bill, and they hold a lot of promise for the future in even many conservative economists’ projections, but it is unclear exactly how many real and sustainable jobs those programs could create today.

The problem with going after a full-blown green bill is that 1) the technologies and companies are largely still research and development plays, and 2) too much of the the money that would be set aside for renewable energy would be eaten up by subsidies for the increase in costs for renewable energy, rather than going to coal, oil or nuke incentives, technologies and subsidies that would create jobs instantly.

Greens and Their Envy

Proponents argue that the research and development has to get underway to begin to address both the cost and capcity concerns around renewable energy conversion. Further, they add that there are plenty of nitty-gritty, not-overly-technical, still very green investments that would create immediate jobs and offer instant stimulus.

In other words, investments in places like utility efficiency programs and energy efficient retrofitting are the the equivalent of the famous “shovel-ready” projects, and would mean jobs and energy savings right now. No doubt, some money will still find its way to utilities and community-based organizations for smart grid programs and other efficiency programs, but much will be diverted to the fossil fuel projects.

Finally, as to the cost of green power, supporters of a progressive, comprehensive bill point out that the higher kWh price for green power is reflective of the true cost of a unit of energy, once cost to the environment, for clean-up and other externalities is included.

Can Compromise Appease?

It is hard to say how hardcore greens will react to this compromise. Groups like Greenpeace came out in opposition to a weakened House bill; but, as Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett noted on Meet the Press this Sunday, the White House is stepping back to take stock of its whole agenda, noting “it is the art of the possible.” Part of that calculation has obviously been the roll-out of less wonky policies and programs that will be more accessible to the disenchanted middle class voter, but will inevitably deliver less in pure policy power for industry insiders and hardcore greens.

Still, with that shift in focus by the White House and bipartisan leadership from Senate heavyweights like Kerry and Graham, Ms. Jarrett and her boss may find that as their art applies to energy and climate progress, possibilities are improving.

Flickr photo used under CCL, credit Ekey84

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.

President Obama outlines his administration’s economic accomplishments, hurdles it faces, and plans to overcome those hurdles today at the Brookings Institute. Among Obama’s economic plans are to continue to provide funds for small businesses - especially those that are creating jobs in energy efficiency, weatherization and clean energy manufacturing. Grab some popcorn, put your feet up and click play: (28 mins.)

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.

In yesterday’s Sustainable Industries Economic Forum, keynote speaker Paul Hawken discussed the political will it would take to avert global catastrophe. An underlying elephant in the room, however, was the behavior change that we would need to see from more citizens than just the progressive element, the early adopters.  This may be a crucial element missing in the sustainability sphere, as beautifully put by Phil Micheal Williams, one of the excellent panelists on SI’s discussion panel following Hawken’s talk.  Read the rest of this entry »

In the late-night aftermath of a too-close-for-comfort 220-215 vote, House Democrat leaders and the White House hailed the passage of a health care bill that would cover more than 35 million uninsured Americans while introducing a limited public option and adding restrictions on discrimination against insurance applicants with preexisting conditions. But, not everyone - not the entire Democratic caucus or even some of its most active interest groups - praised the bill, which included an amendment that codifies the so-called “Hyde Amendment,” and would restrict the use of federal funds for abortion coverage.

The parallels to the House’s Waxman-Markey climate bill - which passed in June in the face of opposition from green stalwarts and Democratic political players like Greenpeace - are significant, and it begs the question: are progressives on board with all of this “progress?” The vote that one House Dem took on the bill is already becoming an issue in the Massachusetts special Senate election to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat. The issue is proving to be the first real policy distinction among four candidates for the seat, and Democrats facing re-elction nationwide in 2010 can now expect Stupak-Pitts and abortion to become a potential anti-incumbency lever.

Progress or Politics?

Presumably, a year ago, as progressives basked in the victory-with-a-mandate of the nation’s first truly progressive president since FDR, they would not have settled for a health care bill that the chairwoman of the House Pro-Choice Caucus called “the biggest restriction of a woman’s right to choose that will be considered on the House floor in my career.” Likewise, they could not have anticipated that they would be left to cheer for a climate bill that not only includes huge subsidies for coal companies and nuclear plants and expansion of offshore drilling, but also does not auction carbon credits under its cap-and-trade program, instead handing the credits as allowances to utilities and other major carbon emitters.

Call it what you like - genuine progress, an important Trojan Horse, political spin - but walking back from hardcore progressive initiatives might have real political consequences as 2010’s mid-term elections approach.

The Known Enemy - GOP Sharpening Attacks and Piling Up Ammo

Of course, the GOP will be taking dead aim at Dems across the country, branding them as government expansionists who have increased the federal debt and mismanaged the financial crisis through free-spending programs like Cash for Clunkers. But, the parrallels to the the 2003 BTU Tax vote also cannot be underestimated.

The House vote on that bill - which put Dems in the lower chamber out there on a somewhat controversial issue in spite of the fact that the Senate never came close to taking a similar vote, and therefore the measure had no chance of becoming law - is often given partial credit for driving the Republican Revolution of 1994. Like ‘94, there is not much evidence that the Senate will be able to pass - or perhaps even vote or move out of committee - a bill that approaches many of the issues that the House rules allowed Speaker Pelosi to put on the floor and take to a vote. Facing high Congressional disapproval already, House Dems are already tacking on the challenges of a still-flagging economy that just breached 10% unemployment, a figure that promises to continue rising right through 2010’s election season. Now they must also defend their vote for this health care bill against GOP challengers. The politics will play out, but there is the chance that the razor’s edge health care vote violated one of the first rules of Washington: never take an unnecessary vote.

A New Enemy Within? Greens, Gay Rights, Pro-Choicers and Peaceniks

More than in 1994 though, Democrats in Congress might be facing backlash from both sides as 2010 advances. The climate bill’s “giveaways” alone would not have been enough to energize hardcore progressives to unseat sitting Democrats, but add in the escalation in Afghanistan; a lack of progress on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell;” and, now the health care vote and its abortion amendment and Democratic leaders may have done just enough to instigate a mutiny that unites the four most active and important political power players within the party: greens, gay rights groups, anti-war advocates and pro-choice women’s interests.

In other words, it is not inconceivable that by splitting the baby (turning John Kerry’s famous phrase on its head, many Dems from deep blue states voted against the anti-abortion amendment before they voted for the bill), Democrats who were already vulnerable have made themselves beatable.

Speaking on CNN after Dems lost the Governors’ mansions in Virginia and New Jersey, but prior to passage of the House bill, Democratic political guru James Carville noted that Democrats might “lose both chambers” if they could not pass a healthy care bill in this session. The father of one of this generation’s most famous political aphorisms (”its the economy, stupid”) may have proven to be a soothsayer yet again. Although, I’m not sure even Carville saw this coming.

Massachusetts is the Test Race - Are Democrats Divided?

If the Stupak-Pitts amendment is an issue that plays with the progressives and gives some daylight for potential challenges from the left side of the party, Massachusetts will be an early - if imperfect - example. Can Congressman Capuano - who voted against the amendment and for the bill - survive an attack on that vote from state Attorney General Martha Coakley?

One startling aspect of the burgeoning Democrat in-fighting is that it was only this past weekend, amid the ouster of the Republican candidate in the special New York 23rd Congressional election (at the urging of establishment GOPers like Palin and Pawlenty) that observers were asking whether there was a fatal schism on the right. Now the question may be turning on its head.

What should not be surprising to anyone is that as major issues in Massachusetts politics and national health care play out, the legacy of Ted Kennedy continues to loom large.

Flickr photo used under a Creative Commons license from BarackObama.com

• Trading could start as early as April 2010.
• Would save 10,000 MW per year.
• Aimed at reducing energy use by 7 to 8 percent.

In a bid to clarify its official stance and pressurize the developed countries ahead of the next month’s Copenhagen climate talks the Indian Prime Minister announced ambitious domestic mitigation measures while meeting with EU representatives in New Delhi. The measures include new and tougher efficiency standards for industries and incentives to encourage clean industrial practices.

The move is widely seen as a pressure tactic as India will oppose all demands for accepting mandatory emission reduction targets at the Copenhagen talks. With developed countries still struggling to come up with substantial measures, India’s announcement has added fire power to the developing countries stance. Read the rest of this entry »

Agriculture, transportation and small businesses exempt from Boxer-Kerry

Only 2% of companies are covered by the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, but that 2% represents 70% of US emissions, says Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), the bill’s co-sponsor. Read the rest of this entry »

Speaking at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology today, U.S. President Barack Obama threw strong support behind clean energy and technology, touting America’s history of innovation and not shying away from the problems it faces.

“We have always been about innovation, we have always been about discovery. That’s in our DNA. The truth is we also face more complex challenges than generations past,” said Mr. Obama to a packed room of MIT students, faculty and other Massachusetts dignitaries. 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