Small Steps, Big Problems

Cross-posted from: here

Typically, the health care industry, the automotive industry, and the energy industry have teamed up with Republicans on major issues in Washington. For many years, these alliances have derailed health care reform, bold fuel economy standards, and significant legislation to combat climate change. It would appear these special interests have done a complete 360.

President Barack Obama gathered at the White House with the health care industry on May 11th announcing a commitment to cut 2 trillion in costs in 10 years. A week after, Obama appeared with the major car companies, announcing an increase of fuel economy standards of passenger cars to 39 mpg by 2016. Days later, a climate change bill passed out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. The bill was supported by energy companies including Duke Energy and Excelon. Well, this is a change. Contrary to what Obama would have us believe, the change is smaller in reality than it’s written on paper.

For some strange reason, the Republicans have decided to stop making sense. Their arguments over health care, fuel efficient cars, and global warming amongst other issues are so blatantly irrational, they’ve reduced their party to an irrelevance. Even worse, they’re attempting to legislate as though the American people have given them control of the entire government. Not surprisingly, big business bolted. Their once reliable and seemingly rational ally lost all sense of reality. Facing the prospect of universal health care, strong fuel economy mandates, and a tough cap on greenhouse gas emissions, they crossed the isle.

This involved making compromises and meeting Democratic lawmakers halfway on major issues. In their eyes, corporations would rather bite the bullet than swallow the grenade. Democrats would prefer easily won battles over hard fought wars. Why expend your political capital on a single issue you might lose on when you can make it appear to the public you’ve won big while holding hands with longtime opponents?

The new 39 mpg fuel economy standards by 2016 may appear bold. Compare them to the rest of the world. China’s average cars had to meet a standard of 35.8 mpg in 2008, nevermind passenger! In Japan and the EU, the standards are even greater right now. Somehow, some way, our automakers will find the “technological innovation” to meet the standards in 2016 that foreign companies are meeting right now. In order to get off foreign oil, we must do better.

Consider the climate change bill. The most effective way to manage a cap and trade bill is to auction off 100% of the pollution permits, as President Obama originally called for. This forces the polluting industries to pay, and then the revenues can be returned to the American people to offset higher energy costs. On the condition that companies such as Excelon and Duke Energy support the bill, the vast majority of the permits are being given away for free to the polluters. Democratic lawmakers on the Energy and Commerce Committee such as Rick Boucher of Virginia have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from the coal industry. Not surprisingly, he has led the charge on weakening the bill, and will continue to do so in a way that threatens to render it ineffective at preventing catastrophic climate change.

Since the EPA has declared carbon dioxide is a health hazard, the executive branch has the authority to regulate the pollutant if it so chooses. If Obama truly wanted a strong climate bill, he could use this possibility to bully lawmakers and big business into supporting a stronger bill that places American interests above the coal interests. The alternative to a weak climate bill could be the EPA taking matters into its own hands. Obama has been very hands off, fine with allowing the coal industry to write the bill.

The battle over health care will come soon in Congress, and progressive advocates will face their own hardships in achieving meaningful legislation. How $2 trillion dollars in savings would be achieved was left to the imagination of the public. As the AP noted “the specifics, industry officials said, would come later.” When put into context, the specifics of the fuel economy standards and the climate bill are far from welcome.

The small steps President Obama is taking on these issues are far preferable to the backwards thinking of the previous administration. What’s not right is painting the picture to the American public that Washington is taking major steps to confront global warming, energy independence, and health care. This is simply a political game being used to keep the approval ratings steady. It’s working, and Obama along with the Democratic party will likely be reelected in 2010 and 2012. Much to Rush Limbaugh’s dismay, Obama will succeed. But given the monumental challenges we face, and the half-hearted measures being used to confront them, will we?

Shame on the EPA

Cross posted from here

Obama’s EPA has done some good things already, but there is one really big black mark on their record which is extremely disappointed. With the commotion of the climate bill moving through Congress, I hadn’t had a chance to comment on the EPA’s ruling that 42 of the 48 Mountaintop Removal mining permits were “environmentally responsible””. I’ve documented plenty of reasons why coal use needs to be phased out Continue reading

Special Delivery to Congressman Sarbanes

Over the past several weeks CCAN activists have been campaigning hard to push their Congressman, John Sarbanes, to strengthen the American Clean Energy and Security Act during the bill’s markup this week. In a truly inspiring show of good old grassroots gumption these super-activists managed to generate well over 100 emails, phone calls, faxes and hand written messages to the Congressman in just over a week. In message after message, constituents called on the Congressman to wrest back control of the bill from special interest hijackers by advocating on behalf of a 100% auction of pollution permits, strictly limited and regulated carbon offsets, and strong renewable energy and energy efficiency standards.

The grassroots lobbying flurry culminated on Wednesday when CCAN rock-star activist Ruth Alice White and I traveled to Capitol Hill to personally hand Sarbanes a stack of 70 constituent letters. Ruth Alice caught up with the Congressman on his way out of a committee markup session, and handed him the letters all tied up with a snappy green ribbon.

Before heading off, the Congressman posed for a picture with Ruth Alice, and you can tell from the grin on his face that he couldn’t have been more thrilled to receive this unique gift from his constituents!

Ruth and Rep. Sarbanes

It’s important to note exactly what we accomplished with this constituent pressure. No, we didn’t get a stronger bill. The passage of a watered down bill was unfortunately a forgone conclusion, rendered by the powers that be. But we established a very important dialogue between the Congressman and his constituents on climate change. We clearly demonstrated that his constituency is engaged, informed, and deeply concerned about climate and clean energy policy and thereby raised the bar for his leadership. Over the past several, we turned up the volume and the Congressman is tuning in, as suggested by his his remarks on the first day of markup. He’s listening folks, so let’s make sure he continues to hear our voices. Go to http://local.1sky.org to sign up for our 3rd District Climate Action Network!

Breaking News: 39 mpg standard by 2016!

Cross-posted from: here

The first blog post I made on here(minus the intro) was about how the Bush Administration was using the lowest standard possible under the 2007 bill called the Energy Independence and Security Act that raised CAFE standards to a minimum of 35 mpg by 2020. I testified before the National Highway Traffic and Safety Admin(NHTSA), about how they were making a big mistake. For a time it looked like this was what the government was going to pursue, but news recently just broke that the CAFE standard is going to be 39 mpg by 2016, which is a sizable shift. I’m very pleased with this. A few notable excerpts are below.

“The Obama administration will issue new national emissions and mileage requirements for cars and light trucks to resolve a long-running conflict among the states, the federal government and auto manufacturers, industry officials said Monday.”

“But Mr. Obama is planning to go further, putting in place new fuel economy rules that will combine the standards of California’s emissions law with the corporate average fuel economy program administered by the Department of Transportation. The effect will be a single national mileage rule that matches California’s strictest-in-the-nation standard. Under the new standard, the national fleet mileage rule for cars would be roughly 39 miles a gallon in 2016. Light trucks would have to meet a fleet average of slightly more than 26.2 miles a gallon by 2016.”

“This is a very big deal,” said Daniel Becker of the Safe Climate Campaign, a group that has pushed for tougher mileage and emissions standards with the goal of curbing the heat-trapping gases that have been linked to global warming. “This is the single biggest step the American government has ever taken to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.”

Our Chinese Envoy

Cross-posted from: here

Our relationship with China moving forward is going to be extremely crucial when it comes to forging a new global climate treaty. The Chinese and the US are by far the worlds two largest polluters, together responsible for somewheres around 50% of global warming emissions. Any global treaty that doesn’t involve both the US and China is an empty treaty. This stalemate has been the tale of global efforts to tackle climate change. The US won’t act unless China will act. China won’t act since the US won’t act, and it’s still a developing country using coal to industrialize. China says the US needs to act as well, and that there needs to be compensation for adaptation and technology transfer needed. It’s a situation where these two carbon behemoths need to sit down and hammer out an agreement between themselves. I’m aware there are a number of summits between the two countries going on this year, leading up to the final forging of a new treaty in Copenhagen in December.

The personnel that President Obama is appointing to negotiate with China on the climate issue are some of the most important appointments of his administration. We now are about to have our ambassador to China. It’s the Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, who also happens to be a Republican. I’ve written before about how not all Republicans are bad on environmental and energy issues, just most of them. Jon Huntsman appears to be one of the Republicans who gets it. Huntsman added his state to an ambitious regional greenhouse gas initiative effort in the West to reduce emissions 15% below 2005 levels by 2020. If you want to get an even better idea of Huntsman’s entire body of work when it comes to energy, check out his priorities on energy security. The additional thing that impressively stands out to me is a renewable electricity standard that will get Utah 20% of it’s power from renewables by 2025.

I find it fittingly ironic that with all the partisanship in DC, all the bickering on tv with conservative talk show hosts, and a climate debate that has consistently seen Democrats on one side, and Republicans on the other….our best chance of achieving a global climate treaty this year may come down to a Republican Governor from Utah. I don’t know if that offends the environmentalists or the Republicans more, but I think it’s a good thing. This shouldn’t be a bipartisan issue, and Jon Huntsman’s record is testament to that.

Here’s the article: here

Will the EPA regulate greenhouse gases? It's up to YOU!

Here’s some background. Two years ago, on April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. Then, last month, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) announced its finding that global warming pollution endangers our public health and welfare.

This is excellent (if somewhat old) news. However – and here’s the big surprise – industry and the usual host of global warming deniers are already lining up to block the EPA actually taking any action. Big polluting companies have spent tens of millions of dollars on lobbying efforts in Washington D.C., and they will fight hard to weaken any rules that result from the endangerment finding. We know they will fight hard to preserve the failed status quo and block any progress on fighting global warming and clean energy production.

So here’s the deal. As part of the EPA’s endangerment findings, they are holding a public comment period. This is our opportunity to stand up and make our voices heard loud a clear. We need a clean energy economy to tackle global warming and create good, green jobs, and we need it now.

The really cool part is that one of the two public hearings are happening in Arlington, VA! This is your opportunity to show your support for the EPA moving forward in regulating global warming pollution.

Details:
When: Monday, May 18th. 9 AM – 8 PM
Where:Environmental Protection Agency
Conference Center Continue reading

Clean Energy and the Majority Leader

6:30 PM on a rainy Monday night, and I’m at the University of MD, College Park, waiting with anticipation for the town hall meeting with House of Representatives Majority Leader, the Honorable Steny Hoyer, to begin. The room is packed with students and community members alike, from across the 5th district, some having driven up to College Park from as far as St. Mary’s County to hear what their Congressman has to say, and show their overwhelming support for strong global warming legislation being passed by Congress in 2009.

Overall, the event was a great success.

My personal favorite moment was when a student stood up, and asked the Congressman if he would support a moratorium on all new coal-fired power plants. The entire room burst into applause. Of course, Mr. Hoyer does not support a coal moratorium (maybe because he is the 3rd highest political recipient of utility money? this could be unrelated), but it was great to see 250 of his constituents showing their support for getting off dirty coal.

What was your highlight from the evening? Comment below! (if you couldn’t make it, you can watch it on our blog here – then comment away!)

**Thank you to Matt Stern for his beautiful photos of the evening!**

Don't Worry, "We've Got 41 Years"

“This is 2009. We’ve got 41 years in this deal, and we shouldn’t be so worried about the first 10 years.”

—Congressman Mike Doyle, Environment and Energy Daily, May 7, 2009

I had no plans yesterday morning as I woke up and turned on my computer to spend the afternoon in the D.C. office of Congressman Mike Doyle. But then I read this line in an article on the status of efforts to cobble together a piece of climate legislation in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

I remember my physical reaction as I read these words, my head shaking back and forth, some trembling and an upwelling of deep, livid anger. “This is the last straw,” I remember thinking.

And involuntarily in my head, I began singing the words to the Bob Dylan song, Masters of War.

I discovered Bob Dylan and Masters of War in the summer of 1968. I was 18 years old, home from college after my freshman year at Grinnell College. I was working on the Presidential campaign of Bobby Kennedy. I had begun doing so after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on April 4th. Then on June 6th, Kennedy was assassinated. All summer, as I worked on the maintenance staff of a local college, the words to Masters of War kept going through my head over and over as I despaired over the state of the world, the state of my country.

“You’ve thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain’t worth the blood
That runs in your veins.”

And that’s why I went to Mike Doyle’s office at 2 pm yesterday and told Pat Cavanaugh, his energy staff person, that I was a long-time climate activist on the 18th day of a hunger strike (www.fastingforourfuture.org) for strong climate legislation and that I wasn’t leaving until I met with Doyle.

I’ve done sit-ins before. I and two other people did one in 2002 in New Jersey when I was a Green Party candidate for the U.S. Senate. We sat in the offices of one of my opponents, Frank Lautenberg, to protest his refusal to allow myself and other “third party” candidates to be part of any debates. After nine hours, we won, and about a week later a nationally-televised C-Span debate was held that included all six candidates who had qualified for this particular race.

And in December of 2007, at the tail end of the long climate emergency fast I did that fall, 20 of us occupied the Capitol Hill office of Senator Mitch McConnell after he led the Senate Republicans in their stripping out of anything and everything having to do with renewable energy from a House-passed energy bill. Two of us, my wife Jane Califf and I, were arrested after spending the day in McConnell’s office because we refused to willingly leave at 6 pm when the office was closed.

But as I sat in Doyle’s office, no one with me, none of the press people who I called showing up to find out what was happening, thinking about what was going to happen at 6 pm, wondering if I had been too impulsive, wondering what would happen if I was arrested–because I was very clear that it was either talk with Doyle or that–wondering, wondering. . . after two hours of sitting, into the office comes Mike Doyle.

I’d never met the guy, so at first I didn’t know it had happened when he arrived. But when he sat down across from me and said something like, “I’m Mike Doyle, what’s up,” I knew it was game time. And for the next half hour I had the most intense, in-your-face, no-holds-barred discussion with an elected official I have ever had.

Doyle’s no dummy, and I have to acknowledge that he’s a strong debater. I didn’t get him to change his mind about the efforts that he and Rick Boucher have been leading to weaken the “discussion draft” of climate legislation Henry Waxman introduced on March 31st. The way Doyle described it, he was doing the bidding of Waxman, carrying water for him by going to the blue dog Democrats to find out what was necessary in order to get a bill out of committee. He also said his main thing was the 15% free emissions permits for steel, cement, aluminum and other energy-intensive industries during a 10-15 year transition period. But when I asked him why he was then supporting the idea that 40% of the permits would be given free to coal companies/utilities (local distribution companies), the best answer he could give was something like this, a very revealing answer:

“If you return money directly to the American people for them to use to pay for higher energy costs in the transition period, they’ll spend it on things like flat screen TV’s. By giving free emissions permits to utilities they can then pass on the savings directly to consumers.”

I wasn’t and am not convinced. Giving money to profit-making coal companies like Duke Power and Peabody is going to end up helping consumers? Please. All it will do is delay the urgently-needed shift from fossil fuels to renewables and efficiency.

By the end of our half-hour discussion, the decibel level had been dialed down several notches, we were agreeing that we wished President Obama was giving much stronger leadership on this issue, and he was telling me that there was some interest among Energy and Commerce committee members in what was being discussed within Ways and Means (carbon tax and/or cap and dividend approaches). As we shook hands and parted company, I thanked him for being willing to talk and he commended me for being a gentleman.

Sometimes you just have to act upon what you feel is right. And it is right to feel outrage over the power that corporate polluters in both parties have over our political process. It’s time to blow the whistle and shine the spotlight on those liars and deceivers.