April 2011 Climate Change Summary Report

‘Barack Obama: Energy Gimmicks’, But Little Policy

April 1, 2011: From a Politico op-ed by Robert Bryce, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute: “President Barack Obama, during his speech at Georgetown University on Wednesday, condemned politicians for using what he called ‘slogans and gimmicks’ on energy policy. Unfortunately, Obama succeeded only in adding yet more murk to his administration’s own confused energy policies. To be fair, the president should be praised for two points: He affirmed his support for nuclear energy and he wants to increase use of natural gas. But Obama’s sudden decision to promote natural gas is a key example of his incoherence on energy. … Thus, in 60 days, oil went from yesterday’s energy, to a resource we should be producing more of it — as quickly as possible. … Obama’s energy incoherence is particularly obvious whenever he talks about biofuels. On Wednesday, he lauded the potential of cellulosic ethanol, a fuel which, despite 90 years of hype, has yet to prove commercial viability. … Perhaps Obama has forgotten about Range Fuels, a company that promised to make ethanol from wood chips. In 2007, Range got a $76 million grant from the federal government. But in January, Range announced it was closing its Georgia plant due to ‘technical issues.’ … Even more depressing on the biofuel front is that Obama continues to support the robbery of U.S. taxpayers: the corn ethanol scam. In a document released by the White House on Wednesday, the administration declared that corn ethanol is ‘making a significant contribution to reducing our oil dependence.’ That claim has little basis in fact. … Obama has done more to promote the corn ethanol scam than any president in U.S. history. And he continues to — despite the fact that it is driving up food prices. … Set aside arguments about investment and jobs for the moment. Instead, let’s pose the obvious question: What, exactly, does the president mean by ‘clean energy’? No one seems to know.”

‘The Secret to Brazil’s Energy Success’

April 1, 2011: From a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Stephen Hayward, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute: “The Obama administration’s energy policy is in the midst of transition from being stubbornly ideological to being wholly incoherent. … Meanwhile, in a bizarre turn, Mr. Obama recently expressed enthusiasm for aggressive offshore drilling—in Brazil. … His energy address featured all the greatest hits of past presidential declarations of energy independence, including even George W. Bush’s paean to switchgrass ethanol. … There are only two ways to reduce our foreign oil imports: a large oil tax to suppress consumption, or expanded production of domestic oil resources. All of the other bells and whistles—hybrid and flex-fuel cars, biofuels, etc.—will have only a marginal effect on overall oil demand. … Mr. Obama tried to thread the needle by claiming to be pro-domestic production, while at the same time embracing the tired talking point that because the U.S. has only 2% of the world’s proven oil reserves—about 20 billion barrels—we can’t hope to achieve independence from foreign oil from our own resources. Yet a recent report from the Congressional Research Service that has received surprisingly little attention concludes that the U.S. probably has as much as 155 billion barrels of oil recoverable with existing technology that we simply haven’t looked for or have closed off from exploration for political reasons. … And there are an additional 700 billion barrels of oil shale and other unconventional hydrocarbons that could be developed here at home. That’s more than the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Mr. Obama ought to tell the whole story about Brazil, instead of just half of it. He touts the measures Brazil took to improve its energy independence, such as flex-fuel vehicles and biofuels. … A great success story in conservation and alternative energy? Not really. Total Brazilian oil consumption still more than doubled. The biggest factor is that Brazil increased its domestic oil production over the last two decades by 876% (not a typo). Most of that production has come from offshore exploration.”

‘Obama Pushes for Oil Use Reduction, Clean Fuel Technology’

April 4, 2011: Reuters reports: “President Barack Obama said on Saturday curbing foreign oil dependence and investments in clean fuel technology are the main tenets of his plan to meet long-term energy needs and in turn strengthen the domestic economy. ‘Real energy security can only come if we find ways to use less oil, if we invest in cleaner fuels and greater efficiency,’ he said during his weekly Internet and radio address, recorded at a UPS customer center in Maryland. Obama said increasing oil exploration at home was part of the solution, but increasing fuel efficiency in cars and developing clean energy technology will help create jobs and protect the economy from swings in energy prices. In the Republican response, House Speaker John Boehner, focused on the budget and spending patterns. … Boehner said other Republican priorities include removing regulatory obstacles to job growth, expanding American energy production, ending the threat of tax hikes and approving stalled trade agreements.”

‘How Scientific Is Climate Science?’

April 5, 2011: From a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Douglas J. Keenan, mathematical researcher and independent climate analyst: “For years, some researchers have argued that the evidence for global warming is not nearly as strong as has been officially claimed. … As a result, policy makers and other people outside the debate have relied on the pronouncements of a group of climate scientists. … A statistician would say that although the graph shows an increase, the increase is ‘not significant.’ … We cannot tell if global temperatures are significantly increasing just by looking at the graph. Moreover, the process that generates global temperatures—Earth’s climate system—is extremely complicated. Hence determining whether there is a significant increase is likely to be difficult. … Likewise, in order to determine if the global temperature series is increasing significantly, we must first state what we know about what causes those temperature movements. Because our understanding of the dynamics of global temperature is incomplete, we must make some assumptions. … As long as the assumptions are reasonable, we can at least be confident that the conclusions drawn from our time-series analysis are reasonable. This is standard practice, but is it always adhered to in the work of climate scientists? … There are standard checks to (partially) test whether a given time series conforms to a given statistical assumption; if it does not, then any conclusions based on that assumption must be considered unfounded. … The IPCC chapter, however, does not report doing any such checks. … That is a startling omission, one with consequences for how the IPCC’s recommendations should be interpreted. …  Under the alternative assumption, the data do not show a significant increase in global temperatures. We don’t know whether the alternative assumption itself is reasonable—other assumptions might be even better—but the improved fit does tell us that until more research is done on the best assumptions to apply to global average temperature series, the IPCC’s conclusions about the significance of the temperature changes are unfounded. … This is not the only instance of serious incompetence in climate science.”

‘Senate Climate Votes: Deal Or No Deal?’

April 5, 2011: The Hill reports: “While a House climate vote appears set, several senators noted Monday evening that it remains unclear whether the Senate will vote this week on the same measure to scuttle EPA’s greenhouse gas rules. Senate GOP leaders want to attach the plan as an amendment to small-business legislation. But several planned votes on that greenhouse gas plan – and Democratic alternatives – have failed to materialize in recent weeks. Sen. Mark Begich’s (D-Alaska) prediction? Sixty-forty in favor of votes happening. Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who has sponsored an amendment to limit the scope of EPA’s rules without scuttling the agency’s power to regulate, offered a very cloudy outlook. … Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) reiterated that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has promised a vote on Rockefeller’s plan to delay EPA regulation of power plants and other facilities for two years. But he said the future of the entire small business bill is uncertain. … Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has been sparring procedurally with Reid as Coburn pushes for a vote on his proposal to strip ethanol industry tax breaks. Coburn said he believes he has an agreement with Reid that will allow votes to proceed.”

‘House Mulls Rules of Engagement on Climate Battle’

April 5, 2011: The Hill reports: “House lawmakers will meet Tuesday to lay out the ground rules for the upcoming floor battle scheduled for Wednesday over legislation to permanently block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases. A House Rules Committee meeting is scheduled for Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. The committee will determine which amendments will be debated when the bill is on the floor. A floor vote on the legislation, authored by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), is scheduled for Wednesday, according to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (R-Va.) office. … Democrats are expected to offer a number of amendments to the bill when it comes up on the floor this week, but the details of the amendments remain unclear. Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), the chairman of the energy panel’s Energy and Power Subcommittee, said Monday that he expects amendments ‘primarily from Democrats.’ ‘It’s not going to be a surprise,’ Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) told The Hill Monday. ‘It’s going to be the same thing that they ran in committee.’ The bill to block EPA climate rules cleared the House Energy and Commerce Committee last month and is expected to easily pass the full House. But it faces huge Senate hurdles.”

‘The Flexible Fuel Answer to OPEC’

April 6, 2011: From a Wall Street Journal op-ed by R. James Woolsey, chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; and Anne Korin, co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security: “Last week, President Barack Obama delivered a highly anticipated speech on our country’s energy future. His implicit message? ‘No, we can’t.’ … Like every president who has addressed the issue since Richard Nixon, Mr. Obama focused on the source and level of our oil imports. But these are not the keys to overcoming the security and economic vulnerabilities that oil causes.  Oil is a fungible commodity with a global price. … To do the same to oil, we must break its stranglehold on the global transportation fuel market by ensuring that new cars allow fuel competition. One very good way to accomplish this is for Congress to adopt the Open Fuel Standard Act, soon to be reintroduced with bipartisan support. An Open Fuel Standard would require new cars to include a $100 tweak that would allow them to run on a variety of liquid fuels in addition to gasoline. Such fuels would include methanol, which is easily made from natural gas and biomass (and, less cleanly, from coal). Enabling vehicles to use natural gas, whether directly or via liquid fuels that are made from it, allows consumers to benefit from the very large cost advantage that natural gas holds today over oil. … To outmaneuver OPEC, the market needs to be able to react dynamically. That means giving purchasers of fuel the ability to choose a different fuel at the pump if it’s cheaper that day than gasoline or diesel.”

EIA: Shale Gas Could Add 6,609 TCF to World’s Gas Resources

April 6, 2011: Platts reports: “Technically recoverable shale gas resources globally could add 6,609 Tcf, or 40% to the world’s gas resources to 22,600 Tcf, the US Energy Information Administration said on its web site late Tuesday. There is an estimated 5,760 Tcf of technically recoverable shale gas resources in 32 countries outside the US. The world’s proven reserves of natural gas were at 6,609 Tcf as of January 1, 2010, while technically recoverable gas resources globally were roughly 16,000 Tcf, largely excluding shale gas.  The EIA commissioned an external consultant, Advanced Resources International, to produce a report about shale gas resource assessments of 14 regions outside the US. The consultant assessed 48 shale gas basins in 32 countries, containing almost 70 shale gas formations in its report. China has the most recoverable shale gas at 1,275 Tcf, followed by Argentina with 774 Tcf, and Mexico at 681 Tcf. Russia and Central Asia, the Middle East, South East Asia, and Central Africa were not assessed in the report as there was either no significant quantities of conventional natural gas reserves noted to be in place or due to a general lack of information to carry out even an initial assessment, the EIA said. The report said there were two country groupings where shale gas development may appear the most attractive. The first group consists of countries that are currently highly dependent upon natural gas imports, have at least some gas production infrastructure, and their estimated shale gas resources are substantial relative to their current gas consumption. … The second group consists of countries where the shale gas resource estimate is large, which the report defined as above 200 Tcf, and there already exists a significant natural gas production infrastructure for internal use or for export.  Besides the US, notable examples of this group include Canada, Mexico, China, Australia, Libya, Algeria, Argentina, and Brazil, the EIA added.”

‘Senators Mull Options after Failed EPA Votes’

April 7, 2011: The Hill reports: “Senate Republicans are vowing continued efforts to thwart Environmental Protection Agency climate change rules after their amendment to strip the agency’s regulatory power was defeated on the floor Wednesday afternoon. The Senate turned back Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) amendment to block greenhouse gas regulations in a 50-50 vote; 60 votes were needed for passage. … McConnell and other Republicans quickly claimed that the votes in sum reflect widespread concern over EPA’s regulation of power plants, refineries and other sources — and vowed future efforts to thwart them. The GOP-controlled House is expected to pass legislation Thursday that strips EPA’s power to regulate greenhouse gases. … ‘I think you will see an effort in the future. How that comes about remains to be seen,’ Murkowski, the top Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said in the Capitol. ‘I don’t know the vehicle, I don’t know the format, but we are not done with it, that is for sure.’ She noted that Republicans want to permanently thwart the rules, but acknowledged that ‘you have got to be pragmatic in this process as well.’  It’s far from certain whether Democratic leadership has the appetite for allowing more votes on the matter. Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) — who backed Sen. Max Baucus’s (D-Mont.) failed amendment to limit the rules’ scope — said the Senate should move on. … Begich supports crafting energy legislation that preempts EPA’s rules while promoting low-carbon technologies and domestic oil-and-gas drilling. Environmental groups cheered the defeat of the measures, but League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski said he expects continued battles.”

U.S. Negotiator Cites Flaws in UN’s Climate Talks

April 7, 2011: Bloomberg reports: “The U.S. government’s lead envoy on climate change said the United Nations talks aimed at negotiating a binding treaty to curb global warming are based on ‘unrealistic’ expectations that are ‘not doable.’ Todd Stern, the State Department official who heads the U.S. delegation at the 192-nation discussions, said that a meeting this week in Bangkok was ‘marked by struggles over the agenda’ similar to ‘bickering over the shape of the negotiating table.’ The comments were the strongest criticism yet from the U.S. of the process aimed at capping greenhouse gases. They reduce the chances of a breakthrough this year and may distract from work at a UN meeting in New York today that will sketch options for raising $100 billion a year in climate aid. … With President Barack Obama facing re-election next year and some of his Republican opponents questioning the science underpinning the climate talks, the government hasn’t yet shown willingness to set binding targets for reducing fossil fuel emissions. Stern said the goal of agreeing to a treaty was always out of reach. … Stern’s comments suggest rich nations and developing nations remain too divided to make progress on establishing worldwide limits on carbon dioxide emissions. The diplomat said talks scheduled for December in Durban, South Africa, should focus on writing the rulebook for institutions that would monitor worldwide agreements on aid and forest protection. … He said a legally binding treaty of the sort envoys sought to write in Copenhagen two years ago is ‘unworkable,’ and national regulations hold the key to stanching CO2 output.”

Simpson to Senate: Let’s Make a Deal on EPA

April 8, 2011: The Hill reports: “Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), the House Republican who oversees EPA spending, expressed hope Thursday that a deal can be made between the chambers on thwarting greenhouse-gas regulations. … Simpson, however, pointed out that the four separate EPA-related amendments the Senate debated Wednesday — which all failed — got a total of 64 votes combined, noting there’s room to negotiate if the Senate passes something. … ‘I would like to see [the Senate] pass something and then let’s go to conference and see what we can work out, because obviously there is a majority of the House and the Senate that are concerned about EPA climate change rules and what they are proposing, and if there is a majority that have that concern, we ought to be able to work something out,’ he told reporters in the Capitol shortly before the vote. … Simpson also predicted efforts to temporarily block funding for EPA rules on future spending bills.”

Clashes on Enviro and Energy Limits to Rekindle

April 11, 2011: E&E Daily reports: “The Obama administration may have won its first major environmental battle of 2011 only to give ground in the broader budget war, thanks to a spending deal that is set to avert a shutdown this week while handing House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) party a palpable political win. … Indeed, the fiscal 2012 budget slated for House consideration later this week amounts to a significant step forward in the Republicans’ push to roll back Obama administration energy and environmental programs. The framework unveiled by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) would pare back non-defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels for five years while promoting expanded offshore drilling and promising further slashes at EPA. Speaking Saturday in the House GOP’s weekly radio address, Ryan began to pivot the congressional dialogue toward even steeper federal cuts for the next fiscal year, using the shutdown-stopping deal as a springboard. … What’s more, Republicans are fully prepared to revisit many of the same White House efforts targeted by those riders during the 2012 budget and appropriations cycle. … Obama this week will unveil his own long-term deficit reduction plan, administration officials said yesterday. … House Democrats, who plan to release an alternative budget of their own this week, already are blasting the proposed GOP cuts as a gift to conventional energy industries.”

‘Study: Gas from “Fracking” Worse than Coal on Climate’

April 11, 2011: The Hill reports: “Cornell University professors will soon publish research that concludes natural gas produced with a drilling method called ‘hydraulic fracturing’ contributes to global warming as much as coal, or even more. The conclusion is explosive because natural gas enjoys broad political support – including White House backing – due to its domestic abundance and lower carbon dioxide emissions when burned than other fossil fuels. Cornell Prof. Robert Howarth, however, argues that development of gas from shale rock formations produced through hydraulic fracturing – dubbed ‘fracking’ – brings far more methane emissions than conventional gas production. Enough, he argues, to negate the carbon advantage that gas has over coal and oil when they’re burned for energy, because methane is such a potent greenhouse gas. ‘The [greenhouse gas] footprint for shale gas is greater than that for conventional gas or oil when viewed on any time horizon, but particularly so over 20 years. Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years,’ states the upcoming study from Howarth, who is a professor of ecology and environmental biology, and other Cornell researchers. … It is drawing immediate pushback from industry-aligned experts, who question key assumptions. … The study concludes that shale gas developed through fracking carries a higher greenhouse gas footprint because the ‘fugitive’ methane emissions at the fracking sites are greater than releases from conventional gas wells.”

‘A Forecasting Expert Testifies About Climate Change’

April 11, 2011: From a New York Times letter to the editor by J. Scott Armstrong, professor at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania: “In ‘The Truth, Still Inconvenient’ (column, April 4), Paul Krugman begins with a ‘joke’ about ‘an economist, a lawyer and a professor of marketing’ walking into a room, in this case to testify at a Congressional hearing on climate science. I am the marketing professor, and I was invited to testify because I am a forecasting expert. With Dr. Kesten C. Green and Dr. Willie Soon, I found that the global warming alarm is based on improper forecasting procedures. We developed a simple model that provides forecasts that are 12 times more accurate than warming-alarm forecasts for 90 to 100 years ahead. We identified 26 analogous situations, such as the alarm over mercury in fish. Government actions were demanded in 25 situations and carried out in 23. None of the alarming forecasts were correct, none of the interventions were useful, and harm was caused in 20. Mr. Krugman challenged 2 of the 26 analogies, ‘acid rain and the ozone hole,’ which he said ‘have been contained precisely thanks to environmental regulation.’ We are waiting for his evidence. ‘What’s the punch line?’ he asked. I recommended an end to government financing for climate change research and to associated programs and regulations. And that’s no joke.”

‘Senate Probes Gas Drilling Amid Climate-Study Battle’

April 12, 2011: The Hill reports: “The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will gather Tuesday to probe the environmental and health effects of natural gas drilling. The hearing comes amid new scrutiny of the nexus between natural gas development and climate change. Stories in The Hill Sunday and The New York Times Monday — among others — explore research that suggests natural gas may not entirely deserve its climate-friendly reputation. Cornell University professors say that leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from sites developed with the drilling method called hydraulic fracturing are quite large. It’s enough, they say in a forthcoming study, to negate the carbon advantage that gas enjoys over coal and oil when they’re burned for energy. Their study will be published soon in a climate change journal, and follows short research summaries they issued in draft form beginning last year. … Multiple oil-and-gas industry groups are pushing back vigorously against the Cornell study, questioning underlying assumptions about the global warming impact of methane and the amount of the gas lost in well development and gas transport, among other things. … Capitol Hill aides say questions to the various witnesses about the nexus between hydraulic fracturing and greenhouse gases are likely.”

‘EPA Takeover of Climate Permits Could Trigger Lengthy Species Reviews’

April 13, 2011: Inside EPA reports: “EPA’s takeover of some states’ air permitting to implement federal greenhouse gas (GHG) limits could trigger a mandate for the agency to evaluate the impacts a facility’s GHGs may have on endangered species, a potentially lengthy process that could open the door to citizen suits challenging the evaluations, sources say. Climate change’s impacts on endangered species remains a highly contested issue, with lawsuits challenging recent federal agency decisions on listing polar bears as threatened due to global warming. The dispute could take center stage if endangered species reviews become necessary for any EPA-crafted GHG permits for new facilities. Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) EPA must consult with the Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service if an agency action could affect a threatened or endangered species. The law does not extend to requiring states with delegated Clean Air Act permitting authority to pursue such consultations, but if EPA issues GHG permits on behalf of any state it would be treated as a federal action subject to the requirement. … But statutory language in the ESA also mandates the ability to demonstrate a clear connection between a project and the impacted species. Attributing species loss to climate change is proving to be an uphill battle for environmentalists who see the ESA as a potential vehicle for cutting GHGs, such as in an ongoing suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia over the Interior Department’s listing of the polar bear as threatened due to climate change. Even so, one industry source says that EPA’s GHG permitting could trigger some ESA consultation, which may slow new construction projects seeking air permits. … An attorney with significant experience in ESA law adds that the mandate for consultation in FIP states ‘could provide an avenue for environmental groups to bring citizen suits,’ because the groups could potentially file suit over whatever analysis results from the consultation, charging that a project failed to adequately consult FWS. … Arizona’s Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) is already acknowledging that Clean Air Act prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits might trigger ESA consultation because it is a FIP state.”

‘High Prices, Debt Crisis May Doom Obama’s Green Energy Plans’

April 14, 2011: Fox News reports: “As Congress and President Obama spar over spending cuts for the next year and beyond, new questions are being raised over whether the U.S. can afford the clean energy subsidies that the president has championed in several appearances this year and in his budget for fiscal year 2012. Obama is asking taxpayers to cough up $8 billion in clean energy subsidies next year — $3.2 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, $300 million in credit subsidies to promote those projects, and another $550 million dollars to support ‘game-changing clean energy technologies.’ … But critics question whether there really is healthy competition among old fossil and new clean technologies when subsidies are taken out of the equation. … For some, the larger question is whether the Obama administration, in the present climate of belt-tightening will allow carbon-based energies to truly compete with renewables on a level playing field — a subsidy-free playing field. Days before his confirmation as secretary of energy, Steven Chu told an interviewer that the United States needed to get gasoline prices up to European levels, where current prices are hovering around $8 a gallon. More than two years later, that hope is approaching reality — a result of increasing world demand, instability in key oil producing regions of the world and the Obama administration’s resistance to freeing up domestic federal lands and waters to oil and natural gas drilling as well as coal mining. The limit of a fragile economy’s tolerance for high energy prices may be tested in the months to come, as will the president’s hopes for a clean energy future.”

‘Enviros Plot Next Steps in Fight over EPA Climate Rules’

April 15, 2011: The Hill reports: “Top environmental groups vowed Thursday to target lawmakers that voted in favor of a series of proposals aimed at blocking or limiting Environmental Protection Agency climate rules. At the same time, the groups promised to combat GOP plans to attach similar measures to upcoming must-pass legislation. League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski said environmental groups will be running a series of print, television and radio ads criticizing lawmakers for voting in favor of the amendments to small-business legislation that came up on the Senate floor last week. The campaign will also feature advertisements praising lawmakers who voted against the amendments. … It’s the latest attempt by environmental groups to hit lawmakers in their home states for supporting efforts to limit EPA’s authority. … The environmental officials on the call stressed Thursday that all four amendments, though they target EPA climate rules to varying degrees, are ‘unacceptable.’ … The officials warned of future attempts by Republicans to attach provisions that would block EPA climate regulations to must-pass legislation like the fiscal year 2012 budget and a bill to raise the debt ceiling. … The officials also praised Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-Nev.) and President Obama for ensuring that EPA-related policy riders were not included in a final spending agreement to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year.”

‘Alternative Energy Runs Into Headwind’

April 15, 2011: Politico reports: “For the renewable energy sector, it’s a wonder either wind or solar power is still standing. … Cheap natural gas is beating renewables as the lowest-cost option for meeting the nation’s thirst for new electricity. Scathing media reports have also raised questions about whether the Obama administration favored its green-tinted campaign contributors with federal stimulus dollars and wound up sending upward of three-quarters of the subsidies to companies that are now based overseas. … Moderating an Import-Export Bank conference panel earlier last month alongside several top energy industry executives, Carol Browner, President Barack Obama’s former top energy adviser, bemoaned the lack of a long-term market signal to help renewables. … Exactly what the federal government can do is a question. … During a visit earlier this month to a wind turbine manufacturer in suburban Philadelphia, Obama pledged to keep up the fight to make the renewable industry’s tax credits permanent — rather than leave them exposed to the often last-minute dash for renewal. … But several market experts doubt Obama can live up to his promises. While the solar tax credits are secure through 2016, wind will see some of its most cherished benefits expire at the end of 2012, just after the presidential campaign. … Some of the long-term options are also no longer looked at so kindly on Capitol Hill, either. … House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton may be the biggest barrier to a ‘clean’ energy standard. He opposes federal mandates and has shown no interest in responding to the issue, even if the Senate somehow were to come up with 60 votes on legislation.  In an interview, the Michigan Republican insisted that he wants to expand the nation’s renewable portfolio. But he quickly ticked through a number of the industry’s downsides.”

‘Aiding Environment and Economy’

April 15, 2011: From a Politico op-ed by U.S. Representative Fred Upton (R-MI): “Some in Washington insist that our nation’s environmental concerns are at odds with our economic ones. … In fact, if our goal is to do right by the planet, we ought to keep energy production and manufacturing here in America by striking an appropriate regulatory balance. If environmental rules end up chasing jobs overseas to countries that have no clean air and water protections, the planet will suffer right along with our economy. … The Environment and the Economy Subcommittee, with Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) as chairman, is scrutinizing the economic and environmental consequences of regulations in a way that neither Congress nor the administration has ever done. This review is important because it sets the stage for sensible energy and environmental policy. We need to understand the consequences of current rules and regulations to maintain what’s working, eliminate what’s not and strengthen protections where gaps exist. Earlier this year, House Republicans launched the American Energy Initiative, to pave the way for common-sense energy reform. The truth is, Americans want Washington to get out of the way so we can produce more U.S. energy, lower gas prices and help small business begin hiring again. We can do that with three sensible goals: stopping government policies that are driving up energy prices, expanding U.S. energy production to lower costs and create more jobs, and promoting an ‘all of the above’ strategy to increase all forms of U.S. energy. … An incremental approach to energy reform allows Congress to thoughtfully and constructively examine all the nuances of the policy discussion. … Separately, we could free up the long-stalled approval process for the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring an additional 700,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada. Eliminating these bureaucratic barriers does not require thousands of pages of legislative text. It simply requires that Congress acknowledge that these problems can be solved individually.”

Gore to Enviros: Battle Industry to Turn Tide on Climate

April 18, 2011: The Hill reports: “Al Gore told young green energy advocates Friday that progress on global warming must come from a strong grassroots movement that can counter the oil and coal lobbies, which he alleged have ‘paralyzed’ governments. Gore – who compared action on global warming to the Civil Rights movement – was the keynote speaker at Power Shift 2011, a Washington, D.C. conference attended largely by college students. … ‘There are four anti-climate lobbyists on Capitol Hill in this city for every single member of the House and every single member of the Senate,’ Gore said Friday night at the opening of the April 15-18 conference. ‘What is the answer for this?’ Gore asked. ‘It has to come from you. It has to come at the grassroots level. It has to come from young people, and I believe that you are up to it and that you can do it.’ He lauded the work of the young advocates but said they need to build a more powerful political movement, which is largely the aim of the conference, which includes scores of workshops and training events. … The speech and the conference come at a time when climate advocates have been thrown on the defensive politically. … Against this backdrop, Gore said it’s vital to continue pushing for policies that would put a monetary cost on industrial emissions. … He called combating climate change in the country’s economic interest, comparing unchecked emissions to the sub-prime mortgage bubble that proved so damaging. … Gore steered clear of criticizing the White House directly at a time when some green advocates are disappointed with several administration decisions and what they call a lack of political muscle devoted to climate issues.”

GOP Is Lost on Climate Change

April 18, 2011: From a Washington Post column by Fred Hiatt: “…But there are Republican doctrinal fantasies that may be more dangerous: the conviction that taxes can always go down, but never up, for example, and the gathering consensus among Republican leaders that human-caused climate change does not exist. I’m not saying that Democrats’ answers to the budget or climate challenges are necessarily right. You can make a case for smaller government or argue that there’s no point in America curbing greenhouse gases if China won’t. But it’s hard to debate blind faith. … Just a few years ago, leading Republicans — John McCain, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty among them — not only accepted global warming as real but supported some kind of market-based mechanism to raise the cost of burning fossil fuels. Now polls show declining numbers of Republicans believing in climate change, and a minority of those believing humans are at fault, so the candidates are scrambling to disavow their past positions. … Democrats aren’t honest in these areas, either. … As the polls on climate change shift, he talks about green jobs and energy independence instead of global warming, as if there’s nothing out there but pain-free, win-win solutions.”

‘The Court and Global Warming’

April, 19, 2011: From a New York Times editorial: “The case about global warming scheduled to be argued on Tuesday before the Supreme Court is a blockbuster. Eight states — from California to New York, plus New York City — sued six corporations responsible for one-fourth of the American electric power industry’s emissions of carbon dioxide. Rather than seeking money or punishment for the defendants, they seek what everyone should agree is the polluters’ responsibility: abatement of their huge, harmful part in causing climate change. The purpose is not to solve global warming or usurp the government’s role in doing so. It is, rightly, to get major utilities to curb their greenhouse-gas emissions before the government acts. Because there is no federal regulation of this problem in force, it is fortunate that there is a line of Supreme Court precedents back to 1901 on which the plaintiffs can build their challenge. When this lawsuit began seven years ago, one of the defendants’ main defenses was that, because the Clean Air Act and other laws ‘address’ carbon dioxide emissions, Congress has ‘legislated on the subject’ and pre-empted the suit. The pre-emption claim was spurious when they made it and remains spurious now.  … Since then, the Environmental Protection Agency has found that greenhouse gases endanger public health as ‘the primary driver’ of climate change and has regulated vehicle emissions.  But the electric power industry is working to scuttle this regulation, with the help of the Republican-controlled House. In court, the industry pushes for letting the E.P.A. regulate. On Capitol Hill, it tries to torpedo that authority. … Yet the failure of the federal government to act, which has gone on for many years, doesn’t mean the plaintiffs must wait until it does. … New federal regulation may pre-empt the federal common law of nuisance, but, until then, federal courts are empowered to address the public nuisance caused by major, undisputed and destructive sources of greenhouse gases.”

‘Budget Fight Hurts U.S. Climate Effort’

April 19, 2011: The New York Times reports: “The recent budget wrangling in Washington will take a toll on the administration’s efforts to combat climate change. The budget of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was cut $1.6 billion — 16 percent — for the rest of this fiscal year, under the bill that President Barack Obama signed Friday. … But with Republicans determined to rein in the E.P.A., environmentalists say, things could have been worse. Bigger clashes may be coming, as Congress draws battle lines over the budget for the next fiscal year. The largest cuts to the E.P.A., which is the main environmental regulator in the U.S. government, will affect local programs, like the money the agency disperses to states to improve their wastewater treatment and drinking water facilities. But some cuts will affect climate-related programs. S. William Becker, the executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents state and local government regulators, said that states would receive $25 million less than the Obama administration had sought for the remainder of this fiscal year to implement the administration’s greenhouse gas programs. … One result, he added, is that it could take much longer for state regulators to issue the greenhouse gas pollution permits that some big industrial companies are required to have. … A variety of other climate-related programs also face cuts, and not just at the E.P.A. For example, financing was eliminated for a planned reorganization at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to create a ‘climate service,’ notes a newsletter article by Steve Jones and K. Jessica Ferrell, who are lawyers with Marten, an environmental law firm in the Pacific Northwest. The service was supposed to centralize and improve the agency’s dissemination of climate information. Details on how various programs will be affected by the new budget will become clearer in about a month, when the agencies send revised financing plans to congressional appropriations committees, the Marten attorneys say. It is already evident, however, that U.S. contributions to international efforts to combat climate change will take a hit, despite the commitment to aiding developing countries that American negotiators reaffirmed less than five months ago at global climate talks in Cancún, Mexico, according to Eric Haxthausen, director for U.S. climate policy at the Nature Conservancy.”

‘Justices Skeptical in Emissions Case’

April 20, 2011: The Wall Street Journal reports: “A six-state lawsuit seeking to cap greenhouse gas emissions from power plants nationwide seemed likely to fail Tuesday, after Supreme Court justices suggested that recent federal action to slow climate change left no room for separate litigation. The states sued five major power companies, alleging that by discharging 650 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, they were accelerating global warming and causing damage such as smog in Los Angeles and lower crop yields in Iowa. … Nonetheless, several justices signaled that the current state of the EPA regulatory process was enough to quash the states’ lawsuit. ‘The relief that you’re seeking, asking a court to set standards for emissions, sounds like the kind of thing that EPA does,’ Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told Ms. Underwood. A single federal judge hearing the case ‘does not have the resources, the expertise, as a kind of super EPA,’ she said. Peter Keisler, the power companies’ attorney, argued that simply by adopting the Clean Air Act in 1970, which authorizes but does not require the EPA to regulate emissions, Congress had barred the states’ lawsuit. The federal Tennessee Valley Authority is also a defendant, and the Obama administration has sided with the power companies, asserting that its own efforts to rein in greenhouse gasses are legally sufficient. Both the power companies and the administration contend that greenhouse gases are too complicated a problem to be resolved by courts. … Chief Justice John Roberts agreed. ‘The whole problem of dealing with global warming is that there are costs and benefits on both sides, and you have to determine how much you want to readjust the world economy,’ he said. ‘I think that’s a pretty big burden to impose on a district court judge.’”

‘Obama Jabs “Climate Change Deniers”’

April 21, 2011: The Hill reports: “President Obama called out Capitol Hill’s ‘climate change deniers’ Wednesday night at a Democratic fundraiser in California. Obama, speaking at a San Francisco event for donors, called rising gasoline prices an economic drain on drivers and said curbing oil reliance is a ‘national security imperative.’ ‘And then there’s the environmental aspect of it. There are climate change deniers in Congress and when the economy gets tough, sometimes environmental issues drop from people’s radar screens,’ Obama continued, speaking at the home of Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff. … Obama also talked climate during his appearance at Facebook’s Palo Alto headquarters earlier in the day, listing it among the challenges facing the nation. ‘Internationally, we’re seeing the sorts of changes that we haven’t seen in a generation.  We’ve got certain challenges like energy and climate change that no one nation can solve but we’re going to have to solve together,’ Obama said. ‘And we don’t yet have all the institutions that are in place in order to do that.’ Climate change has been on and off the menu in Obama’s remarks on energy this year, and some environmentalists want a more robust White House stance on the issue. … Obama, for his part, is no longer advocating for emissions-capping legislation. Instead he’s pushing for a ‘clean energy standard’ that would require utilities to greatly expand electricity from low-carbon sources in coming decades (a plan that faces big hurdles in Congress).  Obama’s also calling for increases in clean energy R&D spending, planning continued boosts in auto fuel economy rules, and preparing first-time mileage standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks, among other goals in the White House energy blueprint.”

U.S Negotiator Optimistic on Establishment of New Climate Pact

April 22, 2011: ClimateWire reports: “The smoldering international battle over the future of the Kyoto Protocol is a ‘legitimately difficult’ issue — but not one that should overshadow the practical work of fighting climate change, U.S. Climate Envoy Todd Stern said yesterday. In an interview with ClimateWire yesterday, Stern said the U.S. goal is to keep nations focused on bringing to life agreements made in Cancun, Mexico, last year to create a Green Climate Fund, develop technology centers and establish guidelines for tracking countries’ carbon-slashing commitments. ‘We could be looking at something really good in a few years if we keep our nose to the grindstone,’ Stern said, outlining a vision of a functioning fund protecting countries from weather-related climate impacts and hubs spurring clean technology development in poor countries within the next two years. ‘I think that would be a big deal,’ he said. ‘Let’s not let some legitimately very difficult issues that were not resolved in Cancun capsize the whole effort.’ Stern’s comments come as the world’s top emitters of greenhouse gases prepare to meet in Brussels next week for the Major Economies Forum. There and beyond, Kyoto is expected to claim center stage. Indeed, the fight has already begun. Friction over Kyoto at the year’s first U.N. climate meeting earlier this month nearly derailed the creation of a basic agenda toward the year-end climate conference in Durban, South Africa. From Tuvalu to Grenada, vulnerable countries said they were not interested in discussing ‘technical’ issues until future climate change commitments are nailed down. The first phase of the 1997 treaty, which requires only developed countries to cut emissions, ends next year.”

‘The Climate Tort Goes Down

April 25, 2011: From an editorial in The Wall Street Journal: “How unconvincing is the green legal doctrine of the climate tort? So much so that not a single Justice seemed persuaded when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments last Tuesday—even some of the liberals questioned the theory with Scalia-like vigor. In American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, a group of state attorneys general are suing five utilities, claiming their carbon emissions are a ‘nuisance’ under common law. Boiled down, they’re asking the Court to give judges the power to create climate policies—and weigh their costs and benefits—that would ordinarily be fashioned by the politically accountable branches. But don’t take our word for it. ‘I mean, even just reading that part of your complaint, it sounds like the paradigmatic thing that administrative agencies do rather than courts,’ Justice Elena Kagan told New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood. ‘Now what,’ chimed in Ruth Bader Ginsburg, ‘the relief you’re seeking seems to me to set up a district judge, who does not have the resources, the expertise, as a kind of super-EPA.’ Later, Justice Kagan, President Obama’s second nominee to the High Court, asked, ‘General, do you think that you have a federal common law cause of action against anybody in the world?’ After all, everyone contributes to global warming. ‘Obviously the greatest benefit to reduce global warming would be, of course, to shut down the power plants, right?’ as Chief Justice John Roberts put it. Should the courts have that power too—but extended over the entire economy? … It’s heartening to see the Justices reaffirm their faith in the democratic process, especially after a 2006 case that the Obama Administration has used to justify its autocratic choice to impose carbon regulation via the Environmental Protection Agency. But even the proponents of the climate tort have been open about their bad faith. The point of this and other lawsuits has merely been to harass industry and coerce business into supporting a carbon crackdown, no matter what elected representatives decide.”

‘Fickle Winds, Intermittent Sunshine Start to Stress U.S. Power System’

April 25, 2011: ClimateWire reports: “The growth of U.S. wind power has begun to create operating challenges for nuclear and coal plants that must be ramped up and down as wind speeds vary, panelists at a Massachusetts Institute of Technology energy conference reported last week. … ‘The power system needs more flexibility to handle the short-term effects of increasing levels of wind,’ said Ignacio Pérez-Arriaga, a professor at Spain’s Comillas University and a visiting professor at MIT. He and other speakers predicted the expansion of renewable power will continue as a clear option for reducing power plant carbon emissions. Nearly half of global electricity supply will have to come from renewable sources if world carbon dioxide emissions are to be cut to half of current levels by 2050, according to the International Energy Agency, he noted. But utility regulation has not adapted to a future of high renewables, he warned. And a high penetration of wind and solar generation is likely to make wholesale electricity prices more volatile. These and other potentially disruptive issues ‘raise concerns about attracting sufficient investment in … flexible plants’ in competitive power markets, he said. … The conference concluded with the question of whether the patchwork of federal and state regulation and the stalemate over national climate and transmission policies in Congress would help or hinder a transition to more renewable power. ‘Considerable progress’ is being made by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, state regulators, regional transmission organizations and utilities in planning to accommodate more renewable power, tuning market incentives to create a more flexible system, and fairly allocating costs for this transition, the Brattle Group report says. … Other conference participants were far less optimistic that a divided Congress and White House can rationalize climate and energy policies.”

‘Battling over the Climate War’

April 26, 2011: Time Magazine reports: “After cap-and-trade finally died in the U.S. Senate last year, it didn’t take long before we all started asking what went wrong—and who was to blame. … But as the multi-year effort to get climate legislation finally collapsed with the Republican electoral rout last November, there was also some backlash against the environmental movement itself, for ultimately failing to marshal a winning campaign despite having a Democratic White House and a Democratic Congress. … Environmentalists, though, have always had a defense: they were fighting an unfair war. … But one academic is questioning that narrative. Last week Matthew Nisbet—a social scientist at American University who focuses on communication in policymaking, especially on environmentalism—came out with a 99-page report called Climate Shift (download a PDF here) that reviewed the fight over cap-and-trade. …

Nisbet knew that the report would make waves—he was, after all, directly questioning the prevailing narrative about what happened during the cap-and-trade fight, one that people have staked their careers and reputations on. If the environmental movement wasn’t being outspent, and the media was reporting the climate message fairly, then maybe there was something wrong with the carbon cap strategy itself—which is exactly what Nisbet concludes. … In his case, that means shifting the focus from a cap-and-trade based approach that treats climate change as a solvable pollution problem, and instead, treating it as something more akin to global health or poverty: something that needs to be managed, with an emphasis on energy innovation and climate adaptation.”

‘Pain at the Pump? We Need More’

April 28, 2011: From a New York Times op-ed by Daniel C. Esty, commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection; and Michael E. Porter, professor at Harvard Business School: “Gasoline prices are above $4 per gallon in much of the country, a reminder that our dependence on oil carries a great cost. President Obama has promised that the Justice Department will be vigilant in pursuing price-gouging at the pump, but what we really need is to address the full set of energy-related problems, with a focus on spurring clean energy innovation. … To compete globally, we need to encourage clean energy innovation while letting the market decide which particular technologies prevail. Experience in fields like information technology and telecommunications suggests that creating demand for innovation is far more effective than subsidizing company-specific research projects or providing incentives for particular technologies. Governments just aren’t good at picking winners; witness the billions wasted on corn-based ethanol subsidies. The best way to drive energy innovation would be an emissions charge of $5 per ton of greenhouse gases beginning in 2012, rising to $100 per ton by 2032. The low initial charge, starting next year, would make the short-term burden on consumers and businesses almost negligible. An emissions charge is not a radical idea; making people pay for the harm they cause lies at the heart of property rights. European countries participate in a cap-and-trade system that effectively imposes a carbon charge. Even China is pushing to shut down inefficient coal-burning plants by imposing emissions charges. Thus, instituting a carbon charge would have only a minimal impact on American competitiveness — and might even improve it as the incentive for efficiency and innovation kicked in. … Yes, these costs would be passed on to consumers, but this is what motivates changes in behavior and technological investments. Some will say that even the modest emissions charge we propose is politically impossible, given the death of the cap-and-trade bill that the House passed in 2009. But the ballooning federal deficit has created a new political imperative. A modest emissions charge will look attractive compared with raising individual income taxes or burdening the economy with new corporate or payroll taxes. … Gas would likely become the preferred fuel for new power generation, and by extension, for transportation, as electric vehicles become cost-effective alternatives to internal combustion cars. … In tackling our trade imbalance, budget deficit, competitiveness challenges and oil-related vulnerability — not to mention climate change — our plan has a powerful logic. And because it harnesses our capacity for innovation and entrepreneurship, it could attract broad support, and a bipartisan majority in Congress.”