Tag Archives: climate

Election 2012, Environment

Fran Pavley: In SD27, a clear choice for jobs and the future

by RLMiller

One of the benefits of newly redrawn maps for me is the ability to vote for Fran Pavley, running for state Senate District 27. Recently, former speaker of the Assembly Bob Hertzberg has expressed interest in the race. His stated rationale: he’s a moderate, the district is moderate, he’s a Valley guy.

He might be looking at a different SD27.  

The one I’m living in covers some of the West Valley, but also includes east Ventura County, Malibu, and parts of Santa Clarita. Pavley was a mayor and councilmember of Agoura Hills, the geographic heart of the new district. Democrats at an East Ventura County women’s club who heard Pavley speak a couple of weeks ago are quite sure they don’t want to be represented by a Sherman Oaks resident – they moved to Ventura County to get away from the San Fernando Valley.

More important than carpetbagging issues is Hertzberg’s record. Hertzberg is a moderate, pro-business Democrat. Currently, he co-chairs California Forward, a Third Way/raging centrist group thinking that it has a monopoly on common sense. His wife sits on the board of Kaiser Permanente, so presumably he’s less than thrilled with healthcare reform. In 2005, he ran – and lost – for mayor of Los Angeles by espousing traditional GOP themes.

By contrast, Pavley is a champion of progressive values. In 2011, her bills signed by Governor Jerry Brown include laws banning toxic cadmium from jewelry and toxic BPA from children’s sippy cups, promoting energy conservation, and strengthening domestic violence laws. Despite Hertzberg’s being a Valley guy, it’s Pavley – not Hertzberg – who has received the unanimous endorsement of the Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley, an umbrella organization of 27 Democratic clubs.

Perhaps Pavley’s greatest contribution to the California economy is AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, bringing clean energy jobs to California. The law bothers oil companies so much that they mounted an entirely unsuccessful attack on it in 2010, Proposition 23. Thanks in part to her leadership, California is on target to meet its renewable energy standards early. One in four American solar jobs is in California. As a climate hawk, she’ll keep California on track to lead the fight against global warming.

Pavley was endorsed overwhelmingly, 105-1, by party insiders at pre-endorsement caucuses this weekend. She deserves to be the party’s nominee, and to win in November.

Election 2010

Small Business Support for Clean Energy A Key to 2010 Elections?

Yesterday’s Democratic Senate caucus meeting – combined with Majority Leader Reid’s push on this issue, combined with President Obama’s leadership, combined with a clear demand by the public for action – has given comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation a major boost as we head towards the 4th of July recess. Clearly, at this point, there’s a better path to 60 votes in the U.S. Senate for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation than ever before. We are that close to making history, let’s make sure we seize this moment!

With all that in mind, a recent national survey by Al Quinlan of Greenburg Quinlan Rosner Research has potentially powerful implications for the 2010 elections, providing yet more evidence that climate legislation – despite a fallacious “mainstream media” narrative arguing otherwise – is actually good politics. The key findings are threefold (note: the document talks about strategy for the Democratic Party, but could apply to Republicans as well):

  1. Small businesses “are among America’s most popular entities,” with an eye-popping 44:1 favorable to unfavorable ratio (“the highest we have ever seen in our polling on any topic”)
  2. Generating support from small business owners, for either political party, is a key to success in the upcoming mid-term elections.
  3. Small business owners strongly agree “that a move to clean energy will help restart the economy and lead to job creation by small businesses.” In fact, according to Greenburg Quinlan, “One of the most surprising findings of the survey is that despite the fact that nearly two thirds of business owners believe it would increase costs for their businesses, a majority still want to move forward on clean energy and climate policy.”

As if that’s not evidence enough that there’s broad support out there for comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation, how about this Benenson Survey Group survey, conducted in late May/early June 2010? The key findings of this poll are:

  • 65% of “likely 2010 voters” believe that “the federal government should invest much more than it currently invests [or] somewhat more than it currently invests .”
  • 63% of “likely 2010 voters” support an energy bill that would “limit pollution, invest in domestic energy sources and encourage companies to use and develop clean energy…in part by charging energy companies for carbon pollution in electricity or fuels like gas.”
  • Among “undecided voters,” “62% support the bill and just 21% oppose.”

There is also strong evidence from this polling that voters – including independent voters by a 2.5:1 margin – are strongly inclined, by around a 2:1 margin, to be “more likely to re-elect” their Senator if he or she voted for a strong, comprehensive, clean energy and climate bill.

In sum, solid majorities of small businesspeople and the public at large both support comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation. Which is why, once again – as we pointed out yesterday – the “mainstream media” narrative, that voting for limits on carbon pollution is bad politics, is just dead wrong. To the contrary, victory this November could go to the candidates – and the party – that seizes this issue and makes it their own. Ideally, it would be great to see both Republicans and Democrats fighting to be the “greenest” candidate, and not just in terms of how much money they raise.

UPDATE: Add another poll to the list, this one by WSJ-NBC indicating that “Respondents favored comprehensive energy and carbon pollution reduction legislation by 63 percent to 31 percent – a two to one margin.”

 

California, Environment

TX Oil Companies Try to Kill CA Clean Energy Legislation

As if the oil companies from Texas – and their allies in the corridors of power – hadn’t done enough harm to our country already (for more, see the late, great Gulf of Mexico), now they are at it once again.  This time, it’s Valero and Tesoro, pouring money into a campaign this election season to undo California’s landmark, clean energy and climate law, AB 32.  On Tuesday, the oil companies’ proposition was certified for the November ballot. The fight, as they say, is on!

Why should you care?  Let us count the ways.

First  and foremost, whether you’re a Californian or not, this campaign should concern you because if the oil companies succeed here, they will try this everywhere – in other states and at the federal level. Mark our words, that’s exactly what they’re up to here.

Second, let’s be absolutely clear about what this proposition says.  As the Stop Dirty Energy website explains, “The Texas oil companies want you to believe it’s simply a “temporary” suspension. However, their deceptive proposition would repeal AB 32 until unemployment reached 5.5% for a full year – a market condition that has only occurred three times in the last 30 years.”  Which means that this proposition is nothing less than “an effective repeal of [California’s] clean energy and clean air laws.”  In sum, they want to kill this landmark law. Period. Don’t let their propaganda fool you into believing anything else.

Third, let’s also be clear who these people are and how utterly deceptive they’re willing to be.  According to the Stop Dirty Energy Facebook page, oil companies including Valero and Tesoro recently “released yet another study bought, sold, and paid for by polluters on the impacts of AB 32.”  The study, for the California Manufacturers and Technology Association (CMTA) by the California Lutheran University's right-wing economics chief,” is nothing more than “junk economics paid for by polluters that defies the reality that clean tech is the fastest-growing segment of the California economy.”  It gets even worse, with the author of a previous, fallacious study by CMTA attacking AB 32 affiliated with the global-warming-denying Heartland Institute, which receives heavy funding from our friends at Exxon Mobil.  This institute also enjoys holding conferences to downplay and deny climate science.  That’s who we’re dealing with here. That’s who we’re fighting.

Fourth, it’s important to emphasize what’s at stake here. Other than minor matters (ha) like the environment, public health and national security, this is about J-O-B-S.  Specifically, the only sector of job growth in California has been in the clean energy technology development sector.  For more, watch this video and hear how AB 32=Jobs (and, on the flip side, how killing AB 32 will kill those jobs).

Fifth, this proposition will not just hurt California jobs, it will also hurt Californians’ health and ability to breathe clean air.  As the Stop Dirty Energy website points out, this proposition “would create more air pollution in California and threaten public health.” Currently, “California’s air pollution crisis contributes to 19,000 premature deaths, 9,400 hospitalizations, and more than 300,000 respiratory illnesses for California families.”  Just imagine how much worse it will be if the Texas oil companies get their way and gut California’s clean air laws!

Finally, as NRDC wrote in a blog post entitled, “California Crossroads, “The oil companies have chosen California as their battleground to crush the progress the State’s made in moving away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy.”   NRDC reported from a media event (see photo above) at “Pier 7 on the city’s embarcadero, overlooking the bay that is the largest and most biologically productive estuary on the West Coast” (and also where “the tanker Cosco Buscan ran aground in 2007, spilling more than 53,000 gallons of heavy bunker oil, killing wildlife and providing a harbinger of the great environmental tragedy now unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico”).  As the NRDC blog post puts it, “We can’t let Texas oil destroy California’s future simply for the purpose of stuffing more cash into their already bulging coffers.”

That’s why we need everyone – not just Californians, but every American who cares about clean energy and our planet’s environment – to join our efforts at stopping this heinous, Texas oil company-funded Dirty Energy Proposition.   Please click here for more information and to join the campaign. Sign up for Stop Dirty Energy Twitter feed, Facebook page, and YouTube channel.  Also, check out the NRDC Action Fund Facebook page, as we will be heavily involved in this campaign.  

Why does a national organization like NRDC care about a “California issue?”  Other than the fact that California is an enormous – and enormously important –state, we care because, clearly, the Texas oil companies are attempting to set a national precedent in California against clean energy and climate action, and we can’t let them do that.  

We are convinced that stopping them here, exposing their lies, and deterring others from trying this in the future, is crucial to tackling our largest environmental challenges moving forward.  It’s also crucial, we might add, to fight against these well-funded, powerful, corporate polluters attempting to buy our politicians and our Democracy.  

Thank you for your help.

NRDC Action Fund

Uncategorized

MSM Narrative on Energy/Climate Politics Completely Wrong

As is often the case, the “mainstream” media nowadays is pushing a “conventional wisdom” line that has only one major problem – it’s largely or completely wrong. In this case, the “wisdom” is that voting for limits on carbon pollution is bad politics.  The polling indicates it’s far more complicated than that.  

For instance, the latest CBS/NY Times poll indicates that nearly 90% of Americans believe U.S. energy policy needs either “fundamental changes’ or “to be completely rebuilt,” while 97% of Americans are “angry” or “bothered” by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.  Those percentages hardly appear to indicate a status quo, “conventional wisdom” electorate on this issue, or an automatic political downside to making fundamental changes in U.S. energy policy.

Perhaps that is why, when you actually look at the 17 Democrats up for reelection this year (Bayh, Bennet, Boxer, Burris, Dodd, Dorgan, Feingold, Gillibrand, Inouye, Leahy, Lincoln, Mikulski, Murray, Reid, Schumer, Specter, Wyden) and subtract out those retiring (Bayh, Burris, Dodd, Dorgan) or defeated in a primary (Specter), you find that the vast majority – all except for Blanche Lincoln – are in favor of climate and energy legislation.  Let’s take a look.

Michael Bennet- What could be clearer than this recent quote, “The best way to limit carbon pollution is for Congress to pass a comprehensive climate and energy bill.”
Barbara Boxer- A climate champion by any measure
Russ Feingold- Issued a statement declaring, “Climate change is real and we need to address it.  By blocking action on climate change, the Murkowski resolution would have stalled our march toward energy independence through more efficient vehicles, alternative fuels and renewable energy, all of which can spur new American jobs.”
Kirsten Gillibrand –  Listed as a definite “yes” on a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill by E&E News
Daniel Inouye- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews
Patrick Leahy- He recently stated, “Let us not be known as the Congress that continued to punt, pass and kick on some of the crucial issues like these, on which the American people are looking for solutions, not procrastination.”
Barbara Mikulski – Listed as a definite yes on a comprehensive, clean energy and climate bill by E&ENews
Patty Murray- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews
Harry Reid – Has called for “bring[ing] comprehensive clean energy legislation before the full Senate later this summer.”
Chuck Schumer- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews
Ron Wyden- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews

And let’s not forget these two letters – one on March 19 to Harry Reid and the other on January 26 to President Obama – showing 33 Senators (not even counting John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, who didn’t sign either letter but obviously are champions on this issue, plus most likely others as) clearly calling for climate legislation.

So, why is it that we keep seeing the perception in the “mainstream media” that a vote for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation is bad politics?  Perhaps because of the unfortunate tendency of the “mainstream media” to keep recycling quotes from a few loud Senators — like Byron Dorgan and Evan Bayh — who just happen to be exiting the scene altogether for potentially “greener” (and not in the environmental sense!) pastures.   For the “mainstream media,” recycling their preferred narrative may make a good story (or the story they want to tell, for whatever reason).  In politics, however, perception is nine tenths of reality, and in this case the reality is that there is far too much at stake for this country to rely on “conventional” wisdom, especially when the facts – those troublesome things – tell a very different story.

In this context, this past Friday, Greg Sargent of The Plum Line asked an important question regarding clean energy and climate legislation in the U.S. Senate:  “Can A bold new crop of Senators save carbon limits?”  Sargent’s intriguing thesis was that[,] “[i]f carbon limits have any prayer of surviving in the Senate's energy reform bill, it may turn on the efforts of one group: The energetic freshman and sophomore Senators that are pushing hard to keep carbon limits alive.”  Sargent pointed to an interview with one of those freshmen, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, in which he argued that “There's a lot of new energy in those two classes, and they recognize that this is the moment.”

In short, what Merkley’s saying is that it’s time for Democrats to stop listening so much to the “old guard” of Senators who are retiring.  Instead, Merkley makes the case for paying more attention to the Senate freshman (and sophomores), who by definition were elected relatively recently and, therefore – at least theoretically – might have their fingers closer to the pulse of the public than the old timers. In part, the question is whether there could be a “generational” difference going on here.  Not “generational” in the chronological sense, in which “younger” Senators are more pro-environment than “older” Senators.  But, perhaps, “generational” in the sense of “political age,” as in “how long have they been in Washington, DC?”  

Given the analysis above, we might want to add “members in cycle” to Merkley’s admonition about listening more to freshmen then to old timers.  Because the fact is, the majority of Democrats actually facing the polls this November are in favor of taking action on energy independence, clean energy, and holding corporate polluters accountable.   Perhaps this is because they are listening to what the public is clearly demanding, which is fundamental change in U.S. energy policy?  And perhaps they are not listening to a “conventional media” narrative which is completely wrong?  Regardless of the reason, it appears at the moment – and certainly on this issue – that Democrats would be better served by listening more to the folks facing public opinion, as well as those elected more recently, and less to the ones preparing to depart for “greener” pastures.

Uncategorized

Why Young People Must Call Congress About Climate – Repeatedly

I grew up in the rural parts of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, two relatively conservative areas.  Most of my friends and family are tried-and-true Republicans so it was assumed that I would follow suit.  When I started working for a Democratic Congressman in college, one very prominent male figure in my family explained the oddity with a shrug (channeling Churchill) saying “If you are a Republican when you are in college, you have no heart. But if you are a Democrat when you are older, you have no mind.”

This weekend, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said that kind of thinking could get the G.O.P. in trouble with young people. Indeed, he said one of the central reasons he is reaching across the aisle on clean energy and climate legislation is that he thinks the G.O.P. needs to do a better job of connecting with young voters.

“I have been to enough college campuses to know if you are 30 or younger this climate issue is not a debate. It’s a value,” Graham said. “From a Republican point of view, we should buy into it and embrace it and not belittle them.”

Graham is right on the money: Young people know their future is at stake and this is NOT a partisan issue. On the contrary, if America continues to ignore global warming, this generation will pay the price in the form of a disrupted climate, drought, and increased national security threats not to mention all the refugees who will need help. But if we confront this crisis, young people and old will reap the benefits of more clean energy jobs and robust economic growth.  

Anyone who wants to see on-the-ground changes has to translate their climate values into climate action.

Politicians talk about values, but they respond to voters’ actions. Young voters, these are two ways you can take action. Here are three things to keep in mind about the way politics works:

1. Young Voters Need to Stay in the Game to Be Taken Seriously

There is often a sense among lawmakers that youthful causes don’t need to be taken seriously because youth voters don’t tend to vote with a lot of regularity. Many don’t think that a dedication to climate change issues translates into electoral activity.  

If you don’t want to get the brush-off from lawmakers, you need to make it clear that our pleas for clean energy and self-reliance are not a passing fad; it is what will shape your voting patterns for years to come. You have to call Senators to say that you support a clean energy and climate bill. You need to turn out for primary elections to show that climate change is a mobilizing issue. And come November in order to prove that you cannot be dismissed by leaders who ignore climate change and your generation’s future – you must vote for the candidates who support clean energy and climate legislation

2. Contacting Your Senator’s Office Really Does Work

I have done everything on Capitol Hill from opening mail to working on legislation, and I am here to tell you that yes, intense, coordinated outbursts of citizen action really do make a difference.

People who work on the Hill have to juggle a bazillion issues at once. It isn’t easy keeping up-to-date on every single topic, but when voters flood an office with their opinions, Members and their staff stand up and take notice. When I was on the hill it meant I had to do the research and really engage with an issue in order to respond.

3. Repetition is Key

Maybe you have already emailed your Senator in support of a clean energy and climate bill, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it again. Indeed, if you want your action to count, you have to amplify it – repeat it.

So much of politics is about repetition: lawmakers are dealing with so many high-priority issues at once. You have to keep the repetition going in order to break through the noise. I think of it as the slow clap in a stadium. It starts with one person, but slowly the loud, rhythmic pattern catches on and more people join in. After a while, the sound is impossible to ignore.

Now, you know why you should take action. Here are two ways that the NRDC Action Fund is helping you to make your voices heard on clean energy and climate solutions:

The NRDC Action Fund has partnered with Headcount to launch a new website targeting young music lovers. The Musicforaction.org site makes it easy for people to email President Obama, Members of Congress, and local newspaper editors in support of clean energy and climate legislation.  Visitors receive free “Best of Bonnaroo” downloads for visiting the site.

NRDC is also joining in a 72-hour call-in campaign with our partners over at Clean Energy Works, in which we are urging all people–but especially young people–to call their Senators’ offices in support of the bill. All they have to do is call 1-877-973-7693 to make their voices heard.  So, call now!

Maybe our voices won’t break through to a particular today because he or she is too caught up with health care or financial regulation or some other issue, but if we keep calling back and emailing over and over again, they will start to hear the chorus for climate action. Now is the moment to add your voice to the mix – be young and take action.  

Uncategorized

Brown’s Win and the Climate Vote

1 Comment

As we all drink our morning coffee and digest what this latest change-up means for the Senate, let me be the first to say – I continue to be hopeful that the Senate will take action on climate change.

The signs of momentum for a clean energy and climate bill outweigh any signs that come from the Massachusetts special election.

Take, for example, that this week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reiterated that he wants to pass the bill this spring, and that the bill has the tri-partisan support of Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman.

In a little more than 6 weeks, 1221 businesses have called for strong action on climate via American Businesses for Clean Energy.  

Not to mention the fact that President Obama spent 15 hours at the negotiating table in Copenhagen drafting an international climate accord with his own pen because he believes so deeply in the need to confront climate change.  Top it off with the fact that Americans are frustrated with the continuing high jobless rate. The clean energy and climate bill, meanwhile, will create nearly 2 million additional jobs.

That’s the national picture. Now let’s look at what Brown himself might do on climate. In fact, like his constituents, Brown has said he believes we need to address climate change.  

While it’s true that Martha Coakley was a more reliable vote in favor of a bill and it’s true that Brown has ties to the conservative tea party movement, I am not counting Brown out.

Most of Brown’s tea party supporters are out-of-staters, eager to push their agenda in whatever campaign they can. But now that the election is over, those folks will return home, and Brown will be left with the people who elected him — Massachusetts citizens who have said in poll after poll that they want clean energy and climate legislation to pass.

Brown has a choice to make. He can choose to serve the interests of those tea baggers who live elsewhere or he can choose to represent the people of Massachusetts. I hope he decides to follow the example of fellow Northeastern Senators Snowe and Collins, leaders who walk the tightrope between the conservative Republican leadership and their environmentally-minded constituents.

He opposes, however, most of the mechanisms currently on the table for accomplishing that goal. This seems to be the new GOP equivalent of having your cake and eating it too. (Senator Murkowski is especially good at playing both sides of this game).  But it’s significant that these Republicans want to position themselves as proponents of fighting climate change – it means they and all their well-heeled advisors have concluded that time is on our side.  They don’t think they can just deny that the problem exists or claim that nothing needs to be done about it.  We have to capitalize on their sense that the future lies with a greener economy, even if they seem to be doing their best to stave off that future for the time being.

I hope Brown doesn’t use his fence-sitting to justify further delay. For if there was one thing the Massachusetts election showed is that voters want change, and they want it now.

People have grown impatient with their leaders. They don’t give them much time to realize their campaign promises anymore. President Obama took office just one year ago, but people have already moved on to the next person screaming for change. Brown knows this: he adopted Obama’s rhetoric from 2008 and ran as the change candidate.

It’s true that democracy can be painfully slow. The average bill takes Congress several sessions to pass and the major bills can take decades.

But several issues are ripe for action. They have had more than enough time to mature, and voters are begging for resolution. Americans want lawmakers to ensure the fat cats on Wall Street become better neighbors, to bring health care to those less fortunate, and to create jobs and economic opportunity by tapping into the global clean energy marketplace.

This is the kind of change voters want to see, and Brown has a chance to be part of the action. If, on his first day in office, he decides not to repeat the Mantra of No but instead to actually get some work done, he could be a game-changer on climate.

Our door is open, Senator-elect Brown, if that is the path you choose. Help us draft a bill that will protect the environment and get the economy back on track.  

Environment

Climate-gate Nonsense Comes to California

1 Comment

There’s been a lot of attention given to the “Climate-gate” odyssey that began when a British university server was hacked and emails stolen from a climate research unit. As bloggers continue to unearth the truth about this, the right-wing has not stopped using the stolen emails to bolster their stunning claim that somehow, the mountain of evidence for global climate change is somehow the product of lies. It’s typical wingnuttery: when you encounter a truth that undermines your arguments, claim it’s not a truth at all.

Unfortunately, this nonsense has arrived in California. As the Fresno Bee reports, some members of the California Air Resources Board want to suspend controversial truck emissions rules because one of the authors of the report lied about his academic credentials:

California Air Resources Board member Dr. John Telles of Fresno voted for the landmark regulations a year ago. But months later he found out that the lead author of a report on health effects of soot falsely claimed to have a doctorate in statistics from University of California at Davis. Hien Tran later confessed that he obtained an online degree from Thornhill University, state documents say.

“Failure to reveal this information to the board prior to the vote not only casts a doubt upon the legitimacy of the truck rule but also upon the legitimacy of [the California Air Resources Board] itself,” Telles wrote in a Nov. 16 letter to Ellen Peter, the board’s chief counsel.

In an e-mail to Telles, board chairwoman Mary Nichols said she was aware before the vote that Tran had misrepresented his credentials. She downplayed his role — noting his work was reviewed by others — but said “it was a mistake not to have informed you and the rest of the board about this issue.”

Peter also responded to Telles, telling him in a letter that the board met procedural requirements and the “legitimacy of the truck rule is not undercut.”

Telles is now joined by another CARB member, Republican San Diego County Supervisor Ron Roberts. But Telles and Roberts’ claims are simply nonsensical and absurd. The fact is that it doesn’t matter what Tran’s academic credentials are, or whether he was honest about them. The only thing that matters is the science.

Since neither Telles nor Roberts have been able to point to any specific flaws in the report itself, there is absolutely no reason CARB should suspend the truck rule. Instead Telles and Roberts are engaging in the same distortions that the “Climate-gate” promoters are, which is to argue that one misstatement somewhere invalidates the entire argument for regulatory action on climate change.

We are entering truly dangerous waters when climate change deniers are engaging in such deeply misleading tactics as these. Intellectual honesty means little to them; they’ll do anything to block the implementation of AB 32 and other similar measures.

The Fresno Bee reports Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is backing CARB and the truck rule, which is one of the few welcome and rational things this governor has done. Let’s hope he and Mary Nichols continue to stare down the deniers and ensure the truck rule is implemented as planned.

Uncategorized

California Air Board Releases Draft Blueprint to Reduce Global Warming Pollution

4 Comments

CALIFORNIA TAKES ANOTHER GIANT LEAP ON GLOBAL WARMING POLICY

AIR BOARD RELEASES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CUT POLLUTION

SACRAMENTO (June 26, 2008) – The California Air Resources Board (CARB) released the nation’s most comprehensive plan to date for reducing the pollution that causes global warming.  While the plan is still a proposal, it represents the furthest step forward any state has taken in the fight against global warming, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

Patricia Monahan, the director of UCS’s California office, said CARB’s plan would add more momentum to the fight against global warming. “California is showing the rest of the country how we can build a clean energy economy,” she said. “There’s no drilling our way out of energy problems.  As energy prices skyrocket, consumers need real alternatives that sip rather than guzzle, and that are homegrown instead of imported.”

The 75+ page plan includes a range of policy recommendations.  Chief among them is increasing the state’s renewable electricity standard.  The plan also contains provisions for a regional cap-and-trade program that could work in harmony with other more specific policies to reduce pollution economywide.  The plan also says CARB will consider a vehicle “feebate” program that would provide incentives to consumers to buy cleaner cars.

In addition, the proposal includes plans to reduce emissions from heavy-duty trucks with hybrid engine technology and better fuel economy.  Like many of CARB’s proposals, the heavy-duty truck provisions would improve public health by also reducing smog-forming pollution.  The plan also advocates for a high-speed train system in California.  

Christopher Busch, a UCS climate economist, pointed out that many of the draft plan’s policies would save consumers money and yield economic benefits, while the overall cost of implementing the plan would likely be negligible. “Fundamentally, we’re talking about making our economy more efficient, which will give us energy savings,” he said. “And investing in clean, renewable energy will make our electricity and fuel supplies more diverse, and insulate us from price swings in the fossil fuel market.”

Busch added that global warming pollution reduction strategies also would provide public health benefits by cleaning up the air as well as support the state’s growing clean technology industries. “California has proven time and again that we can clean our air and grow our economy,” he said. “Now the state is going to prove the same thing with global warming.”

The renewable electricity standard in the plan would require utilities to generate 33 percent of their electricity from clean, renewable sources, such as wind and solar power, by 2020.  Such a standard would reduce global warming pollution by an amount equivalent to avoiding the construction of 10 new large fossil fuel power plants or removing nearly 3 million cars from the road. And such a standard could save residents money on their electricity bills by displacing natural gas.  Additionally, it would reduce smog-forming pollution, create new green-collar jobs in the state, and bolster California’s growing clean technology sector.

“California has a wealth of renewable electricity potential we aren’t tapping into yet,” said Dan Kalb, UCS’s California policy coordinator. “Shifting to clean, safe sources of carbon-free electricity in a smart and well-planned manner is a win for the environment, the economy and consumers.”

more…

(For more about the benefits of boosting the state’s renewable electricity standard, go to: www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_energy/33_percent_RES.pdf )

CARB also identified a feebate program as one avenue for reducing vehicle pollution. S uch a program would establish one-time rebates and surcharges on new passenger cars and light trucks based on the amount of global warming pollution they emit.  This program would deliver benefits on its own, but also would complement California’s tailpipe standards if both were implemented.  According to a University of Michigan study, implementing a clean car discount program would deliver an additional 21 percent reduction in global warming pollution beyond the tailpipe standards.

More than 1.5 million new vehicles are sold in California each year, which represents about 10 percent of the new vehicle market in the United States. A quarter of California’s global warming pollution comes from cars.

“A feebate program is a great way to make cleaner cars more affordable for everyone,” said Spencer Quong, a UCS senior vehicles engineer. “Cleaner cars simply cost less to operate, so people will save money on gas with this program, too.  On top of that, this ‘clean car discount’ program would give automakers an added incentive to produce cleaner vehicles.”

The regional cap-and-trade market approach in CARB’s plan would work best IF California can strengthen the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) efforts, according to UCS.  The WCI is a partnership among several western states and Canadian provinces to reduce global warming pollution.

“CARB’s plan on cap-and-trade is a step in the right direction and draws on some lessons learned from other cap-and-trade systems,” said Busch.  “But until the details are filled in, the jury remains out on whether or not the program will be as well designed as it could be.”  UCS is VERY pleased to see that cap and trade accounts for only 20 percent of the needed emissions reductions, while the remaining 80 percent will come from direct regulations. “The plan  appropriately recognizes that cap and trade is not a silver bullet,” Bush said.

Busch cautioned that CARB’s plan implies that the agency is considering auctioning less than half of the pollution allowances under a cap-and-trade system initially.  He pointed out that cap-and-trade systems work best when as many pollution allowances as possible are auctioned and that giving them away can create unwarrented windfall profits for polluters. (On page 19 of the plan, CARB calls for the program to “quickly transition … to a system in which the majority of allowances are auctioned.”)

CARB also recommends limiting the number of “offsets,” or substitutes polluters could use to avoid making pollution reductions on their own.  But until those offset limits are specified, Busch said, it will not be possible to determine how effective a cap-and-trade program would be at reducing pollution, fostering innovation, creating jobs, or improving public health in California.  Ideally, in-state offsets would be emphasized more than out-of-state offsets.  UCS urges CARB to prohibit the use of offsets for compliance with direct regulations such as the renewable energy standard.

 ###

Environment

Where Was the U.S. at the UN’s Major Global Warming Meeting?

(Seriously, is there anybody as cool as Hilda Solis? (Well, maybe there are a few others who are tied.) She always supports progressive goals and organizations and pursues policy for policy’s sake. Too bad we can’t say that of all of our Representatives. Thank you Representative Solis. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

This morning I spoke on the House floor to ask why President Bush didn’t allow the United States to take part in the United Nation’s major Global Warming discussion this week.  You can watch my floor statement on my YouTube page here.

EDIT by Brian: Flip for more.

During my floor remarks, I spoke about how the world came together earlier this week at the United Nations to discuss the need to take action against climate change. The United Nations Secretary General stated, “I am convinced that climate change and what we do about it will define us, our era and ultimately the global legacy we leave for future generations.”

Our global legacy cannot afford a legacy of inaction, which is the legacy of the Bush Administration.

The United States is the largest emitter of global warming pollution in the world. Our activity impacts human health and security. Without a mandatory agreement the costs of climate change will continue to be socialized. This means that while polluting industries benefit, the health of vulnerable communities in the United States and around the world will suffer. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration continues to bury its head in the sand, organizing summits to discuss “aspirational goals” and delaying real action.

The science is certain. Business as usual cannot go on. We must commit to mandatory reductions in order to protect health, environment, and security around the world. Our cities, states and Democrats in Congress are leading by example and I hope the Administration will join us. Vulnerable communities in the United States and around the world deserve nothing less.

http://globalwarming…
http://www.house.gov…