In the decisive defeat of California’s Proposition 23 and the re-election of Senator Barbara Boxer, voters showed that climate action and clean energy have salience in the nation’s largest state. Nevada Senator Harry Reid was re-elected and Democrats held the Senate by a narrow margin with three races still undecided.

In deciding to outspend the oil industry by a three-to-one margin, investors and executives in California’s clean energy and clean-tech companies succeeded in defeating Prop 23, which would have suspended California’s four-year-old climate action law, and hurt the state’s expanding market for clean energy and energy efficiency tools and practices. Now that the battle is won, California will continue to attract billions of dollars in research and start-up funding and retain its stature as one of the world’s principle centers of clean energy innovation.

Moreover, along with Democratic Senator Boxer’s victory, which appears to ensure she retains the chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, another climate advocate, Democratic Attorney General Jerry Brown, was elected governor.

Big Message: Dissatisfaction

The unmistakable outcome of the mid-term election, though, was frustration about the economy. What’s not as clear, said many climate and environmental advocates, was how much of a dark shadow that cast on climate action politics and clean energy development. “There was no mandate on turning back the clock on environmental protection. Polls galore show continued and strong public support for making continued progress to protect our health and boost our economy,” said Heather Taylor-Miesle, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund. “Americans want us to unleash our ingenuity to develop clean-energy alternatives while combating climate change.”

There is no doubt, though, that achieving those goals got harder. Republicans, too many of them campaigning on messages that denied the scientific authenticity of climate change, and raising doubts about the cost of moving away from fossil fuels, swept House races, gaining 60 seats. Republican in the next Congress will have a 239-196 majority.

Politico reported this morning that at least 30 Democratic House members who voted for the 2009 House cap and trade bill were defeated. The White House, though, asserted that many of those races involved freshman Democratic lawmakers who’d won in 2008 in traditionally Republican districts.

The NRDC looked at the results from a different perspective and concluded that of the Democrats who voted for the House energy and climate bill who were up for re-election, 162 out of 195, or 83 percent won or are winning. Of the Democrats who voted against the bill and were up for re-election, 21 out of 36, or 58 percent lost.

Republican candidates in every region also criticized the $100 billion in clean energy, efficiency, and rail investments in the 2009 stimulus as an ill-advised government gambit to “pick winners and losers.” Voter tallies in every region except California clearly indicated that message also resonated. Virginia Democratic Representative Rick Boucher, a ranking member running for his 15th term, lost to Republican Morgan Griffith, who persistently raised  the stimulus and Rep Boucher’s cap and trade vote as a threat to the state’s coal mining industry.

Florida Republican Charlie Crist, who as governor encouraged solar and the alternative energy development as a safeguard to climate change, was soundly beaten in the Senate race by Tea Party candidate Marco Rubio, a clean energy opponent who denies industrialization is warming the planet. Minnesota Democratic Representative James Oberstar, an 18-term lawmaker, a premier public transit and rail advocate, and chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee was beaten by a Tea Party candidate, Chip Cravaack.

And in Ohio, Democratic Governor Ted Strickland, who led his state through a grueling effort to approve one of the nation’s best renewable energy standards and prompted billions in new manufacturing sector development in wind and solar markets, was defeated by former Republican Representative John Kasich. Kasich vowed during the campaign to roll back the renewable standard.

As we’ve noted, next year will be tough for climate action in Congress and the states. There may be some relief in knowing that a few House climate bill supporters won close races, including Democrats Brad Miller of North Carolina and and John Yarmuth of Kentucky.

“Speaking of the lion’s den – he did this in the heart of Kentucky, a leading coal producer,” said Jeremy Symons, senior vice president for conservation and education at the National Wildlife Federation.

Keith Schneider, a journalist and producer, is senior writer for the U.S. Climate Action Network. Reach him at kschneider@climatenetwork.org

Related posts:

1. Some Big Successes As U.S. Election Casts Long Shadow On Climate, Climate Action Hotline 11.3.10
2. Ahead of the Election, Signs of Hope and Caution For Climate Activists, Climate Action Hotline 10.26.10
3. Ahead of the Election, Signs of Hope and Caution For Climate Activists

Peter Bahouth, Executive Director November 3,2010 Some Big Successes As U.S. Election Cast’s Long Shadow On Climate Tuesday’s election wasn’t a complete rejection of climate action and the promise of the low-carbon economy. But there is no mistaking that the results made the ground game to cool the planet much harder. In the decisive defeat of California’s Proposition 23 and the re-election of Senator Barbara Boxer, voters showed that climate action and clean energy have salience in the nation’s largest state. Nevada Senator Harry Reid was re-elected and Democrats held the Senate by a narrow margin with three races still undecided. In deciding to outspend the oil industry by a three-to-one margin, investors and executives in California’s clean energy and clean-tech companies succeeded in defeating Prop 23, which would have suspended California’s four-year-old climate action law, and hurt the state’s expanding market for clean energy and energy efficiency tools and practices. Now that the battle is won, California will continue to attract billions of dollars in research and start-up funding and retain its stature as one of the world’s principle centers of clean energy innovation. Moreover, along with Democratic Senator Boxer’s victory, which appears to ensure she retains the chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, another climate advocate, Democratic Attorney General Jerry Brown, was elected governor. Big Message: Dissatisfaction The unmistakable outcome of the mid-term election, though, was frustration about the economy. What’s not as clear, said many climate and environmental advocates, was how much of a dark shadow that cast on climate action politics and clean energy development. “There was no mandate on turning back the clock on environmental protection. Polls galore show continued and strong public support for making continued progress to protect our health and boost our economy,” said Heather Taylor-Miesle, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund. “Americans want us to unleash our ingenuity to develop clean-energy alternatives while combating climate change.” There is no doubt, though, that achieving those goals got harder. Republicans, too many of them campaigning on messages that denied the scientific authenticity of climate change, and raising doubts about the cost of moving away from fossil fuels, swept House races, gaining 60 seats. Republican in the next Congress will have a 239-196 majority. Politico reported this morning that at least 30 Democratic House members who voted for the 2009 House cap and trade bill were defeated. The White House, though, asserted that many of those races involved freshman Democratic lawmakers who’d won in 2008 in traditionally Republican districts. The NRDC looked at the results from a different perspective and concluded that of the Democrats who voted for the House energy and climate bill who were up for re-election, 162 out of 195, or 83 percent won or are winning. Of the Democrats who voted against the bill and were up for re-election, 21 out of 36, or 58 percent lost. Republican candidates in every region also criticized the $100 billion in clean energy, efficiency, and rail investments in the 2009 stimulus as an ill-advised government gambit to “pick winners and losers.” Voter tallies in every region except California clearly indicated that message also resonated. Virginia Democratic Representative Rick Boucher, a ranking member running for his 15th term, lost to Republican Morgan Griffith, who persistently raised the stimulus and Rep Boucher’s cap and trade vote as a threat to the state’s coal mining industry. Florida Republican Charlie Crist, who as governor encouraged solar and the alternative energy development as a safeguard to climate change, was soundly beaten in the Senate race by Tea Party candidate Marco Rubio, a clean energy opponent who denies industrialization is warming the planet. Minnesota Democratic Representative James Oberstar, an 18-term lawmaker, a premier public transit and rail advocate, and chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee was beaten by a Tea Party candidate, Chip Cravaack. And in Ohio, Democratic Governor Ted Strickland, who led his state through a grueling effort to approve one of the nation’s best renewable energy standards and prompted billions in new manufacturing sector development in wind and solar markets, was defeated by former Republican Representative John Kasich. Kasich vowed during the campaign to roll back the renewable standard. As we’ve noted, next year will be tough for climate action in Congress and the states. There may be some relief in knowing that a few House climate bill supporters won close races, including Democrats Brad Miller of North Carolina and and John Yarmuth of Kentucky. “Speaking of the lion’s den – he did this in the heart of Kentucky, a leading coal producer,” said Jeremy Symons, senior vice president for conservation and education at the National Wildlife Federation. Until next week, take care, Keith Schneider Comments on EPA Coal Ash Rule Needed By Nov 19: In response to the 2008 coal ash disaster, the EPA has offered two options for regulation: one that would require federally enforceable health protective measures be in place to curb the coal ash threat, and another that maintains the status quo, offering no federally enforceable requirements to protect people and the environment. The coal industry is putting intense pressure on the White House, government agencies and Congress to maintain the status quo but strong regulation would increase the cost of burning coal and protect drinking water. Please generate large numbers of comments between now and November 19, 2010 asking the EPA to adopt strong, federally enforceable coal ash regulations. Sierra Club, Earthjustice and other organizations have action alerts you can use as examples. Urge your representative to sign onto Rep. Quigley (D-IL)’s Dear Colleague letter asking the EPA to rely on the best available science and concern for public health and the environment in making its decision. Visit the USCAN Clean Air Act website or contact jkurz@climatenetwork.org for more information. Carol Werner, Executive Director November 1, 2010 News Government Announces New Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles European Companies Fund Senate Candidates Who Oppose Climate Policy UN to Simplify Monitoring of Carbon Emissions UK Considers Daylight Savings Time Adjustments to Cut GHG Emissions Largest Asian Cities Threatened by Climate Change Pakistani Prime Minister Says Climate Change Mitigation is Urgent Issue California’s National Parks Face Rising Temperatures Old Carbon Storage Findings Help Scientists Understand Carbon Cycle Other Headlines Events November 16 – 18: Webinar Series: Clean Energy and Sustainability as a Local Economic Development Strategy Government Announces New Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles On October 25, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced new regulatory standards to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve fuel efficiency of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. The new EPA and NHTSA standards are a response to President Obama’s May 21, 2010 memorandum regarding fuel efficiency standards, and will require medium- and heavy-duty vehicles sold between 2014 and 2018 to have emissions and efficiency improvements that will ultimately save 500 million barrels of oil and cut GHG emissions by 250 million metric tons over the lifetime of the vehicles. In a press release, EPA estimates that the program “would cost the affected industry approximately $7.7 billion, and generate total societal benefits of $49 billion, providing $41 billion in net benefits as a result of the standards over the lifetimes of model year 2014-2018 vehicles.” On October 27, the Canadian government announced that it also will create new emissions regulations for heavy-duty vehicles that will be aligned with those of the United States. Jim Prentice, Canadian Minister of the Environment said in a statement that “Canada and the United States have had great success in working together to reduce emissions from new light-duty vehicles, and we are looking forward to doing the same for heavy-duty vehicles.” For additional information see: New York Times, Environment Canada Press Release, AP, EPA Fact Sheet European Companies Fund Senate Candidates Who Oppose Climate Policy On October 25, the Climate Action Network Europe (CAN Europe) released a report which revealed that several large European companies are funding the campaigns of U.S. Senate candidates who oppose climate legislation. According to the report, Senators Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and Jim DeMint (R-SC) received $240,200 in campaign funding from Bayer, BASF, Solvay, Lafarge, BP, GDF-SUEZ, Arcelor-Mittal and EON in 2010. All of these companies are significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters themselves, together emitting 130 million tons of GHGs in 2009, according to CAN Europe. The report states, “European companies are funding almost exclusively Senate candidates who have been outspoken in their opposition to comprehensive climate policy in the U.S., and candidates who actively deny the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is caused by people.” For additional information see:Climate Action Network Press Release, Climate Action Network Europe Report, Guardian, Deutsche Welle UN to Simplify Monitoring of Carbon Emissions On October 23, the Joint Implementation Supervisory Committee (JISC) – the UN body in charge of expanding emissions reduction projects – agreed to a proposal to simplify carbon offset rules, following climate discussions in Bonn, Germany. The Joint Implementation process allows companies in Kyoto Protocol-participating countries to invest in projects that reduce carbon emissions, and in return receive carbon credits which can be used for internal carbon offsets or sold for profit. The present model allows countries to either monitor emissions reductions themselves or let the UN do an independent assessment. Allowing two monitoring methods is considered unsustainable because different projects have been subject to different regimes in different countries. The JISC now wants to create a universal system that is simpler and more transparent. “This is a landmark moment for the market-based approach to combating climate change,” JISC chair Benoît Leguet said on Friday. “We’re putting forward ambitious but extremely practical proposals that would draw on the best features of national and international approaches to incentivizing emission reduction projects.” The new model still needs to be approved at December’s UN climate talks in Cancun. For additional information see: Business Green, Reuters UK Considers Daylight Savings Time Adjustments to Cut GHG Emissions On October 28, representatives from energy company National Grid and Cambridge University told British Parliament members the UK should extend daylight savings time to reduce the country’s energy consumption and cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The panel discussion was held by Parliament’s Energy and Climate Change Committee. According to National Grid’s operations manager Alan Smart, peak evening energy usage could be reduced by 1,300 megawatts if clocks were not pushed back an hour in October. Cambridge researchers told the panel that putting clocks an hour forward year-round would reduce annual GHG emissions by 447,000 tons. Following the panel discussion, Tim Yeo, chairman of Parliament’s Energy and Climate Change Committee said, “At a time when public finances are tight, making better use of the available daylight is a cheap and cheerful way for the U.K. to do its bit in reducing emissions. I am calling on the government to launch a full scale trial.” For additional information see: Bloomberg Largest Asian Cities Threatened by Climate Change On October 22, the Asia Development Bank, the Japan International Cooperation Agency, and the World Bank released a joint report showing that large Asian coastal cities will experience frequent flooding and extreme weather events if current climate change trends continue. The report studied potential risks due to climate change in the cities of Bangkok, Ho Chi Minh City and Manila, and suggested measures and strategies to address these issues. In Bangkok, better control of ground water pumping and further investments in pump station capacity are needed to reduce urban vulnerability to flooding. In Ho Chi Minh City, 26 percent of the population is already affected by extreme weather events and a comprehensive climate change adaptation strategy was recommended. In Manila, city flooding may cause damages up to one-quarter of the city’s gross domestic product; a complete redesign of flood control infrastructure would be needed to protect against sea level rise and typhoons. The report concluded that climate-related risks need to be a central part of city planning. For additional information see: Reuters, International Business Times, ADB Press Release, ADB Report Pakistani Prime Minister Says Climate Change Mitigation is Urgent Issue On October 22, Pakistan’s Ministry of Environment, in collaboration with the United Nations, held an international conference on climate change. During the conference, Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani said that climate change is a major environmental issue and urged nations to form a universal and collective response, particularly in vulnerable South Asian regions. Gilani said Pakistan is developing a comprehensive climate change strategy and the country is looking forward to a substantive outcome at December’s UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun. Pakistan was one of the first nations to sign the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Although Pakistan emits a small percentage of global greenhouse gas emissions, it faces severe climate change impacts such as melting of glaciers, sea level rise and flooding. For additional information see: Business Recorder, Pakistan Observer, Daily Times California’s National Parks Face Rising Temperatures On October 27, the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization and the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) released a joint report on climate projections for 10 national parks in California. The study considered a medium-high emissions scenario with heat-trapping pollutants rising at slightly lower levels than in recent years. Using six climate models, researchers predicted that Yosemite National Park will become 7.5°F warmer by the years 2070 to 2099 than it was from 1961 to 1990. Temperatures in the Sequoia, Kings Canyon, Mojave and Death Valley National Parks also are expected to rise. The report says that Joshua trees and giant sequoias may not be capable of adapting to predicted temperature changes. California’s economy will be impacted as national parks located in the state draw more than 34 million visitors a year. “The natural and cultural resources of California’s national parks are directly linked to over one billion dollars in economic activity and 19,000 jobs.” According to Theo Spencer, a senior advocate in NRDC’s Climate Center, “by acting now to reduce the pollution that causes global warming we will preserve these jobs and create new ones while continuing America’s long-standing position of technological leadership.” For additional information see: Rocky Mountain Climate Organization and NRDC Report, Rocky Mountain Climate Organization Press Release, National Parks Traveler, San Francisco Chronicle Old Carbon Storage Findings Help Scientists Understand Carbon Cycle On October 24, Nature Geosciences published a study that explains where old carbon was stored during the last glacial period. According to lead researcher Dr. Ellen Martin, the study results will help scientists “understand how the carbon cycle works, which is important for understanding future global warming scenarios.” Martin measured isotopes of neodymium preserved in microscopic fossil fish teeth to trace whether old carbon samples had come from the North Pacific or the Southern Ocean. The results showed that most of the carbon was being stored in the Southern Hemisphere. When southern ice sheets melted, they released carbon dioxide (CO2) consistent with accepted measurements. The implication of the study is that during warming scenarios, oceans cannot store as much CO2 as they can under glacial conditions. “The oceans have 60 times more carbon dioxide in them than the atmosphere, so when we worry about what’s happening with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we often look to the oceans as a potential source or sink,” Martin said. During glacial periods, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere average 200 parts per million, compared with 280 parts per million between glacial periods. Today’s concentration level is about 380 parts per million. For additional information see: Science Daily, Abstract in Nature Geosciences Other Headlines Bill Gates and Sergey Brin Donate Funds to Fight Proposition 23 November 16 – 18: Webinar Series: Clean Energy and Sustainability as a Local Economic Development Strategy The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) and ICLEI–Local Governments for Sustainability USA invite you to learn about the role of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and sustainability in developing successful local economic development strategies. Practitioners and leading experts will discuss key concepts and practical examples of how energy and sustainability issues factor into fundamental economic development goals to save money for businesses and households, create new markets and business opportunities, and develop a talented workforce, as well as spur job creation and retain dollars in the local economy. Intended for local officials, economic development, energy, and sustainability professionals, and policymakers, this webinar series will examine the opportunities and obstacles facing local communities to achieve long-term prosperity in a changing economy. Part I: Saving Money, Expanding Markets, and Building a Talented Workforce will be held on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 from 3:00 – 4:30 p.m. and can be registered for here. Part II: Leveraging Public Resources and Federal Funding will be held on Thursday, November 18, 2010 from 3:00 – 4:30 p.m. and can be registered for here. For more information, contact Jan Mueller at jmueller [at] eesi.org or (202) 662-1883 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              (202) 662-1883      end_of_the_skype_highlighting. Writers: Nicholas Mostovych Please distribute Climate Change News to your colleagues. Permission for reproduction of this newsletter is granted provided that the Environmental and Energy Study Institute is properly acknowledged as the source. Past issues are available here. Free email subscriptions are available here. We welcome your suggestions, comments, and questions. The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) is a non-profit organization founded in 1984 by a bipartisan Congressional caucus dedicated to finding innovative environmental and energy solutions. EESI works to protect the climate and ensure a healthy, secure, and sustainable future for America through policymaker education, coalition building, and policy development in the areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy, agriculture, forestry, transportation, buildings, and urban planning. EESI’s work, including this free newsletter, is made possible by financial support from people like you. Please help us continue to make it available by making a secure, online donation today by clicking here or mailing a check to Environmental and Energy Study Institute; 1112 16th St NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036. Please contact Susan Williams at (202) 662-1887 (202) 662-1887 or see www.eesi.org/donate to find out more. Thank you for your support! Climate Action Hotline is the new weekly update by the US Climate Action Network. Let us know what you think.

“It is the largest public referendum in history on climate and clean energy policy. Almost 10 million Californians got a chance to vote and sent a clear message that they want a clean energy future. And this was in an economic downturn. There has never been anything this big. It is going to send a signal to other parts of the country and beyond.” - Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund. California Voters Say Hell No to Texas Oil and Proposition 23 California Defends Climate Law, Remains National Bastion of Clean Energy Economy Barton Will Seek Rule Waiver, Run Again for Energy Panel Post Voters Support Clean Energy and Climate Solutions Environmentalists Plan Fresh Start Kerry’s Top Climate Staffer Departs UK Huhne: Green Deal Could Employ Up To 100,000 People By 2015 UN Secures Nagoya Global Biodiversity Deal Africa Consolidates Common Position on Climate Change EU Sticks to 20 Percent Carbon Cuts China: Beijing in the Running to Take Crown for Wind Turbines

Related posts:

1. Some Big Successes As U.S. Election Casts Long Shadow On Climate
2. Ahead of the Election, Signs of Hope and Caution For Climate Activists, Climate Action Hotline 10.26.10
3. Climate Action Hotline, 12.6.10

By Keith Schneider
US Climate Action Network

On June 2, a day before BP announced it had sheared through a leaking pipe at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, one of the very few steps forward in the company’s 44-day campaign to staunch the worst oil disaster in American history, President Barack Obama pressed the nation to join him in viewing the catastrophe as a call to arms to pass comprehensive climate and energy legislation.

“If we refuse to take into account the full costs of our fossil fuel addiction – if we don’t factor in the environmental costs and the national security costs and the true economic costs – we will have missed our best chance to seize a clean energy future,” the president said during a speech at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. “The House of Representatives has already passed a comprehensive energy and climate bill, and there is currently a plan in the Senate – a plan that was developed with ideas from Democrats and Republicans – that would achieve the same goal.

“And, Pittsburgh, I want you to know, the votes may not be there right now,” Obama added, “but I intend to find them in the coming months. I will continue to make the case for a clean energy future wherever and whenever I can. I will work with anyone to get this done – and we will get it done. The next generation will not be held hostage to energy sources from the last century. We are not going to move backwards. We are going to move forward.”

Direct, Emphatic, Needed
The president’s remarks, the most direct and emphatic links he’s yet drawn between the BP Gulf disaster and the need for comprehensive legislation, seem plainly directed at opening a new narrative for national action in the Gulf disaster.

In response to demands that Obama “do something,” the president appears to be pivoting from treating the disaster as an exercise in environmental restoration. He is now calling for potentially momentous changes in attitudes and policy at a time of intense domestic interest about oil, the economy, and the environment.

“An America run solely on fossil fuels should not be the vision we have for our children and our grandchildren,” the president said at Carnegie Mellon. “We consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. So without a major change in our energy policy, our dependence on oil means that we will continue to send billions of dollars of our hard-earned wealth to other countries every month – including countries in dangerous and unstable regions. In other words, our continued dependence on fossil fuels will jeopardize our national security. It will smother our planet. And it will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk.”

Cheered By Advocates
Climate and energy advocates this week responded to Obama’s new urgency with proposals intended to move considerably farther in reducing fossil fuel consumption and climate change emissions than has been proposed in either the House bill passed almost a year ago, or the Senate bill introduced on May 12.

“The President’s speech in Pittsburgh yesterday was the lead story in today’s Washington Post,” said Dan Lashof, the director of the Natural Resource Defense Council’s Climate Center.  “And for good reason. Using the Gulf oil disaster as proof that we need to end our dependence on fossil fuels, President Obama made his strongest case yet for enacting comprehensive energy reform that includes limits on carbon pollution. And he committed to round up the votes in the Senate to ‘get this done.’”

John Podesta and Daniel Weiss of the Center For American Progress this week proposed a nine-step action agenda to change the rules of the game for oil development and use. Their proposal includes stepping up the administration’s new fuel economy regulations,  as well as electric vehicle production programs contained in last year stimulus bill to reduce oil consumption by 7 million barrels a day by 2030. That would mean cutting oil use by 37 percent from current rates of consumption. The CAP plan also calls for levying a fee on imported oil to direct new revenues to modern public transit, and to eliminate taxpayer subsidies for oil and other fossil fuel development, a goal embraced last year by leaders of the G20 group of nations.

“The horrible BP oil disaster has reminded Americans that we must reduce our oil use,” Podesta and Weiss wrote. “We share the view that this presents an unprecedented opportunity to take bold action to achieve this goal.”

More Than What’s Been Done By White House So Far
The president’s speech also attracted fresh attention to the National Oil Savings Plan proposed by Brendan Bell, who directs the climate change program for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Bell’s proposal, which was distributed in Washington on May 21, projects reducing oil consumption 7.4 million barrel per day by 2030 by enacting new law and regulations that invest in modernizing and expanding  public transit, accelerating energy efficiency programs for buildings, expanding biofuels production, and going further than the administration already has in raising fuel mileage standards for light and heavy vehicles.

Obama introduced the new direction in energy and climate strategy last week when he met with Senate Republicans and, according to a White House statement, told them “that the gulf oil disaster should heighten our sense of urgency to hasten the development of new, clean energy sources that will promote energy independence and good-paying American jobs. And he asked that they work with him on the promising proposals currently before Congress.”

The president also toured Solyndra’s solar thin-film manufacturing plant in Fremont, California and noted that even as “we are dealing with this immediate crisis, we’ve got to remember that the risks our current dependence on oil holds for our environment and our coastal communities is not the only cost involved in our dependence on these fossil fuels.  Around the world, from China to Germany, our competitors are waging a historic effort to lead in developing new energy technologies.”

More Steps
White House advisors and aides on Capitol Hill said the president’s fresh focus on policy along with oil pollution has produced new momentum for a comprehensive climate and energy bill this year. Advocates said that to really make a difference in fossil fuel consumption and emissions reductions, the bill would need to incorporate the energy-saving ideas proposed by the Center for American Progress and the Union of Concerned Scientists, and add several more including:

1.     A strong national renewable energy standard, similar to those established by more than 30 states, to require utilities to generate a portion their power with wind, solar, geothermal, and other cleaner alternative energy sources.

2.     A cap on carbon that produces at least 80 percent reductions in emissions by 2050. The Senate measure proposed by Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman sets a goal of reducing emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, which is generally viewed as a decent start.

3.     A provision that provides substantial funds for developing nations to adapt to climate change, preserve forests, and make the transition to a clean energy economy. The Kerry-Lieberman proposal on international climate finance calls for a roughly $500 million a year investment by 2019, which is seen as too little and too late.

4. Retain states ability to lead in reducing emissions and promoting clean energy. Innovative state programs provide effective models for other states and for federal action. Legislation must also retain the EPA ability to regulate global warming pollution. Clean Air Act requirements that coal-fired power plants achieve up-to-date performance standards for carbon dioxide are an important complement to a cap on emissions.

President Obama is scheduled to return to the Gulf coast on Friday, his third visit to the disaster zone in 5 weeks.

Keith Schneider, a journalist and communications strategist, is director of media and communications at US Climate Action Network. Reach him at kschneider@climatenetwork.org.

Related posts:

1. Gulf Disaster Approaches End as Senate Again Delays Energy Bill, Climate Action Hotline 8.6.10
2. Obama Vows To Go Where No Man Has Gone Before: Goal is to pass and sign comprehensive energy and climate legislation
3. Clean Coal? — Gillian Caldwell Engages President Obama

Over 70 years ago, in the General Motors-sponsored Futurama exhibit at the 1939 New York World’s Fair, an estimated 10 percent of all Americans were transported across a landscape of innovation and optimism that became the economic and cultural foundation of the great American century. The Futurama exhibit was a huge diorama of a highway-heavy, congestion-free, car-dependent, time-efficient, leafy green urban and suburban all-American pattern of civilization that no one had ever seen before.

What astute observers recognized — among them Lewis Mumford and Walter Lippman — was that GM’s new American geography needed enormous public investments in the roads, sewers, education, research, planning, and industrial infrastructure to make it reality. The vision, though, of an airy, shining, and mobile American way of life was powerful and eminently achievable.

Over the next two decades voters elected to Congress and the White House lawmakers of both parties who cooperated in steadily enacting big and expensive bills — the GI bill to educate veterans, the 1956 Highway Act to start the Interstate System, water and sewer spending bills, research grants for engineering, just to name a few — to change the way America looked and functioned.

American Power Act Tactics
Last week, Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut introduced the American Power Act, a big and expensive bill that is in every way a response to that incredibly accurate 80-year-old GM vision. Its central goal is to preserve American choice and mobility — the two central features of our way of life — in the face of an oncoming train wreck of accumulating economic and environmental consequences.

Kerry and Lieberman propose to execute this impossible task by laying out two paths for legislative action that need to be achieved simultaneously. The first is to generate more supplies of conventional energy sources — oil, coal, and nuclear — in order to stave off the slow demise or even the collapse of America’s convenient, have it your way, drive through economy.

The proposal provides incentives to coastal states to pursue more offshore oil and gas development, while also giving neighboring states the power to block development within 75 miles of their shoreline. It includes $2 billion-a-year in research grants to coal-burning utilities to test carbon capture and sequestration. It proposes to invest tens of billions in loan guarantees and other support to encourage the construction of 12 new nuclear plants.

The second tactical step in the legislation is to push America as insistently as politically practical toward more energy-efficient transportation, and home-grown, renewable, and much cleaner sources of energy. The idea is spur innovation, new patterns of compact development, and new industrialization that also generates much less carbon pollution.

Kerry and Lieberman proposed spending $70 billion over 10 years on transit, clean vehicles, energy efficiency and other Smart Growth innovations. They lay out a plan for farmers to gain income by siting renewable projects on their land and to grow biofuels. There is money for solar and wind development.

Carbon Pricing
Most significantly, the bill contains provisions to reduce carbon emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and over 80 percent by 2050. It envisions putting a price on carbon and providing for trading carbon allowances that applies to large polluters and could generate billions of dollars annually, a portion of which would be rebated to citizens.

As a study in pragmatism, the American Power Act does pretty well. The legislation addresses most of what’s possible and practical in the place where energy, economy, the environment, and politics now meet. It’s as big and bold as it dares in an era when the boom-boom-boom of dire risks to our way of life — climate change, declining competitiveness, rising energy costs — is greeted in political circles with the squeak of small ideas and the clanging of ideological idiocy and anger from every side.

In many instances, environmental organizations and business groups commended Kerry and Lieberman for such a solid first draft. And in almost every instance — the exception was the Smart Growth community’s enthusiasm for the $7 billion-a-year investment in transit, clean car, and other transportation and efficiency measures — groups said the intricacies of the bill needed serious reworking.

Environmental groups are deeply concerned with the oil, coal, and nuclear provisions. Some National and more local green organizations say they will oppose the measure for those measures alone. Other environmental groups aren’t thrilled with a section that would withdraw some authority of the EPA to regulate carbon emissions from certain sources, and do away with the current state authority to enact stronger cap and trade programs than the federal government. And climate action groups, which don’t like the total lack of funding for tropical forest protection and clean technology transfer, also said the plan to dedicate some of the revenue from carbon allowance trading to help developing nations make the transition to a low-carbon economy is too little and too late.

Business executives, meanwhile, are nervous about the carbon emissions limits. Democratic lawmakers from the Midwest want more investment in clean tech manufacturing. And the bill’s former sponsor, South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham who dropped out following an ideological fit, said the proposal would not survive the — so far — uniform Republican opposition.

Transition and Trouble
America, of course, has not always had such trouble responding to change and transition. The America that resulted from executing the Futurama vision was industrious, optimistic, and capable of reacting to favorable market trends. The suburbs and highways, cul-de-sacs and three-car garages, homes with more bathrooms than TVs were made possible by cheap energy (most of which we generated ourselves), cheap land, core competitiveness in major industries, reasoned population increases, growing personal income, wealthy governments, and a willingness of taxpayers to invest in the nation’s future.

We’re not dealing nearly as well with the new market trends of the 21st century. Energy prices are steadily rising. Land is expensive. Whole industries have moved beyond our borders. The U.S. is the third fastest growing industrialized nation in the world. Incomes are declining. Governments operate with enormous deficits. Taxpayers are unwilling to invest in a collaborative future.

The result is a nation that is uncharacteristically hesitant and operating in fear. And while ideologues on all sides shout past each other, and make holding office at any level a thankless and grueling experience, the real danger in our governing circles is the entrenchment of the politics of stasis. Doing nothing. Holding the line. Not deciding. Not acting.

The American Power Act contains a suite of reasoned ideas that make sense. The majority of climate action and environmental organizations are working to ensure that the bill not only survives the legislative process but is strengthened. The sole provision that could be considered a breakthrough, and needs to survive intact, is the bid to put a cap and a price on carbon and then to generate revenue by trading allowances. By itself that provision sets the basic foundation to reduce emissions, spur clean energy investment, and prove to the world that the United States is serious about being a leader in the global work to solve climate change. Taking into account the political and economic context, the bill’s improvement and passage would be a step, arguably a big step, for America’s future.

Keith Schneider, a journalist and communications strategist, is media and communications director at the US Climate Action Network. Reach him at kschneider@clinatenetwork.org

Related posts:

1. The Hour of Choosing Arrives: American Power Act Introduced in Senate
2. All Eyes Are on Japan, Climate Action Hotline 3.14.11

In a long-awaited proposal designed to secure existing domestic energy sources and develop new ones that begin to reverse the damaging effects of global climate change, New England Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman today introduced comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation.

The co-authors of the bill, one a Democrat from Massachusetts and the other an Independent from Connecticut, insisted that its vision is to change the direction of some of the nation’s toughest systemic problems — economic competitiveness, energy security, job loss, and environmental safety. Indeed, the 900-plus page bill’s expanse, encompassing development of the full menu of conventional and alternative energy sources, as well as a cap on carbon, was widely commended by environmental and business organizations.

Support and Specific Concerns
But in nearly every statement issued today, by organizations as diverse as Oxfam America, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the League of Conservation Voters, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, executives expressed concern about specific provisions and vowed to work with Senators of both parties to fix them. Environmental organizations principally focused their critiques on provisions to expand offshore drilling, provide federal incentives to build new nuclear power plants, and support the coal and utility industries with grants to prove technology to capture and store carbon.

Environmental organizations also said they would work to improve or change provisions that would limit the reach of the Clean Air Act to reduce carbon emissions in new coal-fired utilities, and eliminate the ability of states to establish carbon-emission reduction programs. Oxfam said it was concerned that the international finance provisions of the proposal would not become effective until 2019, and did not include nearly enough federal investment to meet the commitment the Obama Administration made in Copenhagen in December to help establish a $100 billion-a-year global climate action fund to assist developing nations.

“If the proposal introduced today by Senators Kerry and Lieberman stays true to its goals,” said Michael Brune, the Sierra Club’s executive director, “it can serve as a foundation on which we can build an America free from oil dependence, with millions of new clean energy manufacturing, construction and service jobs here at home, less wasted energy, and less of the carbon pollution that is threatening our economy, our health and our climate. But this proposal will only serve as a solid foundation if the Senate both improves and completes it.”

According to Senator Kerry, who blogged about the bill’s contents on Grist and Huffington Post today, The American Power Act proposes to put a price on carbon emissions from roughly 7,500 power plants and other industrial facilities. The bill proposes to establish a market to trade emissions allowances in order to reduce carbon emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

Returns to Citizens
Moreover, a provision that borrows from a separate climate and energy measure proposed by Senators Maria Cantell and Susan Collins, provides proceeds of the sale of allowances as rebates to citizens.  “None of it stays with or grows government,” said Kerry. “Those rebates rise over time until it all goes straight back to Americans.”

The American Power Act also takes into account the environmental and political consequences of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The bill’s co-authors inserted a new provision that gives states the authority to veto drilling less than 75 miles off their border, although it also gives states that decide to drill access to a percentage of the lucrative federal royalties generated by oil and gas production. The proposal introduces new regulatory safeguards that require oil developers to much more thoroughly assess the risks and consequences of drilling offshore, and to more accurately predict the potential of a spill.

A third provision that environmental organizations considered crucial is the bill’s influence on the Clean Air Act, which the Obama administration is applying for the first time since its passage in 1970 to limit carbon emissions. Unfortunately, the legislation limits the Environmental Protection Agencies’s ability to clean up new coal plants. Maintaining the ability to use the Clean Air Act to reduce global warming pollution is critical, especially if the federal program is found to be ineffective in future years. The bill does call on the EPA to continue setting tough emissions standards to reduce global warming pollution from cars and trucks and continues EPA’s ability to set some performance standards for old power plants to make sure they operate more cleanly.

Other provisions of the American Power Act, designed to both gain political allies in the Senate and encourage development of alternative sources of energy and fossil fuels, include:

• Providing incentives for farmers to base wind and other clean energy projects on their land.
• $2 billion in annual investment in carbon capture technology for coal-fired utilities.
• $7 billion in annual investment for public transit, clean car technology, and clean energy research.
• Federal incentives, including loan guarantees, to encourage the construction of 12 new nuclear power plants

White House and Graham Respond
The White House issued this statement today from President Obama: “The challenges we face — underscored by the immense tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico — are reason to redouble our efforts to reform our nation’s energy policies. For too long, Washington has kicked this challenge to the next generation. This time, the status quo is no longer acceptable to Americans. Now is the time for America to take control of our energy future and jumpstart American innovation in clean energy technology that will allow us to create jobs, compete, and win in the global economy.”

The introduction of the American Power Act,  initially scheduled for April 26, was delayed until today due to the Republican Senator Lindsey Graham’s decision to withdraw as a member of the three-member Senate team that wrote the bill. Over the last two weeks, as Senators Kerry and Lieberman amended provisions, Senator Graham has consistently expressed his view that the proposal could not pass without his help.

Today Graham issued a statement that described his support for a comprehensive energy bill, but also warned that its Senate approval would be a struggle: ”I want America to lead the world in the coming energy revolution, not follow. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to improve upon these concepts and find a pathway forward on energy independence, job creation, and a cleaner environment,” but ” the problems created by the historic oil spill in the Gulf, along with the uncertainty of immigration politics, have made it extremely difficult for transformational legislation in the area of energy and climate to garner bipartisan support at this time.”

Visit USCAN’s American Power Act page for more information and the climate community’s reactions. USCAN is following the developments and will be updating this article and posting others in the days ahead.

Keith Schneider, a journalist and communications strategist, is media and communications director at USCAN. Reach him at kschneider@climatenetwork.org.

Related posts:

1. All Eyes To The Future: American Power Act’s Imperiled Pragmatism
2. Narrow Energy Bills Introduced in House and Senate
3. Dirty Air Act Vote Tests Senate’s Direction on Climate, Clean Energy