Empty Hands on the Climate, and What Obama Needs to Do
On Friday, Denmark's climate and energy minister, Connie Hedegaard, who will be chairing U.N.-sponsored climate talks in December in Copenhagen, said President Obama needs to do more on climate. "It is hard to imagine that he will be receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on Dec. 10 and then come empty-handed to Copenhagen a week later," she said.
But there's no way between now and then Obama can get a strong climate bill through Congress.
Over the next months, the White House needs to focus on health care if it's to have any hope of coming up with anything more than Big Pharma and the private insurance companies want.
This is the cost of trying to do so much so quickly. Initiatives revert to powerful industry lobbyists because there's no time to organize countervailing power. When he's trying to do everything at once, the President can't mobilize public opinion behind any one thing. Progressive voices (which have difficulty being heard even under the best of circumstances) drown each other out because they're hollering over one another.
Climate change legislation is moving forward -- but big polluters have shaped much of it. As I noted recently, the Waxman-Markey climate bill, passed by the House last June, gives away 85 percent of pollution permits to the nation's biggest polluters, and the "cap" it proposes on overall carbon emissions would cut greenhouse gas emissions only by an estimated 2 to 4 percent by 2020 compared to the UN reference year of 1990. The Kerry-Boxer bill has a stronger cap on emissions but it's still far short of what's necessary -- and it leaves out the hardest part, which is the actual cap-and-trade mechanism.
Why has so little been accomplished? Because coal, shale, oil, big manufacturers, and utilities -- the big old polluters (BOPs) -- have beaten back anything better.
The only real countervailing powers on climate change are industries that stand to gain from stronger legislation -- mostly nuclear and ethanol, along with a smattering of companies that have invested in wind, biomass, and solar. But they're no match for the BOPs. Nor do their bottom lines necessarily match what's good for the world.
Yes, the Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward on its own efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, and the White House is quietly using the threat of the EPA doing more as a prod to get the BOPs on board with legislation that the White House says will be easier on them than what the EPA comes up with. But that's no real threat. The BOPs know they can keep the EPA tied up in litigation for years.
So here's my suggestion. The White House should tell Congress it's raising the bar on climate change but is simultaneously putting the current legislation on hold -- until it can focus the public's attention on it. That is, until after a worthy piece of healthcare legislation is on the President's desk.
Arriving in Copenhagen strongly committed to fight for a large reduction in greenhouse gases, even if that means empty hands at the time, is better than arriving there with a weak and ineffective law.
Altbough I too am worried about litigation being used to obstruct EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, I think the EPA remains a powerful tool. I don't know how long new regulations could be tied up in court - perhaps not as long as some fear - but in any case, the threat of an ultimate resolution to the litigation, which could very well be in EPA's favor, will pressure Congress to take preemptive action by passing something more meaningful than it would otherwise contemplate doing.
October 12, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
how long new regulations could be tied up in court
I incline to agree w/F. Granted that using regulation opens up the process to administrative mandamus challenges, the ability to impose serious remedies (albeit pending the judicial process and it's delays) I think trumps the slight promise of prompter action following legislative reform--the more so as
a) The legislative process is hopelessly in the pocket of the pollutors, who are (momentarily, perhaps) separated from the levers of power at the EPA
b)legislation any more complex than a tax on carbon (Why not, by the precious blood of the sweet Baby Jesus, why not??) will probly be met by some bogus constitutional challenge arising from the federalist society and its speciality of specious execptions to interstate commerce jurisdiction. How much time, then, will be saved by avoiding the EPA regulatory route?
Also, there already exists jurisprudence mandating EPA action on greenhous gases; If not rendered moot by further congressional action, this line of jurisprudence should eventually obviate a good part of what might otherwise be raised in an Administative Mandamus proceeding.
October 14, 2009 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
A much better idea is to slash EPA's funding until they realize they are a gov't agency and do not dictate policy. If they can't comprehend that after a few rounds of steep cuts, shut them down entirely.
October 14, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
So here's my suggestion. The White House should tell Congress it's raising the bar on climate change but is simultaneously putting the current legislation on hold -- until it can focus the public's attention on it. That is, until after a worthy piece of healthcare legislation is on the President's desk.
Bingo! And he can threaten to veto half-assed bills that don't do the job correctly. Then - freed from the need to defend ongoing legislative efforts in the Congress - he can go to Copenhagen with a strong list of general principles, and use the gathering to turn up the pressure for serious action.
October 12, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doing this would be a surefire way to never get anything passed Congress and make Copenhagen a complete failure.
Good thing Obama has advisers on the climate who have a clue about climate policy and politics.
October 12, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Empty hands on climate? Come to St. Paul or Denver and make snowballs.
October 12, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am frustrated, too, at the democrats on this issue. Reid has embraced natural gas wholeheartedly, and Kerry, of all people, supports the industry in his legislation. Boxer says that the Kerry bill is good because it might actually get passed (inferring that even with a super-majority, only those bills which support industry can pass, and therefore our most progressive congress people should give them credibility by putting their names on them.)
When we regulate CO2 emissions we are not looking at production methods (i.e. the production of natural gas emits high levels of CO2) nor (from what I can tell) do we regulate methane or ozone.
The end result is that Halliburton, which controls much of the industry, is to receive yet another boom as we witness the blossoming of a world-wide natural gas industry with the infrastructure needed for autos, the pipelines needed for transport, etc.
And the carbon sequestration and storage, which seems a "dangerous distraction," to use t he words of a recent report by Greenpeace.http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/new-greenpeace-report-exposes
Kerry, like T.Boon Pickens, uses the "national security" meme, though Halliburton is based in Dubai, and Norwegian and Russian companies are invested in and are beginning to invest more in America natural gas.
Mr. Reich, I live in NY over the Marcellus shale. I've been blogging about this, and many others work tirelessly on the issue - but even when the NG industry is set to drill in the NYC watershed, democrats continue to support it, and the press (including the progressive press) continues to ignore it.
October 14, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The EPA has been doing excellent work. For people who have to live with the reality of toxins, the new Obama EPA is making a difference. They've already started to investigate significant acquifer contamination. Regarding natural gas, their website is a useful source, much moreso than the NYState website:
http://www.epa.gov/air/community/details/oil-gas_addl_info.html
I don't mean to be a "one-issue person" but my fear, Mr. Reich, is that democrats have been working under the assumption that any bill is a good bill and that any alternative to standard coal production (even so called "clean coal" is a good alternative. Unfortunately, when it comes to climate change, we can unwittingly make things worse, and I believe the democrats are doing so.
We need to be extremely careful when drafting and supporting legislation. I recall, for example, Clinton's initiative against IRS abuse back in the 1990's. Weeks of hearings resulted in the IRS cutting back audits on the wealthy and increasing audits of of the poor and middle class. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/16/business/irs-more-likely-to-audit-the-poor-and-not-the-rich.html?scp=1&sq=clinton+IRS+audit+rules&st=nyt
I am afraid that well-meaning democrats (included Boxer, whom I admire) stand to do a great of harm now.
October 14, 2009 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know that I'm late to the party, but I think that the general tone has already changed towards climate. Many cities have done a lot of work and there are initiatives that states and even the
Feds that encourage green building and retrofitting. This tone has produced results. Yes, a strong bill will do more, but we can't say that nothing has happened.
Heck, in the last month, energy companies have even opted out of the Chamber of Commerce--solely because of the unreasonable stance the Chamber has towards climate change policy.
October 14, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matra, I think you are right. However, we are at a critical juncture. A climate bill that favors industry that will produce more fossil fuels -- particularly when little to no regulation is placed on such industry -- is more than counterproductive. It's stupid, and indicative of a democratic party that has been slavish and weak for so long that it doesn't know from decent climate change legislation, and doesn't believe it can actually push for it -- even with its 60 votes.
(I still can't believe that Kerry and Boxer are calling the bills they're introducing positive steps in the right direction. But then, neither of them live in states that have to suffer through coal mining or gas drilling.)
Unfortunately, just when we think we have made progress, we may have, in fact, lost ground. The devil is in the details.
October 14, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Until our emissions are going down by design--not because of economic suppression--we are losing ground. Every minute equates to more CO2 in the atmosphere and its consequences.
I agree and don't think that the Kerry-Boxer bill or the Waxman-Markey bills do enough. I guess no one thinks that they do enough.
But people are noticing and many grassroot efforts are already underway to help the situation. I think that these started in response to the 'nothing' that we did in the last 8 years. But it equates to momentum and now things are happening.
If we passed a weak bill now, it's guaranteed, imo, that it will be supplanted in the future by a stronger one. What I don't know is if passing a weak bill would delay a stronger bill from happening. Time is important here. But at least the attitudes are changing.
October 14, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
My concern is not that this is a weak bill. We could survive a weak bill. My concern is that these bills are extremely strong in their support of a new, unregulated, fossil fuel industry: natural gas, and that it also supports carbon sequestration and "clean coal."
These bills will do damage. T.Boon Pickens wants to create an infrastructure for natural gas automobiles. Once this happens, we will have an "industry" and once we have an "industry" this transitional fuel -- one associated with heavy pollution when it is extracted from shale -- will become permanent, and resources will not go to true green industry.
Do no harm should be our guiding force. It is better to do nothing and blame the Republicans than to do wrong and take credit for it.
October 14, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a saying "Well, It's better to be alive and in the wrong than to be dead right!" Not doing anything and then blaming the Republicans isn't an option here. Every moment, we are getting closer to the so-called climate tipping point towards and ice-free world.
I know that you hate, for good reason, drilling and are hesitant to trust "clean coal". But keep in mind that methane has 4 hydrogens for every carbon--a heck of a lot better than gasoline's roughly 2:1 ratio. Methane fuel is better than gas, carbon-wise. Almost twice as good. Plus we have a lot of natural gas here in the U.S.
So, can we just build gasoline engines that get better mileage and then go full-on into fuel cells and hydrogen and solar? (Many cars out now or being developed now do better than twice as good as normal petroleum-using cars.) Or do we do go into natural gas engines, like many city buses?
I think that we can definitely do better with our gasoline mileage, and that may be enough until we transition to something better. But that means that we are then continuing to buy gasoline on the world market, from the usual petro-dictatorships (Saudi Arabia, Libya, Kuwait--even Russia and Venezuela are tending that way). Countries that rely almost solely on expensive natural resources like oil to run their economies rarely stay democratic, it seems to me (and I think T. Friedman--isn't he the one that says 'petrodictatorships'?).
Do we continue to do so until we're done transitioning or switch to natural gas now as we transition over? If we did the natural gas transition, how would we end it? Is there a way to get it efficiently and not pollute aquifers--like you mention in your blog?. Can we really make hydrogen and fuel cells and solar work on a huge scale and be better for the environment than what we have?
I don't have the answers.
October 14, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Kerry bills do not regulate, they will do great harm. Today's NYT's is a must-read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/business/energy-environment/15degrees.html?_r=1&hp
October 14, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
a good read
October 14, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matyra, you leave me with a lot of important and good questions to answer -- and I will. I can tell you that regulation can mitigate damage. The best place to look is OGAP http://www.earthworksaction.org/oil_and_gas.cfm
These are feet-on-the-ground, down-to-earth folk who advise state governments.
I'll leave you with a couple of thoughts:
Methane is twenty-five more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. If we have an industry that is runnning on methane, will any mitigation work? Again: the democrats are working to create an industry, not a "transitional" fuel -- unwittingly, perhaps, but the folks with the money want an industry.
I have to investigate the industry further.
However, I am rather dubious when people assert that we cannot work without fossil fuels. Why else would Texaco and Chevron buy out the controling interests in General Motors ovonic high-efficiency nichol-medal hydride (NiMH) battery technology? If anyone wants to do anything with this simple technology, they have to get licencing from Chevron, and it won't give licencing for any battery above a certain size, i.e. that necessary for automobiles.
Economically, we would be better off putting all our money into high-tech green production. As a resource-exporting country, we will gain little to nothing in security. Think of Africa or South America, which have plenty of resources.
The point is: We will do horrible damage if we subsidize a nacent industry that will not die -- one that will essentially replace oil with natural gas. We can save just as much through simple efficiency measures as a transition -- and then move to a truly green economy.
Ideas abound, too. I found this exciting: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/shai_agassi_on_electric_cars.html
But no matter how pie-in-the-sky the ideas may seem to you, remember: transition can be accomplished through simple enforced efficiency.
The only reason we are subsidizing natural gas production is because that industry is powerful and wants to be subsidized. We fool ourselves if we think we are doing it for the environmental good.
Democrats believe that this industry is the lesser of two evils -- but it is not, it is simply a new and different evil.
If I seem concerned about this particular form of energy production it is because I have reason to be, and so does anyone who is at all concerned about climate change.
We are witnessing the birth of a methane-based economy.
Methane is 25 times more effective at trapping heat.
Anyone who is not alarmed should be.
October 14, 2009 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess one of the problems with methane is leaks, and there would be leaks. When we burn methane in an engine it just converts to CO2 which is of course a problem (it does deliver more energy per CO2 molecule released than gasoline). But how could one deliver methane to so many people without leaking it everywhere and making warming worse, as you point out? And as that NYT article shows at individual natural gas wells...
By the way, I didn't know at all about GM buying up that battery tech.
Thanks for your thought-provoking posts. Please don't stop your fight getting this information out there. I know that you are frustrated that TPM doesn't take your well-injection story, but maybe you are doing a good enough job for them. Sometimes I feel that we add more content, occasionally, than paid reporters. BTW, did you see the Union of Concerned Scientists take on hydraulic fracing?
October 15, 2009 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
LBS, the alarm you sound here is every bit as critical as you indicate. The move toward establishing a fully integrated natural gas industry would be catastrophic to our interests for all the reasons you cite.
We are running out of time to deal with our emissions inasmuch as they effect climate change. It is sheer lunacy to now consider the establishment of an entire industry that exacerbates the problem. The fact that it is promoted as an opportunity to maintain the status quo through a replacement of oil with a supposedly "less evil" natural gas should be alarming enough for all to know that this is environmental suicide.
I have a considerable background in research/promotion of renewable energy - particularly as regards oil and its replacement biofuels. You will find in an old post of mine that I would argue for an artificially high floor price for gasoline long before I would suggest we need to increase supply of cheap fossil fuels.
This recent "love" for natural gas is no mere coincidence. There was a great deal of pr effort put into the launch of this "new, friendly, small business industry" to give it every chance to burst forth now as a Green solution to our energy needs. Even NPR was duped into committing a multi-day series on the "wonders of natural gas" during its All Things Considered broadcast. (I was astounded to hear this tripe published unchallenged, and wrote a letter registering my objections.) Shale frac-drilling was discussed as simply a great new advance in technology that allowed for this increase in the great riches of natural gas to be produced. And the full development of the natural gas industry was set forth as a wholesome exercise in economic development that would be realized mainly within mom and pop operations. Yoiu can expect to hear a great deal about this "small business and jobs" meme from the GOP as they will push hard for this industry as one of their "keys to addressing Climate Change." (You heard it here first.)
Anyway, you have carved out a very important niche here in focusing upon this aspect of our Climate Change and Energy policies. It is greatly under-reported and not well understood. Inasmuch as I can, I will help support you in getting the word out if only because the failure to get things done right the first time is not an option when the actual sustainability of our physical environment is at stake.
October 15, 2009 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
SleepinJeezus: Thanks. I have a lot to digest in what you have written. I'll keep at it -- I hope you do too!
October 15, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink