Barbara Boxer has been a real leader on Global Warming issues in the US Senate. A leader who suffered for far too long under the ‘tutelage’ of Senator James Inhofe (R-Exxon). Sadly, for whichever set of reasons, Senator Boxer has being working hard to corral votes in support of the fatally flawed Lieberman-Warner Coal Subsidy Act and reacting strongly against those who have the audacity to question the bill and her approach to it. The bill, however, is getting growing notice and the questioning of Senator Boxer’s approach to it is spreading.
In the face of such criticism, Barbara Boxer held a press conference Wednesday, 12 March, with a range of environmental organizations: Boxer and Environmental Leaders United on Urgent Need to Address Global Warming.
This press conference, reportedly, is to show a "unifed front" as to the need for serious action in the US Congress and by the United States to deal with Global Warming. This comes, of course, in the looming shadow of the Lieberman-Warner Coal Subsidy Act which fails fundamentally, across the board on basic principles for policy action on global warming:
- Lieberman-Warner fails to meet scientific requirements to avert catastrophic climate change.
- Lieberman-Warner fails to make polluters pay for the damage they wreck on the air your/my children breathe and the water they drink.
- Lieberman-Warner fails to promote social equity.
- Lieberman-Warner fails …
In addition to the fundamental failures of this bill to do what science says is required (at a minimum) and in a way to reward serial polluters at the expense of ordinary Americans, the legislative strategy is simply lousy Democratic politics. The industries that would benefit from pollution permit giveaways heavily fund the Republican Party and right-wing think tanks. And, bad politics for Nov 08: Lieberman and Warner both support McCain (strongly) and this is a bill that McCain could support. It is also a bill that falls far short of what both Hillary and Barack support.
Now, Senator Boxer has lavishly praised Senators Lieberman and Warner for their leadership. She has called sheparding this inadequate and dangerous bill out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee "a huge step forward"
Our progress on moving global warming legislation through the Environment and Public Works Committee this month and sending it on to the full Senate was a huge step forward for America, and personally, it was one of my proudest accomplishments over my 30 year career in public service.
Boxer’s disservice on the political front continued today as she said:
Senators Clinton, Obama, and McCain all support a strong Global Warming Bill.
Clinton and Obama have signed up to the far stronger Boxer-Sanders Bill while McCain can’t seem to be able to add his signature to that already too weak Coal-Subsidy Act. And, there is a clear choice come November. Statements like Boxer’s contribute to the Greenwashing of John McCain’s Dirty Energy Twisted Non-action Machine> blurring of the R-D differences on Global Warming.
When challenged to Fix It or Ditch It, Senator Boxer reacted angrily.
In the shadow of this, some of America’s "leading" environmental
organizations formed a phalanx behind Senator Boxer this morning. While they might not all view it as so, their standing behind her as she praised Lieberman-Warner certainly suggested that they stand in support of her legislative strategy on Lieberman-Warner, seeking a debate on the Senate floor on Global Warming. Seeking "test votes" for the record, fighting to strengthen an already too weak bill (highly unlikely to occur) and fighting to prevent further weakening of it (all too possible).
This is an inadequate bill. Anyone who is serious about Global Warming understands and agrees with this point. But, that is where the disagreement begins and begins seriously.
People’s mistaken beliefs on Lieberman-Warner
There are people who believe that we can’t do better than Lieberman-Warner in the face of the fossil fuel industry’s power. Yes, we should abandon hope for the future because Exxon-Mobil and Peabody Coal have powerful lobbyists.
There are those who feel so beaten down by years of Republican rule that they are exhilarated to even have this discussion going to the floor. The world has changed. Katrina opened a door, Al Gore walked through it, and our collective understanding of Global Warming has changed fundamentally.
There are those who argue that this is all academic, that George will simply veto any legislation. Well, perhaps he would or perhaps he (or Cheney) might decide that signing this industry-favorable/environmentally unfriendly legislation is safer than risking President Obama or President Clinton (with 61 Democratic Party Senators) having a say in January 2009 as to America’s Global Warming / Climate Change law.
There are those who argue that we can always improve inadequate legislation later. Once $500 billion or more in pollution permits have been given away to serial polluters, does anyone really expect that these resources can be recaptured? And, how many years will pass and how much damage wrought before the legislation would be revisted?
So, Barbara Boxer had an Environmental Phalanx of 15 organizations behind her:
Frances Beinecke, President, Natural Resources Defense Council
"The clean, efficient energy solutions needed to curb global warming constitute a huge economic opportunity for this country. The environmental community is unified on the urgent need to strengthen the Climate Security Act and pass comprehensive global warming legislation that cuts emissions by unlocking this potential," said Frances Beinecke, President of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The groups gathered today represent tens of millions of Americans committed to protecting ourselves, our children and grandchildren from the worst impacts of global warming. All the environmental groups are committed to solving the problem of global warming fairly and effectively."
So, how does moving money from the pockets of average (and poor) Americans into the bankrolls of serial pollutors contribute to "solving the problem of global warmign fairly"? Carl Pope, Executive Director, Sierra Club
"Action on global warming is urgently needed, but we also believe that any bill passed by Congress and signed into law must be a strong one," said Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club. "A bill must do what science demands; ensure that polluters pay; aid workers and affected communities with a just transition; and prioritize and aggressively pursue energy efficiency, renewables and other technologies that offer the cleanest, cheapest, and safest emissions reductions. We are working with our allies on the Hill and will continue to mount a vigorous campaign to strengthen this bill at every possible opportunity. We are also unified in our efforts to defeat any weakening changes like direct subsidies for nuclear power, a so-called ’safety valve’ provision, and any other changes that would take this bill backward."
Read between the lines, Pope outlines the failures of Lieberman-Warner and the necessity for strengthening it. Yet … yet … at the press conference, no reporter asked for an infamous "show of hands" as to who supports the Coal-Subsidy Act as it now stands. Can’t imagine that Carl would have raised his hand to that one. Others?
Gene Karpinski, President, League of Conservation Voters
"This Congress received a mandate for a new direction in no small part because the American people were frustrated by a lack of leadership on energy policy by the previous Congress," said Gene Karpinski, President of the League of Conservation Voters. "Last year it took the first step toward fulfilling that mandate by raising CAFÉ standards. Now, in the face of an economy dragged down by $100-plus per barrel crude, record oil company profits and a growing recognition of the need for immediate action on global warming, 2008 will be a year when the American people expect more. The best thing members of Congress can do this year — for the future of the planet, consumers, and the economy — is to support a strong global warming bill that achieves the emissions reductions the science shows are necessary."
But, Gene, what do you think of Lieberman-Warner, which falls seriously short of the reductions "the science shows are necessary"?
Kevin Knobloch, President, Union of Concerned Scientists
"The science is clear on the need to cut global warming pollution swiftly and dramatically," said Kevin Knobloch, President of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Now is the time for policymakers to put an economy-wide system in place to reduce emissions that will expand clean energy, produce jobs and increase community investment."
Margie Alt, Executive Director, Environment America
"Congress must act quickly to address global warming, but it is just as important that we act boldly," said Environment America Executive Director Margie Alt. "Our country’s response to global warming must be proportionate to the challenge confronting us. This bill must be strengthened to reduce pollution as quickly and deeply as the science requires and to set up the economic framework that will deter pollution, protect consumers, and adequately invest in the transition to a clean energy economy."
What is quickly, Margie? The Coal-Subsidy Act won’t start emissions cap until 2012. Why is there a desperate need for action when January will almost certainly bring more favorable political alignment for more equitable and more effective action?
Fred Krupp, {resident, Environmental Defense
"Virtually every week new evidence comes forward making clear the urgency of strong action on global warming. We need significant emissions reductions, and we need them now. Delaying only means higher costs and a greater chance we will fail to achieve the goal,"
Same question Fred …
Also scheduled for participation were representatives of Center for International Law, Clean Water Action, National Wildlife Federation, Ocean Conservancy, Pew Environment Group, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and The Wilderness Society. Now, these organizations do not have a unified stance on Lieberman-Warner. There are some that seem perfectly comfortable with Lieberman-Warner Coal-Subsidy Act as it stands now. There are others who want to see it strengthened and will oppose final passage if it is not fixed.
And, this press conference was reportedly not about Lieberman-Warner, in specific, but about the need for the nation to address Global Warming, seriously and NOW!!! For the environmental organizations to speak with Boxer about the need for more serious discussion and action than has been occurring.
But, this press conference occurred under the shadow of Lieberman-Warner and forming the phalanx behind Boxer creates the impression of support for Lieberman-Warner: no matter what any organization or individual might think.
Now, one element of interest is who seems to be absent from the press conference. Senators Lieberman and Warner? Hmmm … look to not be invited to the podium. Wonder why not.
And, how about environmental organizations that have raised the most serious questions about Lieberman-Warner: Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Earth Justice? Not on the list. What kept them from joining the phalanx? Boxer stated
There are rumors circulating that environmental groups are divided. That is not true. Environmental organizations are united. They want a necessary, strong bill. We are united and we are going to work to that goal.
Well, about that supposed non-division. Today, Senator Boxer said that Lieberman-Warner did what is necessary. The organizations forming the Phalanx might have created the sense of unity, but they don’t have united views. While some seem to support Lieberman-Warner as is, from Sierra Club’s Pope, "It is only a first step. We need to improve it." From the non-present Friends of the Earth came a more pointed comment:
Friends of the Earth Action’s opposition to the Lieberman-Warner bill is not just strategic, it is also substantive. This bill gives a trillion dollars to polluters, and it fails to meet the bar set by science and do what’s necessary to fight global warming. To many environmental organizations, leaders and activists, this is unacceptable.
According to Greenpeace
We face a climate that has been compromised. Our environment has been compromised. Our future has been compromised, and the Lieberman-Warner bill is a compromise that we cannot afford.
No, Barbara, the environmental community is not united behind you.
A Question; Action
A question that we need to ask ourselves is whether "bad legislation NOW" more sensible than better legislation a year from now?
This press conference could have turned out to be a good event, with a large contingent of environmental organizations speaking strongly, with Senator Boxer, to the need for serious climate change legislation. Legislation that meets basic principles. Sadly, Lieberman-Warner is not that serious legislation, it does not meet those basic principles. And, purposefully or not, the Environmental Phalanx could create the impression of support for the Coal-Subsidy Act.
Want to take action? If you are a member of any of these organizations, contact them with a simple message: Lieberman-Warner: Fix It or Ditch It!
To Senator Boxer (202-224-3553; web email form for CA residents), time to ask:
- Do you really mean to be undercutting the Democratic Presidential nominee by so strongly speaking in favor of a bill written by two supporters of John McCain and a bill that falls short of the targets in both Senators Obama’s and Clinton’s energy/global warming plans?
- Do you really expect our support for legislation that fails to meet basic scientific principles?
- Will you commit to "Fix It or Ditch It" rather than ‘protect it and keep it’?
Senator Boxer and every environmentalist showing up at the press conference has done real work to help protect the planet. Sadly, Lieberman-Warner doesn’t fit in that category and tomorrow’s press conference could become a podium for supporting the Coal-Subsidy Act.
GUEST POST: A Siegel, Energy Smart
Related posts:
- Breaking: House Passes Waxman-Markey Energy Legislation
- Boxer, Democrats Pass Climate Bill Through Committee Without Amendments
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Senator Byron Dorgan, Reckless!: How Debt, Deregulation and Black Money Nearly Bankrupted America
- Progressive Groups Target Companies over Their Chamber of Commerce Membership
- As Inhofe’s Climate Bill Boycott Continues, Kerry, Graham, Lieberman Try End-Around





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

When it comes to Global Warming / Climate Change legislation, it is key for us to understand basic principles. I’ve laid out a few and, based on those, Lieberman-Warner fundamentally fails.
And, to be clear, this can matter. We are talking about legislation that will have an impact on every aspect of every American’s life (both born and unborn Americans) along with billions around the world. We’ll really only have one good shot at this. We’d better get it right rather than half-assed …
Welcome Adam Siegel, and thank you for your thought-provoking analysis.
What a terrific post! Thank you.
This from Paul over at TPM on the story in the WaPost:
link
Didn’t do that right but the story title is:
EPA Overrules Scientists, Lowers Smog Standard Only Slightly
there it is and that’s the way this discussion must be framed;
“these corporations are free loaders, dumping THEIR garbage in MY KIDS AIR, taking a crap in my drinking water
and they expect US to pay THEIR bills cleaning up their garbage
these are free loader rs and they BETTER pay their own bills and STOP trying to get MY kids to pay THEIR EXPENSES”
that’s the way we can effectively approach this discussion
Thanks so much, Adam. And welcome.
I’m personally really tired of the “Bush will veto it anyway, so why bother” argument.
Perris;
EXACTLY!!!!
My way of phrasing is that polluters should pay. Just as homeowners pay for trash service, just as people/businesses pay tipping fees for dumping at the town dump, polluters should pay. And, those who dump their trash in our commons (carbon dioxide/sulphur/mercury into the air) should be expected to pay. And, that expectation will help drive them to figure out how (ASAP) to reduce their pollution addiction.
Jane — Privileged. FDL is an impressive community.
Now as to “Bush will just veto”, I’m highly concerned that the calculation will be “sign this because it will only be worse in 2009″ … I, almost literally, do not think my children can live with Lieberman-Warner as the law.
Before I get started on this topic, I think it fair to say that some would perhaps indicate I am a radical on the desire for clean air and water. My particular concern is with the oceans (I’m a scuba type). Without clean air, you will not have clean seas.
Let’s let the free market sort it out, that’s worked so well up to now. /s
Welcome, Adam! (That’s a snark tag above, please don’t take it seriously!)
Thanks for showing us your work on this. I’ve been skeptical about this bill just because of its name, and couldn’t understand Boxer’s hurry-up on it. Clearly, she wants anything passed. That’s not how I think the Senate should operate.
Welcome Adam – thanks for this great post!
Want a clean environment and a thriving ecological system? Want things to be green and free breathing? Turn to complete public financing of elections. The operative word here is, of course, ‘complete’.
Ditch it. It will kill your children as sure as anything you could do. Why would you consider permanently breaking with the reality based community? COAL, kill it all, now. gimme money for the short term.
still no energy independence bills or the resumption of renewable resource implementation and research. they are wasting our time, again. wasting our planet again, and again, and again.
This is a pro environment senator? that would equate to no such thing.
Bush vetoed his own father, (Ronald Reagan is my hero).
Sadly the EU, China and India will leave us “in the dust” as they continue to strengthen their environmental standards on corporations and we do not. Our failure to bring our standards in line with REACH in the EU (now the global environmental standard as well as partnered with compliance through UN standards – Bali accord).
The good news…Our multinational corporations are working their “tails off” to try and comply with REACH and the compliance has a trickle-down the US will benefit from as well. Additionally, investors are driving the market and demanding corporations comply and show their compliance data. Consumers will drive “clean-up”…guess our legislation will be left behind…
REACH is here:
http://www.reach-compliance.eu/
So eventually, as the world turns and the US slumbers, polluters will pay… And so will we by being left behind from the biobased world…
“Clean Coal” is an oxymoron. Coal is carbon. The only way to get energy from carbon is by oxidizing it (e.g., buring it) to CO2, which is greenhouse gas. And the investment community has figured this out for itself: http://firedoglake.com/2008/03…..nly-wanes/
“Lavishly praised Senators Liebermann and Warner”. Boxer, you are out of touch with what should be your base.
This is an interesting point that too many are ignoring. The Tech Green Revolution and the Energy Efficiency Revolution and … are foundation pillars for strong economies (as well as sustainability) for the 21st Century. Rather than being leading edge in setting standards and paths forward, the United States will be playing catch-up with Europe and others. Being able to set standards creates opportunities for favoring one’s own businesses.
Lieberman is disgusting on many fronts.
There is no such thing as “clean coal” but “less dirty coal”, less lethal coal, and/or less deadly coal.
I’m a photo-voltaic kinda of guy.
Thanks, Adam, and welcome. Imagine what George Carlin could do with the terms “clean” and “coal.”
Just received notice that the press conference is available for listening over the web:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/i…..n=Majority
Yes, there are ‘just a few’ organizations that are not in agreement with the legislative strategy …
Perhaps we should start focusing on two things. Ridding ourselves of Boxer, and de-salinization.
What was that thing I read the other day? Either we do something about CO2 within the next forty years, or we’re toast. At the rate we are going I don’t think it’s going to take forty years.
I think you and I are related
Thanks Adam and welcome to the Lake.
Yep. And I just finished a huge report for a multinational corp on this because they are under extreme pressure to “catch up” and report how they are meeting international compliance.
Our legislators are simply lost and our economy will be in the dark ages. This is the “new moon race”… we will not make it to the moon this time unless…
Babs Boxer: time to go.
Adam, many of the grass roots enviros I know are deeply sceptical of the agenda of the “Big Green” groups (includiing WWF, TWS, Pew, and groups dependent of Pew/Rockefeller funding) because they see the Big Green groups as having been co-opted by funders who fail to question corporate power and corporate influence in our government. {FWIW, I’m largely in agreement with this perspective.]
If this question is outside of the topic, I hope you’ll feel free to ignore it. But – if relevant – could you discuss how and whether any of the most Beltway-friendly Big Green groups have failed to explicitly oppose the coal subsidy act and the freebie permits it awards?
Once again, thanks for this great post!
I use that logic for all of the commons
they externalize their costs when they don’t want to pay for the roads they use, the health care of their workforce, and the education of their laborers
these are their expenses, they must provide for the health of their workforce just as they pay to maintain their equiptment, they are getting the benefit of public educated staff, public roads, public water and electricity works
what most of these “libertarians” refuse to acknowledge is most regulations were put into place to address issues corporations were already causing, they would refuse to address the issue themselves, would refuse to pay to clean up their own mess so the regulation was put into place
there is no such thing as a free market, no such thing as free trade, neither can exist without regulation
Ask yourself how much air and water pollution are added by the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Aloha, Adam! Does the Lieberman-Warner bill mention or subsidize the ‘clean’ coal plant that was planned for in Illinois?
The sad point to all of this…As companies learn to reduce their supply chain and develop new technologies to push international compliance, the bottom line of a corporation benefits in dollar savingsfrom efficiency, lack of environmental compliance violation fines imposed and patents for new technologies…It’s a win-win…Boxer makes no sense what-so-ever…
I will however praise the “Buy Bio-Based” program by the Federal government. That has been a great idea…
L-W is an extremely massive bill with literally $100s billions for Less-Deadly Coal. I don’t recall the specific plant within the bill and that plant was already authorized/appropriated for by other legislation.
Many, if not most of our politicians are not big picture thinkers. If you don’t have a livable environment then none of the other “big” issues matter. Do they?
The “economy versus the environment” is such a sad and false framing of the discussion.
To link to other discussions:
Energy Smart from Illinois? Foster in Congress: http://energysmart.wordpress.c…..-congress/
Energizing America: The E2 Solution Path — The energy speech for the next President … http://energysmart.wordpress.c…..president/
From the things that I have been reading recently, this discussion is about 50 years too late to prevent very significant climate change. Change to no CO2 energy production need to be done but “crash” planning for the effects of the climate change need to be started now.
WaPo
Thank you, I really like the ‘Less-Deadly Coal’ phrasing! It frames the issue properly…! 8-)
Steve — We will, without a doubt, have real climate change and major global warming impacts. What we have, with each passing day, is a vote on just how bad it will get and what the recovery path might be. At some point, with positive feedback loops, we will lose control …
Nuclear power to the rescue. That will be the bi-partisan answer. Trouble is, no state wants to host nuclear waste. And I don’t blame them. And of course there is the melt-down problem and the not so insignificant perceived terrorist sabotage difficulty.
Another energy scam that needs to be stopped:
SciAm
Sorry to be OT but breaking news:
Ferraro has just stepped down from the Clinton campaign. to protect hill from unfair attacks.
meanwhile, CNN has a poll going on whether Ferraro shld resign. majority, not.
so issue is far from going away. for those who find it as offense as Pach did in her post, there is way to take action. h/t to Kos commentator, name available on request.
Call Howard Dean.
202-863-8000
You will be put through directly to Dean’s comment line.
This is what I said:
My message was that Ferraro as a senior member of the party can be and should be taken to account by her peers, the DNC leadership. While they cannot undo the hurt she has inflicted on anyone of color who has achieved something in our society, they can offset the harm she has done to our party. How?
strip her of her superdelegate status.
Steve @42, Good point.
I’d be really happy if the government would shave off some of the subsidizations they give to oil,coal, and biofuels, in favor of solar power development.
It doesn’t even have to be a lot per year. But it’s easily the most renewable energy source. Arizona should be fields of solar power rays. Think long-term benefits.
When you chop trees down and pave over grasslands, you cut down on available oxygen. And you cut down on processing CO2.
Tell me something. Does it feel hotter these days, and with less rain and snow, where you live?
President McCain will not be green.
I don’t disagree that we should try but the feedback loop to return to our present climate was probably broken in the early 80’s. A new feedback loop will be set into place by a massive reduction of the world population caused by the human induced climate change that is occurring now.
Thanks for the update. In deference to our guest, let’s take that conversation to the previous thread.
Thanks.
Wind, Solar, Geothermal, and, Hydro/Tidal power can and does work…! Use Mother Nature instead of abusing her…!
Kiddo: Joe Romm at Climate Progress had perhaps the top discussion re McCain and Global Warming: No climate for old men: Why John McCain isn’t the candidate to stop global warming http://climateprogress.org/200…..l-warming/
There is no scientific evidence pointing to a connection between global warming and man induced events. So says George W. Bush. Now what will his annointed successor, John McCain say. And more importantly do, to protect our children and grand children from the effects of global warming?
Am I crazy, or didn’t Al Gore say to the Senators during his testimony something akin to “There is no such thing as ‘Clean Coal’!”?
I’d love to see the true costs of all energy sources (the externalized costs of health problems / habitat destruction / American military deployment to maintain control of fossil fuel supplies) factored in to comparisons of energy costs. When I think of neurotoxicity from mercury due to coal alone, all of a sudden the true cost is far higher than the face cost.
WHen those costs are clear, that would open the path for rational choices about how to most efficently use subsidies.
Steve … I’ve done too many discussions of being a pessimistic optimist (or, was it optimistic pessimist???), but with young children that I put to sleep each evening, I have to strive to work toward the optimism …
Solar is just now reaching the point where it might be do-able. To change the US to solar would involve totally replacing our power distribution systems and building “new” technology electrical storage modalities. Estimated cost >$800 billion.
In this home we revere Mr. Gore. My friend. ;0)
BREAKING: Geraldine Ferraro Stepping Down From Clinton Campaign
First thing we need to do for our environment is sweep the Republicans out of the White House.
Adam, would it be off-topic to ask if permit auctions would help generate the funding to shift to carbon-neutral energy / industrial base?
Steve – AR: And, the interesting question re such a solar cost becomes what is a 20 year ownership cost, without the fuel requirement, without the pollution, without the destruction to mountaintops … Should the US, with Mexico and the Caribbean nations, be seeking to do a variation of the European TREC concept/program.
Leadership at the executive level on environmental imperatives, is imperative. This is essential.
actually global warming eminates extremes in our temperature, not always warmer, sometimes colder
This is true. However, I was speaking in terms of my personal geography. The southwest. Any way you look at it (my point) is that things are not ‘normal’, weather wise.
We’re noticing birds nesting earlier this year in Boston… maybe just wishful thinking!
I have had the mildest winter in history I believe, it feels like we had about 7 days of winter total
I am not saying to throw up our hand and say things are hopeless..But significant climate change is coming and it is comming faster than we think. This country is going to have to commit massive resources to deal with that fact or today’s children are really screwed.
link
The “more recent publications” that they mention aren’t talking 2-3 feet, they are talking 20-40 feet, if we can get our greenhouse gases under control.
Kirk:
For me, I’ve laid a couple paths for using resources and for handling the polluter’s “cost”.
1. I would combine a low, but steadily mounting, carbon fee (FEE not tax) with a Cap and Trade program. Assure people, no matter what, that it will cost to pollute. If we (globally) figure out how to cut emissions fast, such that permits have no value, there will still be financial incentives for reducing pollution. And, this is a more guaranteed revenue stream.
2. Use a large share of the revenues for sparking a sustainable, climate friendly economy. Energy Efficiency / renewable energy — research AND deployment. Some money toward mitigation and potential win-win-win geoengineering. And, some of this money used globally to help foster the necessary path changes in “developing” nations/communities/societies.
3. Reserve some portion of the funds for direct payments to citizens living on US soil. Yes, bias toward citizens but this is a direct “build & maintain political support” element along with social justice. Writ large, people lower on the economic ladder pollute less. (How many business class flights to Europe if you’re a single parent working a near minimum-wage job?) Give a regular (monthly) payment, equal payment to 100% of US citizens living on US soil. And, this can be something of a concept for ‘endowment for the future’ as take, perhaps, for children 50% of the money to put in a trust fund available for post 18 years old with the other half going to their guardian.
But, the revenues from a carbon fee/auction should be used to spark the future that we desire, not for general revenue purposes.
Icebergs are melting. Aren’t they?
Coral reefs are dying.
Exxon still hasn’t paid a dime for Valdez.
There was a good article in “Scientific American” about three month ago about what a National solar program would involve. The panels are just the beginning.
Adam, from your keyboard to the House and Senate’s bills. Love your answers and the win-win-win geoengineering concepts set forth on your blog (as well as your assessment of the rejected geoengineering concepts).
Yes..and the projection is that the Arctic will have ice free summers in about five years. Two years ago, the projection was that it would happen in 40-50 years. Arctic ice won’t have any effect on sea level, however.
This is worrisome.
But it will cause albedo change, which will implement a chain of events…
I didn’t mean to imply that melting Arctic ice is a non-event…The albedo change is another break in the feedback loop along with the melting Arctic Tundra and release of methane gas.
Talk about reinforcing feedback. With Transistors it was, fittingly enough, known as “Thermal Runaway”!
Adam, I’m not certain how long we’ll have the pleasure of your company, but (if not off topic) can you share your assessment of heat pumps using local “geothermal” (if that’s the right term)?
IIRC, these devices exploit the difference between surface ambient temp and the near-constant subsurface temps at the homeowners’ site, exploiting the thermal mass of the latter to provide renewable energy for the process. (apologies if I completely mangled the concept).
So, A Siegel, is there such a thing as “clean coal”?
Kirk,
I love geothermal … sort of. The real challenge is the infrastructure cost. For my home, for example, it would have cost $24.5k to put in a geothermal system (back fit on a 50-year old home). Instead, spent a third of that on a “fossil-fuel system” (high-efficiency gas furnace and a very high efficiency heat pump, with the system going back and forth between them). That $16k would have taken, without any net present value, perhaps 100+ years to pay back with the geothermal.
For new build and for specific applications, geothermal can be a quite powerfully attractive option. We have a challenge, sort of chicken and egg, in that there is not a great infrastructure in much of the United States for doing geothermal. If the drilling rig needs to come from 100 miles away, with the crew in a hotel for a night or two, the costs start to mount pretty quickly …
Really, should be emphasizing passive solar with energy efficiency and then we are necking down, quite seriously, the heating/cooling requirements. Might then meet those with geothermal or perhaps with some other highly efficient system.
Some thoughts …
RE “Clean Coal” …
In terms of generating electricity, at this time, there is basically no such thing. There are mercury / sulphur / etc emissions. “Clean Coal” would reduce those, while leaving CO2 emissions. Clean Coal, of course, does nothing to deal with the entire issue of mining and ash after burning; and particulates remain a quite serious issue. Perhaps … maybe … potentially … carbon capture & sequestration might work … could. And it might work at an affordable price. And, we might mine coal less destructively. Maybe …
Thus, is there such a thing as Clean Coal might be better asked, is there such a thing as Santa Claus? Never know what is under the tree but I’m not going to bet the future of my kids on it.
Thanks for that answer, Adam – sure puts things in perspective. Thanks also for joining us here today – I hope we see you often.
I’m really tired of…..
The Boxer Short
Pretending, like Obama, Schumer, Shuler, Emmanuel, Hoyer and Miss Nancy to be Democrats.
There not and need to be primaried out of the party and out of Congress. Simple as that.
Gonna take a while but let me ask you…..
You have something better to do Jane?
I don’t.
You’ve got it but…..
There are some real technologies out there ready to go that could turn things around in a hurry such as:
The Solar Grand Plan
Power Islands
Wonderful Wind
And yet we continue to get these stupid versions of ‘Let’s pay my pals in’Big Oil’ and ‘Big Power’ to continue down the dead end of fossil/nuclear technology as all the while they destroy the environment….Why? You ask…Because they are my pals a give me lots and lots of money! Yay!’ From the likes of The Boxer Short and her pals Crazy Joe & Co.
Past time to wake up folks.
Throw out 80 or 90% of the fools in Congress and elect some leaders with brains.
Instead of the money grubbing morons we’ve got now.
Now, the Oil Drum discussion was great re the Power Island. Months earlier I had written: Energy COOL: New Approaches to Pumped Storage. :-)
Good three links / points … we need a holistic, rather than single point. solution set.
A Siegel
I think the energy plan Portugal has established for the EU is the best model in the world and we should be looking at it seriously (or independent states in the US should look at their model…)
http://renewenergy.wordpress.c…../portugal/
And the best reads on the 20-20-20 EU/Portugal model can be found as downloads here:
http://www.portugal.gov.pt/por…..nergia.htm
Both reports are “must reads” for anyone wanting to push a vision with their legislators…
Portugal is going to be one wealthy country…
Klynn … Thank you. There is an interesting real problem. It is becoming extremely difficult to keep up with the reading worth reading. Good problem….
Regarding ‘clean coal’. If you are concerned about climate change, the issue is CO2. CO2 is generated when you burn (oxidize) carbon. Coal is essentially carbon with impurities. You can make it cleaner by taking out the impurities, but if you take out the carbon, it isn’t coal and it won’t burn. The only way you can burn coal and not spew CO2 into the atmosphere is to find a way to trap or “sequester” the CO2 from the smokestack. This usually involves pumping it underground, a very costly process that is not done on a commercial scale.
The only truly “clean coal” is carbon sequestration. If we mandated carbon sequestration, coal plants would be non polluting and the increased cost of coal fired electricity would make other forms of electrical power generation cost competitive. Of course we’d all have to pay more for electricity. There is no free lunch.
SWEG — we might pay more, directly, for electricity. But, might we pay less for health care impacts? Would not this lower our global warming costs? E.g., in a system cost, going toward a clean energy solution will be lower cost, as long as one understands cost holistically.
Oh I believe so. I definitely think it is the right thing to do. But that is the reality. It requires an upfront cost. But you save all of these almost incalculable costs.
Adam: Great post! What aggravates me the most is the condescending attitude of (a lot ) our elected officials. Sheesh! I say ditch it. We can and must do better.