Club for Growth, Environmental Defense Action Fund, Launch Dueling Lieberman-Warner Campaigns
The conservative Club for Growth has launched a $250,000 radio and television campaign targeting several coal-state senators in opposition to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191/3036). The Environmental Defense Action Fund, the C(4) side of the Environmental Defense Fund, has also begun a much larger $4 million campaign that comes on top of the estimated $8.5 million already spent this year in support of the cap-and-trade legislation.
The text of the Club for Growth ad running in Tennessee:Congress is at it again. This time they’re pushing massive new taxes and regulation in the name of global warming. But let’s ask ourselves, are the unproven benefits of legislation worth the major job losses, new taxes and increased energy costs that could result?Call Senator Lamar Alexander and tell him to vote “no” on the Lieberman-Warner climate bill. Tennesseans just can’t afford another huge, costly government program.
| Club for Growth | Environmental Defense |
|---|---|
- Tennessee (Republican Bob Corker)
- North Carolina (Republican Elizabeth Dole)
- West Virginia (Democrats Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller)
- Montana (Democrats Max Baucus and John Tester)
- Arkansas (Democrats Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor)
- Colorado (Republican Wayne Allard and Democrat Ken Salazar)
- Florida (Republican Mel Martinez)
- Indiana (Republican Richard Lugar and Democrat Evan Bayh)
- Missouri (Republican Kit Bond and Democrat Claire McCaskill
- Nebraska (Republican Chuck Hagel and Democrat Ben Nelson)
- New Hampshire (Republicans Judd Gregg and John Sununu)
- New Mexico (Republican Pete Domenici and Democrat Jeff Bingaman)
- North Carolina (Republican Richard Burr)
- North Dakota (Democrats Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan)
- Ohio (Republican George Voinovich and Democrat Sherrod Brown)
- Pennsylvania (Republican Arlen Specter and Democrat Robert Casey)
- Tennessee (Republicans Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker)
- Virginia (Democrat Jim Webb)
The Environmental Defense Fund ads also are running in the districts of several influential House members, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.), Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).
Markey Introduces "Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act," Calling it "Revolutionary"
Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) introduced a revolutionary new global warming bill today that would reduce global warming pollution according to scientific targets, reinvest any revenue back to American workers and technology, and would re-establish America as a leader in solving the globe’s greatest challenge, climate change.At a speech at the Center for American Progress this morning, Rep. Markey, who is Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, and a senior member of the Energy and Commerce and Natural Resources Committees, laid out his science- and consumer-based vision for climate legislation.
“I am here today because the chorus for change is deafening. The time for action is now,” said Rep. Markey in his prepared remarks. “We must cap pollution, we must invest in consumers, jobs and the technology of tomorrow, and America must lead the world in solving our greatest challenges, and we must start now.”
The bill is called the Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act, or iCAP for short, the small “i” a tip of the cap to the technological potential of clean energy. The bill also proffers a new paradigm in global warming legislation: the Cap-and-Invest system. The bill caps pollution at 85 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. It then uses an auction system that sets a price on carbon, and allows companies to compete for reductions, or buy or trade credits within the system.
The “Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act” (iCAP Act) amends the Clean Air Act to establish an economy-wide cap-auction-and-trade system that adheres to five core principles:
1. Reduce U.S. global warming pollution by 85 percent by 2050, the necessary U.S. contribution to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases and avoid dangerous global warming.
The iCAP Act’s cap-auction-and-trade program will cover 87 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and will reduce covered emissions to 2005 levels by 2012, to 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and to 85 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.
The following “covered entities” will be regulated under the cap: (1) power plants and large industrial facilities; (2) entities that produce or import petroleum- or coal-based liquid or gaseous fuels; (3) entities that produce or import hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, or nitrogen trifluoride; (4) natural gas local distribution companies; and (5) geological carbon sequestration sites.
The iCAP Act will achieve 7 percent additional coverage (a total of 94 percent coverage) through (1) mandatory performance standards for coal mines, landfills, wastewater treatment operations, and large animal feeding operations; and (2) voluntary financial incentives to farmers and forest managers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase carbon storage. The iCAP Act also sets mandatory performance standards for new coal-fired power plants, requiring them to capture and sequester 85 percent of their CO2 emissions within a set timeframe.
2. Auction pollution allowances, instead of giving them free-of-charge to polluters, to avoid windfall profits for polluters, ensure fairness and effectiveness, and reduce social costs.
The iCAP Act begins by auctioning 94 percent of allowances in 2012 and transitions to a 100 percent auction in 2020. The 6 percent of allowances not initially auctioned are distributed as transitional assistance to U.S. industries that are energy-intensive and exposed to international trade competition (e.g., iron and steel, aluminum, cement, glass, and paper). The iCAP Act permits any person to buy, sell, or transfer allowances or to “bank” them for future use. Covered entities also may borrow allowances from the allowance budget for future years, but these “loans” must be repaid within five years with interest. Covered entities can meet up to 15 percent of their annual obligations with EPA-approved domestic offset credits and up to an additional 15 percent with EPA-approved international emission allowances or offset credits. Domestic and international offset credits are subject to rigorous standards to ensure reductions in emissions or increases in sequestration are real, verifiable, additional, permanent, and enforceable. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will oversee the carbon market to prevent fraud and market manipulation.
3. Return over half of auction proceeds to low- and middle-income households to help compensate for any increase in energy costs as a result of climate legislation.
The iCAP Act returns over half of auction proceeds to low- and middle-income households through rebates and tax credits. This will compensate all increased energy costs due to climate legislation for all households earning under $70,000 (66 percent of U.S. households), and will provide benefits to all households earning up to $110,000 (over 80 percent of U.S. households).
4. Invest the remaining auction proceeds in programs that will further reduce the costs of climate policy, spur the development of advanced low-carbon technologies, grow the U.S. economy, and address unavoidable impacts of climate change.
The iCAP Act uses the remaining auction proceeds to fund:- clean energy technology research, development, demonstration and deployment;
- efficiency policies to reduce the costs and consumer impacts of climate policy;
- incentives to U.S. farmers and foresters to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase carbon storage in agricultural soils and forests;
- green jobs training and assistance for workers to transition into the new jobs of a low-carbon economy;
- reduction of deforestation and deployment of clean technologies in developing countries;
- programs to increase resilience to climate change impacts in the United States and in developing countries; and
- climate change education.
5. Include policies that will encourage major-emitting developing countries, like China and India, to take comparable action to reduce global warming pollution to protect the competitiveness of U.S. industry.
Under the iCAP Act, developing countries that take comparable action to reduce global warming pollution will have access to funding from the International Clean Technology Fund and will be allowed to sell “offset credits” into the U.S. market. Developing countries that carry out programs to reduce emissions from deforestation will be eligible for assistance from an International Forest Protection Fund. If a country fails to take comparable action by 2020, importers of energy-intensive primary goods (e.g., iron and steel, aluminum, cement, glass, and paper) from that country will have to purchase special reserve allowances to account for pollution generated in the production of such goods. Until 2020, U.S. manufacturers of competing primary goods will be given free allowances to prevent loss of jobs or “leakage” of emissions due to international competition.
SUBTITLE-BY-SUBTITLE SUMMARY
TITLE I – CAPPING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
SECTION 101. AMENDMENT TO THE CLEAN AIR ACT
Section 101 of the bill adds a new Title VII to the Clean Air Act, the subtitles of which are summarized below.Subtitle A: Tracking Emissions
Subtitle A establishes a process through which EPA may designate substances as greenhouse gases for the purposes of this Act. It also directs EPA to determine (and periodically review) the quantity of each greenhouse gas that makes the same contribution to global warming as one metric ton of CO2. Subtitle A directs EPA to establish a national greenhouse gas registry to collect information on greenhouse gas emissions, on a regular basis, and make that information publicly available.Subtitle B: Reducing Emissions
Subtitle B directs EPA to establish a National Emission Allowance Account, composed of a separate quantity of emission allowances for each calendar year from 2012 through 2050. In a table, the subtitle identifies the number of emission allowances that will be issued for each year. EPA will create, at the inception of the program, all of the emission allowances that will exist over the life of the program. Each emission allowance will have a unique serial number that will include the calendar year for which it was created. The bill covers emissions of seven greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) – plus any other anthropogenic gas that EPA designates as a greenhouse gas, based on a determination that such gas has a global warming potential equal to or greater than that of CO2. Each emission allowance is equal to one metric ton CO2-equivalent – the quantity of a greenhouse gas that makes the same contribution to global warming as one metric ton of CO2. The emissions “cap” will cover 87 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The size of the 2012 Emission Allowance Account is 6,098 allowances, which is equivalent to greenhouse gas emissions from sources covered by the “cap” in 2005. The size of the cap will decline each year, resulting in a reduction of U.S. emissions to 20 percent below 2005 levels in 2020 and 85 percent below 2005 levels in 2050. The bill requires the owner or operator of each “covered entity,” at the end of each calendar year beginning in 2012 and ending in 2050, to submit to EPA one emission allowance for each metric ton CO2-equivalent of greenhouse gases that they emitted or that was contained in the fuels or chemicals they put into commerce that year. Covered entities include:- Electric power and industrial facilities;
- Entities that produce or import petroleum- or coal-based liquid or gaseous fuels – including most fossil-based transportation fuels;
- Entities that produce or import HFCs, PFCs, SF6, or NF3;
- Natural gas local distribution companies – to cover emissions from natural gas combustion by residential and commercial facilities; and
- Geological carbon sequestration sites – to cover any leakage.
Entities that do not meet a 10,000 CO2-equivalent threshold will not be required to submit allowances. To avoid double-counting of emissions, (1) electric power and industrial facilities will not be required to submit allowances for any emissions resulting from the use of petroleumor coal-based liquid or gaseous fuels; (2) natural gas local distribution companies will not be required to submit allowances for emissions resulting from combustion of any natural gas delivered to an electric power or industrial facility that meets the 10,000 metric ton CO2- equivalent threshold; and (3) electric power and industrial facilities will not be required to submit allowances for emissions of HFCs, PFCs, SF6, or NF3. HFC producers will not be required to submit allowances between 2012 and 2019 in order to ensure U.S. success in meeting Montreal Protocol targets for stratospheric ozone-depleting substances and to allow adequate time for environmentally preferable substitutes for HFCs to come to market. A covered entity may submit domestic offset credits approved by EPA under subtitle E in lieu of emission allowances to satisfy up to 15 percent of its compliance requirement. A covered entity may also submit international emission allowances or offset credits approved by EPA under subtitle F to satisfy up to 15 percent of its compliance requirement. EPA will issue destruction credits to entities that convert a greenhouse gas (other than methane) to another gas with a lower global warming potential. The number of credits issued will be equal to the number of metric tons of CO2-equivalent of reduction in global warming potential achieved through such conversion. A covered entity may use these credits to satisfy up to 100 percent of its annual compliance requirements.
Subtitle C: Distribution of Allowances
Subtitle C directs EPA to auction virtually all of the emission allowances each year, beginning with 94 percent auction from 2012-2019 and transitioning to 100 percent auction in 2020. The remaining allowances will be provided to U.S. manufacturers of trade-exposed primary goods (such as iron and steel, cement, aluminum, bulk glass, and paper) as a transitional measure to avoid production shifting abroad and thus undermining the environmental objectives of this bill. Six percent of total allowances in 2012 through 2020 (with a cumulative value of $96 billion) will be allocated to manufacturers based upon the predicted adverse impact of direct and indirect costs of this Act.
To optimize market liquidity and stability, auctions will be held on a quarterly basis. Allowances for the current compliance year and for future compliance years (up to four years in the future) will be available at each auction. Auction proceeds will be used for a variety of public benefit purposes. Up to 0.5 percent of auction proceeds will be deposited in to the Climate Protection Management Fund to cover the costs associated with EPA and FERC administration of the Act. Fifty million dollars per year will be dedicated to climate change education programs and centers for excellence established under Subtitle H of Title III. All remaining proceeds will be divided among 10 separate funds which will fund the programs described in Title III and Title IV of this Act.
Subtitle D: Trading, Banking, and Borrowing
Subtitle D establishes rules for the trading, banking, and borrowing of emission allowances. Anyone may buy, sell, or transfer emission allowances, or submit them to EPA for retirement. Unlimited “banking” of allowances for future use is permitted. A covered entity may also borrow allowances from EPA (to be drawn from the emissions budget for future years) to meet up to 15 percent of its annual compliance obligation, but an allowance “loan” must be repaid within 5 years with 10 percent annual interest.
Subtitle E: Offsets
Subtitle E establishes a program to issue offset credits to entities that carry out projects in the United States that achieve real, verifiable, additional, permanent, and enforceable reductions in emissions or increases in storage of carbon in plants and soils. Four types of projects will be eligible to receive offset credits:- Reductions in (outside-the-cap) greenhouse gas emissions from oil and gas systems;
- Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from livestock operations that are not covered by performance standards under subtitle H;
- Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from abandoned coal mines; and
- Increases in biological carbon sequestration through afforestation and reforestation.
Activities covered by compliance obligations in subtitle B or performance standards in subtitle H, or receiving support under subtitle D of Title III are not eligible to earn offset credits. Subtitle E directs EPA to establish standardized monitoring, quantification, and accounting protocols and standards for approval of offset credits. Offset credits may be claimed for eligible projects annually by submitting verification reports certified by an accredited third party to EPA.
Subtitle F: International Emission Allowances and Offset Credits
Subtitle F directs EPA to establish regulations providing for approval of emission allowances from foreign greenhouse markets that impose mandatory absolute limits on emissions that are of comparable stringency to the program established by this bill, including comparable monitoring, compliance, and enforcement practices.
Subtitle F also directs EPA to establish regulations providing for approval of categories and subcategories of international offset credits that meet certain criteria. Only credits generated from projects in countries that have taken action on climate change comparable to that of the United States, or in countries that have very low emissions or are among the least developed of developing countries, are eligible for use under this title.
Subtitle G: Global Effort to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Subtitle G encourages the President to work proactively under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and in other appropriate forums, to establish binding agreements committing all major greenhouse gas-emitting nations to contribute equitably to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions. Subtitle G also directs the President to determine whether each foreign country has taken action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that is “comparable” to that of the United States, taking into account the level of economic development of each country. If, by 2020, any of our trading partners have not taken “comparable” action, the President is authorized to require importers of trade-exposed primary goods (e.g., iron and steel, cement, aluminum, bulk glass, and paper) from those countries to purchase special “international reserve allowances” to account for the greenhouse gas emissions from the production of the goods. Least-developed countries and countries with very low greenhouse gas emissions will be exempt from this requirement. The pool of international reserve allowances will be separate from the domestic emission allowance pool, so that the program will not affect domestic emission levels or the price of domestic emission allowances. Proceeds from the sale of international reserve allowances will provide supplemental funding for the International Clean Technology Fund described in subtitle B of Title IV.
Subtitle H: Standards for Coal-Fired Power Plants and Non-Covered Facilities
Subtitle H directs EPA to promulgate performance standards for certain sources not included under the cap – such as coal mines, landfills, wastewater treatment operations, and large animal feeding operations – that emit at least 10,000 metric tons CO2-equivalent per year. These standards will require such sources to apply best available control technologies or practices. Subtitle H also establishes mandatory performance standards for any new coal-fired power plant, requiring all plants on which construction begins after January 1, 2009, to achieve capture and geological sequestration of 85 percent of their CO2 emissions within a defined time frame.
SECTION 102: CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
Section 102 of the Act amends sections 113, 114, and 307 of the Clean Air Act to make the Act’s existing mechanisms for enforcement, inspections, administrative process, and judicial review applicable to the new Title VII of the Act.
SECTION 103: COMPLEMENTARY POLICIES FOR HYDROFLUOROCARBONS
To ensure proper use and disposal of HFCs and other fluorinated gases used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances, this section amends sections 608 and 609 of the Clean Air Act to extend to these substances the requirements of the Clean Air Act that already apply to the sale, use, and disposal of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs).
SECTION 104: WAIVER OF PREEMPTION FOR CALIFORNIA STANDARDS FOR VEHICLE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This section overrides EPA’s unfounded denial, in December 2007, of California’s petition for a waiver of preemption under the Clean Air Act of its greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles. This will permit California and the other States that have adopted the California standards to proceed with implementation of these standards.
SECTION 105: LOW-CARBON FUEL STANDARD
This section amends section 211 of the Clean Air Act to establish a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). The LCFS establishes a market-based system to incentivize reductions in the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and use of transportation fuels, through deployment of advanced biofuels, plug-in hybrid vehicles, and hydrogen. The LCFS is integrated with the current Renewable Fuel Standard, promoting a long-term market for substitutes to petroleum.
TITLE II – CARBON MARKET OVERSIGHT
Title II creates a new Office of Carbon Market Oversight (“OCMO”) within FERC, which is charged with ensuring transparency, fairness, and stability in the market for emission allowances, offset credits, and derivatives thereof (referred to as “regulated instruments”). The OCMO will establish rules requiring registration of (1) self-regulated “registered carbon trading facilities” on which regulated instruments are traded, (2) “carbon clearing organizations” that provide clearing services to trading facilities, and (3) brokers and dealers trading in regulated instruments. Registered carbon trading facilities will publicize price and other trading data and enforce rules against fraud and market manipulation. Trading of regulated instruments generally will be limited to registered exchanges, except that, in order to provide greater flexibility and efficiency in hedging carbon risks, large institutions and high net-worth individuals are permitted to trade regulated derivatives off-exchange (in the over-the-counter market). To ensure market transparency, the OCMO will establish regulations providing for reporting of trading activity by large traders in regulated instruments. To prevent market participants from seeking to “corner” or otherwise manipulate the market, the OCMO may adopt position limits or position accountability requirements for regulated instruments.
Title II establishes rules against fraud and market manipulation, which OCMO is authorized to enforce through administrative procedures and penalties, civil enforcement actions in federal district court, or (in the case of knowing or willful violations) criminal prosecution. Finally, the OCMO will monitor the functioning of the carbon market and its effects on the U.S. economy and will provide quarterly reports to Congress.
TITLE III – INVESTING IN AMERICA’S LOW-CARBON FUTURE
Title III establishes a series of domestic programs funded by auction proceeds. A description of each program, along with an estimate of cumulative funding for the program over the life of the bill, is provided below.
Subtitle A: Climate Trust Tax Credits and Rebates
Under Subtitle A, $4.3 trillion (55 to 58.5 percent of auction proceeds) will be used for refundable tax credits and rebates for middle- and low-income households, to compensate for any increase in energy costs resulting from the bill. Tax credits will be used to reach middleincome wage earners and senior citizens, and cash rebates – distributed through the Electronic Benefits Transfer systems used for food stamps – will be used to reach low-income households. All households earning under $110,000 will be eligible. Virtually all costs from climate regulation will be covered for households earning under $70,000, with benefit levels phasing out gradually for households earning $70,000 to $110,000.
Subtitle B: Low-Carbon Technology Fund
Under Subtitle B, $963 billion (12.5 percent of auction proceeds) will be used to fund lowcarbon energy technology research, development, demonstration, and deployment programs administered by the Department of Energy (DOE). These include RD&D programs authorized under existing law in the areas of renewable electricity generation, carbon capture and sequestration, electric transmission and distribution efficiency (including smart grid technologies), low-carbon renewable fuels, low-emission vehicles, building efficiency, industrial efficiency, energy storage technologies, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (“ARPA-E”). In addition, Subtitle B establishes two new programs to promote the deployment of renewable electricity generation – the first awards production payments through a reverse auction and the second provides rebates for the purchase and installation of distributed generation technologies such as solar panels. From 2010-2020, cost-sharing grants are authorized to cover the incremental costs of implementing carbon capture and sequestration technology at coal-fired power plants.
Subtitle C: National Energy Efficiency Fund
Under Subtitle C, $963 billion (12.5 percent of auction proceeds) will be used to fund a broad array of efficiency programs. These include: (1) a program to award incentive payments to States based on the magnitude of energy savings each State achieves each year through consumer efficiency programs; (2) programs to award grants to states that adopt and implement building efficiency and recycling policies; (3) funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program for low-income persons and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program; and (4) grants to support state and local mass transit and “smart growth” projects that will reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Subtitle D: Agriculture and Forestry Carbon Fund
Under Subtitle D, $378 billion (4.5 to 5 percent of auction proceeds) will be used to fund a program, administered by the Department of Agriculture, to support projects by U.S. farmers and foresters that increase biological sequestration of carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through improved agricultural soil management and forest management practices (not including afforestation and reforestation). USDA is also directed to undertake a complementary program of research, education, and outreach on agriculture and forestry greenhouse gas management.
Subtitle E: Worker Transition Assistance and Green Jobs Training
Under Subtitle E, $147 billion (1.5 to 2 percent of auction proceeds) will be used to fund the green jobs training programs established under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and a program, administered by the Department of Labor, which will provide training, income support, and tax credits for health care insurance for up to two years to any workers affected by the transition to a new low-carbon economy.
Subtitle F: National Climate Change Adaptation Program
Under Subtitle F, $185 billion (2 to 2.5 percent of auction proceeds) will be used to support a comprehensive program to increase America’s resilience to the impacts of climate change. Under this program, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will (1) develop periodic regional and national assessments of America’s vulnerability to climate change impacts; and (2) establish a National Climate Service to provide research products and decision tools, based upon robust monitoring and observational capabilities, to federal, state, local, and tribal decision makers to assist with developing adaptation strategies. Subtitle F also requires federal agencies to develop and implement plans to address climate change impacts within their respective jurisdictions and directs the President, pursuant to a detailed plan submitted for congressional review, to fund state, local, and tribal government programs and projects to reduce vulnerability to climate change impacts.
Subtitle G: Natural Resource Conservation Fund
Under Subtitle G, $147 billion (1.5 to 2 percent of auction proceeds) will be used to support measures, implemented by federal land and natural resource management agencies and the States, to protect U.S. natural resources, wildlife, and fisheries against adverse impacts from climate change. Federally administered funds must be used in accord with a national strategy developed by the President, with advice from a science advisory committee, and state-administered funds must be used in accord with federally approved state strategies.
Subtitle H: Climate Change Education and Centers for Excellence
Under Subtitle H, $2 billion (up to $50 million per year) will be used to provide support, through the National Science Foundation and EPA, for the development and implementation of climate change education programs and to provide cost-sharing grants supporting the establishment, at colleges, universities, and non-profit organizations, of national centers for excellence on climate change science, technology, and policy.
TITLE IV – ENCOURAGING GLOBAL ACTION
Title IV establishes three international programs, funded by auction proceeds, to encourage global action to combat climate change.
Subtitle A: International Forest Protection Fund
Under Subtitle A, $147 billion (1.5 to 2 percent of auction proceeds) will be used to support policies in qualifying developing countries that reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation or increase biological carbon sequestration through restoration of forests and degraded lands, afforestation, and improved forest management. Countries that do not initially qualify for inclusion in the incentive program are eligible for grants to build their capacity to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation and increase carbon storage in forests.
Subtitle B: International Clean Technology Fund
Under Subtitle B, $301 billion (3.5 to 4 percent of auction proceeds) will be used to support an international clean technology fund. This fund will provide support for the adoption of clean energy and efficiency technologies by major-emitting developing countries that the President certifies, under Title I, as having taken “comparable action” to combat climate change, taking into account the country’s level of economic development.
Subtitle C: International Climate Change Adaptation Fund
Under Subtitle C, $185 billion (2 to 2.5 percent of auction proceeds) will be used to support an international adaptation program, to be administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development, which will fund projects to assist the most vulnerable developing countries in adapting to the impacts of climate change.
TITLE V – LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR GEOLOGICAL SEQUESTRATION OF CARBON DIOXIDE
Title V amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to require EPA to develop comprehensive regulatory standards for underground injection of carbon dioxide. Representative Edward J. Markey Investing in Climate Action 9 and Protection Act Title V also directs EPA to establish a task force charged with providing Congress with recommendations regarding the legal framework to govern liability with respect to closed geological storage sites. Finally, the Secretary of Energy is directed to undertake a feasibility study regarding construction of carbon dioxide pipelines and geological sequestration facilities.
TITLE VI – BUILDING EFFICIENCY STANDARDS
Title VI incorporates provisions from the House-passed version of the energy bill from 2007, requiring the Department of Energy to develop model building efficiency codes that States are required to adopt and enforce. States that do so become eligible for funding from the National Energy Efficiency Fund (described in subtitle C of Title III).
TITLE VII – REVIEWS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Title VII establishes a comprehensive framework for periodic review and reports to Congress, by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and relevant federal agencies, of all major aspects of the bill. The NAS is directed to report every five years on the latest scientific information relevant to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts and the bill’s performance in reducing emissions. The GAO is directed to report every three years on Federal agencies’ administration of, and performance of, the programs established under titles III and IV of the bill. Every five years, an interagency body will make recommendations to the President, and the President will in turn make recommendations to Congress, on changes to the framework established by the bill based on the NAS’s and GAO’s most recent findings and recommendations. Title VI also provides for expedited Congressional consideration of a presidential recommendation to tighten the bill’s emissions cap if the NAS’s scientific findings indicate such action is necessary.
Snowe Announces Support for Lieberman-Warner
On Wednesday, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) announced her support for S. 3036, saying it “mirrors closely” the Kerry-Snowe Global Reduction Act (S. 485), which calls for a 65 percent reduction from 2000 levels of greenhouse gases by 2050. Snowe also noted that language from the Feinstein-Snowe Emission Allowance Market Transparency Act (S. 2423) was included in the manager’s mark.
Unlike Lieberman-Warner, Kerry-Snowe also sets a goal of achieving a greenhouse gas stabilization target of 450 ppm, and calls for the establishment of vehicle emissions standards. In Snowe’s press release, she states that Lieberman-Warner “would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 66 percent by 2050,” although NRDC analysis of the bill finds that Lieberman-Warner would only achieve reductions between 60 to 65 percent from 2000 levels.
Reid Takes Steps To Begin Floor Debate On Lieberman-Warner 1
On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) introduced Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D-Calif.) manager’s mark of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) as a new bill, numbered S. 3036. S. 3036 will be the vehicle for the floor debate of the cap-and-trade legislation. On Thursday, Reid filed for cloture on a motion to proceed onto the bill, setting the stage for a 5:30 p.m. vote on June 2, one week from Monday. According to E&E News, “Few expect the vote to be contentious.”
“It may even end up being 99-0,” said Andrew Wheeler, staff director for Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.). Inhofe plans to back this procedural step as a gateway to a bigger debate over the merits of the legislation, Wheeler said.
Reid, Boxer, and the bill’s co-sponsors, Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.), have not determined what terms they will seek for the debate and amendment process. Reid has the option of exerting privilege to block unwanted amendments by “filling the tree” with his own.
Text of Boxer's Manager Amendment to Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act
Download the Full document. Titles are after the break.
Title I Immediate Action
- Subtitle A Tracking Greenhouse‐Gas Emissions
- Subtitle B Early Clean Technology Deployment
- Subtitle C Research
Title II Capping Greenhouse‐Gas Emissions
Title III Reducing Emissions Through Offsets and International Allowances
- Subtitle A Offsets in the United States
- Subtitle B Offsets and Emission Allowances From Other Nations
- Subtitle C Agriculture and Forestry Program in the United States
Title IV Establishing a Greenhouse‐Gas Emissions Trading Market
- Subtitle A Trading
- Subtitle B Market Oversight and Enforcement
- Subtitle C Carbon Market Efficiency Board
- Subtitle D Climate Change Technology Board
- Subtitle E Auction on Consignment
Title V Federal Program to Prevent Economic Hardship
- Subtitle A Banking
- Subtitle H Transition Assistance for Natural‐Gas Processors
- Subtitle I Federal Program for Consumers
Title VI Partnerships with States, Localities and Indian Tribes
- Subtitle A Partnerships with State Governments to Prevent Economic Hardship While Promoting Efficiency
- Subtitle B Partnerships with States, Localities, and Indian Tribes to Reduce Emissions
- Subtitle C Partnerships with States and Indian Tribes to Adapt to Climate Change
- Subtitle D Partnerships with States, Localities, and Indian Tribes to Protect Natural Resources
Title VII Recognizing Early Action
Title VIII Efficiency and Renewable Energy
- Subtitle A Efficient Buildings
- Subtitle B Efficient Equipment and Appliances
- Subtitle C Efficient Manufacturing
- Subtitle D Renewable Energy
Title IX Low‐Carbon Electricity and Advanced Research
- Subtitle A Low‐ and Zero‐Carbon Electricity Technology
- Subtitle B Advanced Research
Title X Future of Coal
- Subtitle A Kick‐Start for Carbon Capture and Sequestration
- Subtitle B Long‐Term Carbon Capture and Sequestration Incentives
- Subtitle C Legal Framework
Title XI Future of Transportation
- Subtitle A Kick‐Start for Clean Commercial Fleets 3
- Subtitle B Advanced Vehicle Manufacturers
- Subtitle C Cellulosic Biofuel
- Subtitle D Low‐Carbon Fuel Standard
Title XII Federal Program to Protect Natural Resources
- Subtitle A Funds
- Subtitle B Bureau of Land Management Emergency Firefighting Program
- Subtitle C Forest Service Emergency Firefighting Program
- Subtitle D National Wildlife Adaptation Strategy
- Subtitle E National Wildlife Adaptation Program
Title XIII International Partnerships to Reduce Emissions and Adapt
- Subtitle A Promoting Fairness While Reducing Emissions
- Subtitle B International Partnerships to Reduce Deforestation and Forest Degradation
- Subtitle C International Partnerships to Deploy Clean Technology
- Subtitle D International Partnerships to Adapt to Climate Change and Protect National Security
Title XIV Reducing the Deficit
Title XV Capping Hydrofluorocarbon Emissions
Title XVI Periodic Reviews and Recommendations
Title XVII Miscellaneous
- Subtitle A Climate Security Act Administrative Fund
- Subtitle B Paramount Interest Waiver
- Subtitle C Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review
- Subtitle D State Authority
- Subtitle E Tribal Authority
- Subtitle F Retail Carbon Offsets
- Subtitle G Clean Air Act
- Subtitle H Study on State‐Federal Program Interaction
Waxman: 'White House Involved in California Waiver Denial'
From the Wonk Room.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) has today released documents and testimony that show White House involvement in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to deny California’s request for a waiver to enforce its greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks.
According to testimony by former EPA Associate Deputy Administrator Jason Burnett, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson’s “preference for a full or partial grant of the waiver did not change until after he communicated with the White House” :
When asked by Committee staff “whether the Administrator communicated with the White House in between his preference to do a partial grant and the ultimate decision” to deny the waiver, Mr. Burnett responded: “I believe the answer is yes.” When asked “after his communications with the White House, did he still support granting the waiver in part,” Mr. Burnett answered: “He ultimately decided to deny the waiver.” Mr. Burnett also affirmed that there was “White House input into the rationale in the December 19th letter” announcing the denial of the waiver and in the formal decision document issued in March 2008.
Burnett refused to testify on any further specifics, telling the investigators “that he had been directed not to answer any questions about the involvement of the White House in the decision to reject California’s petition.” Burnett, who was involved in a series of questionable EPA decisions during his tenure, resigned from the EPA on May 6.
On December 19, 2007, the date President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson announced that his agency would deny California’s waiver request. This request, made in 2005, set off a series of legal battles that culminated in the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts vs. EPA that ordered the EPA to take action on greenhouse gases. Since then, the EPA has failed to obey the Supreme Court mandate, despite the efforts of career staff.
Waxman’s memo concludes:It would be a serious breach if the President or other White House officials directed Administrator Johnson to ignore the record before the agency and deny California’s petition for political or other inappropriate reasons. Further investigation will be required to assess the legality of the White House role in the rejection of the California motor vehicle standards.
Johnson is expected to testify before Waxman’s committee tomorrow at 1 PM.
Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch writes:This is an incredibly sordid story. Steve Johnson should come out and finally tell the truth about this situation. And he should resign for agreeing not only to be a White House pawn but for trying to deceive the public about what happened.
Boxer Releases Preview of Lieberman-Warner Manager's Amendment
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) has released an overview of the “global warming substitute amendment” to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) that will be the subject of debate during the first week of June.
Changes from the version of Lieberman-Warner that was passed out of the Committee on Environment and Public Works last year include:- Title V, Subtitle C: Emergency Off-Ramps. “If the price of carbon allowances reaches a certain price range, there is a mechanism that will automatically release additional emission allowances onto the market to lower the price. The additional allowances are borrowed so that the environmental integrity of the caps over the long term is protected.”
- Title V, Subtitle I: Financial Relief for Consumers. “The bill sets aside a nearly $800 billion tax relief fund through 2050, which will help consumers in need of assistance related to energy costs. The precise details of the relief will be developed by the Finance committee.”
- Title XIV: Deficit Neutrality. “This section auctions allowances and transfers the proceeds to the Treasury to ensure that the bill is deficit-neutral.”
EPA Seeking Comments on Renewable Fuel Standard Waiver Request
On May 16, 2008 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it is seeking comments regarding a recent petition to reduce the volume of renewable fuels required under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). In a letter sent to EPA on April 25, 2008, Governor Rick Perry of Texas requested that the EPA cut the RFS mandate for ethanol production in half (RFS mandate for 2008 is 9 billion gallons), citing recent economic impacts in Texas. In response, EPA will soon publish a Federal Register Notice opening a 30-day comment period on the request.
In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which established the RFS program, provisions were included enabling the EPA Administrator to suspend part of the RFS if its implementation would severely harm the economy or environment of a state, region, or the entire country. EPA must make a decision on a waiver request within 90 days of receiving it.
EPA Renewable Fuel Standard Program
EPA Notice (PDF)
The Effects of Ethanol on Texas Food and Feed (PDF) — Study from Texas A&M University (April 2008)
If you have questions, please email or call Jetta Wong at jwong [at] eesi.org or (202) 662-1885.
Kempthorne: Polar Bear 'Threatened' By Decline of Arctic Sea Ice, But Drilling Can Continue
Originally posted at the Wonk Room.
After years of delay, Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne made a landmark decision on whether global warming pollution is regulated by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Kempthorne ruled that the polar bear should be classified as a “threatened species” due to the decline of polar sea ice, critical to its survival. Kempthorne stated:
They are likely to become endangered in the near future.
The Department of Interior, under Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, fought for several years in the courts since 2005 to avoid making a decision on whether the precipitous decline in Arctic sea ice due to global warming is making the polar bear an endangered species. Fish and Wildlife Service director Dale Hall testified in January that there was no significant scientific uncertainty in the endangerment posed by global warming to polar bears—the only legal justification under the Endangered Species Act for a delay.
Kempthone’s decision to follow the science is in marked contrast to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson’s action to override his staff in refusing to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions.
However, Kempthorne also argued vigorously that his decison does not compel the Bush administration to construct a plan to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, repeating President Bush’s entirely spurious claim that would be a “wholly inappropriate use” of the Endangered Species Act. The Interior news release announces, “Rule will allow continuation of vital energy production in Alaska.” Kempthorne claimed that the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) is “more stringent” than the ESA, despite the court ruling that compelled him to make today’s ruling stating that “the protections afforded under the ESA far surpass those provided by the MMPA.”
Despite his protestations, Kempthorne’s decision clearly calls into question the legality of the sale of oil and gas drilling rights in polar bear habitat on February 6, while the polar bear decision was being illegally delayed.
Kempthorne complained that the Endangered Species Act is “one of the most inflexible” pieces of legislation because it didn’t allow him to consider economic impacts when protecting species like the polar bear from extinction.
From the Department of Interior press release on the 368-page rule:To make sure the ESA is not misused to regulate global climate change, Kempthorne promised the following actions:
- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing a 4(d) rule that states that if an activity is permissible under the stricter standards of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, it is also permissible under the ESA with respect to the polar bear. This rule, effective immediately, will ensure the protection of the bear while allowing us to continue to develop our natural resources in the arctic region in an environmentally sound way.
- Director Hall will issue guidance to staff that the best scientific data available today cannot make a causal connection between harm to listed species or their habitats and greenhouse gas emissions from a specific facility, or resource development project or government action.
- The Department will issue a Solicitor’s Opinion further clarifying these points.
- The Department will propose common sense modifications to the existing ESA regulatory language to prevent abuse of this listing to erect a back-door climate policy outside our normal system of political accountability.
Andy Revkin at Dot Earth concludes, “So this leaves everything as it was, in a way, with the bears facing a transforming ecosystem and environmentalists successful in their litigation, but not necessarily empowered by the listing.” At Climate Progress Joe Romm calls the decision “bye-polar disorder.”
Sierra Club spokesman Josh Dorner tells the Wonk Room, “This is the regulatory equivalent of a signing statement—only this one gets to be challenged in court.”
Text of John McCain's Climate Change Speech and Handouts
McCain campaign talking points, question-and-answer and “fact sheet” handouts.
Here is the full text of Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) speech on climate change in Portland, Oregon, as prepared for delivery:
Thank you all very much. I appreciate the hospitality of Vestas Wind Technology. Today is a kind of test run for the company. They’ve got wind technicians here, wind studies, and all these wind turbines, but there’s no wind. So now I know why they asked me to come give a speech.Every day, when there are no reporters and cameras around to draw attention to it, this company and others like it are doing important work. And what we see here is just a glimpse of much bigger things to come. Wind power is one of many alternative energy sources that are changing our economy for the better. And one day they will change our economy forever.
Wind is a clean and predictable source of energy, and about as renewable as anything on earth. Along with solar power, fuel-cell technology, cleaner burning fuels and other new energy sources, wind power will bring America closer to energy independence. Our economy depends upon clean and affordable alternatives to fossil fuels, and so, in many ways, does our security. A large share of the world’s oil reserves is controlled by foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart. And as our reliance on oil passes away, their power will vanish with it.
In the coming weeks I intend to address many of the great challenges that America’s energy policies must meet. When we debate energy bills in Washington, it should be more than a competition among industries for special favors, subsidies, and tax breaks. In the Congress, we need to send the special interests on their way – without their favors and subsidies. We need to draw on the best ideas of both parties, and on all the resources a free market can provide. We need to keep our eyes on big goals in energy policy, the serious dangers, and the common interests of the American people.
Today I’d like to focus on just one of those challenges, and among environmental dangers it is surely the most serious of all. Whether we call it “climate change” or “global warming,” in the end we’re all left with the same set of facts. The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington. Good stewardship, prudence, and simple commonsense demand that we to act meet the challenge, and act quickly.
Some of the most compelling evidence of global warming comes to us from NASA. No longer do we need to rely on guesswork and computer modeling, because satellite images reveal a dramatic disappearance of glaciers, Antarctic ice shelves and polar ice sheets. And I’ve seen some of this evidence up close. A few years ago I traveled to the area of Svalbard, Norway, a group of islands in the Arctic Ocean. I was shown the southernmost point where a glacier had reached twenty years earlier. From there, we had to venture northward up the fjord to see where that same glacier ends today – because all the rest has melted. On a trip to Alaska, I heard about a national park visitor’s center that was built to offer a picture-perfect view of a large glacier. Problem is, the glacier is gone. A work of nature that took ages to form had melted away in a matter of decades.
Our scientists have also seen and measured reduced snowpack, with earlier runoffs in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere. We have seen sustained drought in the Southwest, and across the world average temperatures that seem to reach new records every few years. We have seen a higher incidence of extreme weather events. In the frozen wilds of Alaska, the Arctic, Antarctic, and elsewhere, wildlife biologists have noted sudden changes in animal migration patterns, a loss of their habitat, a rise in sea levels. And you would think that if the polar bears, walruses, and sea birds have the good sense to respond to new conditions and new dangers, then humanity can respond as well.
We have many advantages in the fight against global warming, but time is not one of them. Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring. We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge.
There are vital measures we can take in the short term, even as we focus on long-term policies to mitigate the effects of global warming. In the years ahead, we are likely to see reduced water supplies … more forest fires than in previous decades … changes in crop production … more heat waves afflicting our cities and a greater intensity in storms. Each one of these consequences of climate change will require policies to protect our citizens, especially those most vulnerable to violent weather. Each one will require new precautions in the repair and construction our roads, bridges, railways, seawalls and other infrastructure. Some state local governments have already begun their planning and preparation for extreme events and other impacts of climate change. The federal government can help them in many ways, above all by coordinating their efforts, and I am committed to providing that support.
To lead in this effort, however, our government must strike at the source of the problem—with reforms that only Congress can enact and the president can sign. We know that greenhouse gasses are heavily implicated as a cause of climate change. And we know that among all greenhouse gasses, the worst by far is the carbon-dioxide that results from fossil-fuel combustion. Yet for all the good work of entrepreneurs and inventors in finding cleaner and better technologies, the fundamental incentives of the market are still on the side of carbon-based energy. This has to change before we can make the decisive shift away from fossil fuels.
For the market to do more, government must do more by opening new paths of invention and ingenuity. And we must do this in a way that gives American businesses new incentives and new rewards to seek, instead of just giving them new taxes to pay and new orders to follow. The most direct way to achieve this is through a system that sets clear limits on all greenhouse gases, while also allowing the sale of rights to excess emissions. And this is the proposal I will submit to the Congress if I am elected president—a cap-and-trade system to change the dynamic of our energy economy.
As a program under the Clean Air Act, the cap-and-trade system achieved enormous success in ridding the air of acid rain. And the same approach that brought a decline in sulfur dioxide emissions can have an equally dramatic and permanent effect on carbon emissions. Instantly, automakers, coal companies, power plants, and every other enterprise in America would have an incentive to reduce carbon emissions, because when they go under those limits they can sell the balance of permitted emissions for cash. As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve, or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy. It is very hard to picture venture capitalists, corporate planners, small businesses and environmentalists all working to the same good purpose. But such cooperation is actually possible in the case of climate change, and this reform will set it in motion.
The people of this country have a genius for adapting, solving problems, and inventing new and better ways to accomplish our goals. But the federal government can’t just summon those talents by command – only the free market can draw them out. A cap-and-trade policy will send a signal that will be heard and welcomed all across the American economy. Those who want clean coal technology, more wind and solar, nuclear power, biomass and bio-fuels will have their opportunity through a new market that rewards those and other innovations in clean energy. The market will evolve, too, by requiring sensible reductions in greenhouse gases, but also by allowing full flexibility in how industry meets that requirement. Entrepreneurs and firms will know which energy investments they should make. And the highest rewards will go to those who make the smartest, safest, most responsible choices. A cap-and-trade reform will also create a profitable opportunity for rural America to receive market-based payments
- instead of government subsidies -for the conservation practices that store carbon in the soils of our nation’s farms.We will cap emissions according to specific goals, measuring progress by reference to past carbon emissions. By the year 2012, we will seek a return to 2005 levels of emission … by 2020, a return to 1990 levels … and so on until we have achieved at least a reduction of sixty percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050. In the course of time, it may be that new ideas and technologies will come along that we can hardly imagine today, allowing all industries to change with a speed that will surprise us. More likely, however, there will be some companies that need extra emissions rights, and they will be able to buy them. The system to meet these targets and timetables will give these companies extra time to adapt—and that is good economic policy. It is also a matter of simple fairness, because the cap-and-trade system will create jobs, improve livelihoods, and strengthen futures across our country.
The goal in all of this is to assure an energy supply that is safe, secure, diverse, and domestic. And in pursuit of these objectives, we cannot afford to take economic growth and job creation for granted. A strong and growing economy is essential to all of our goals, and especially the goal of finding alternatives to carbon-based technology. We want to turn the American economy toward cleaner and safer energy sources. And you can’t achieve that by imposing costs that the American economy cannot sustain.
As part of my cap-and-trade incentives, I will also propose to include the purchase of offsets from those outside the scope of the trading system. This will broaden the array of rewards for reduced emissions, while also lowering the costs of compliance with our new emissions standards. Through the sale of offsets – and with strict standards to assure that reductions are real – our agricultural sector alone can provide as much as forty percent of the overall reductions we will require in greenhouse gas emissions. And in the short term, farmers and ranchers can do it in some of the most cost-effective ways.
Over time, an increasing fraction of permits for emissions could be supplied by auction, yielding federal revenues that can be put to good use. Under my plan, we will apply these and other federal funds to help build the infrastructure of a post-carbon economy. We will support projects to advance technologies that capture and store carbon emissions. We will assist in transmitting wind- and solar-generated power from states that have them to states that need them. We will add to current federal efforts to develop promising technologies, such as plug-ins, hybrids, flex-fuel vehicles, and hydrogen-powered cars and trucks. We will also establish clear standards in government-funded research, to make sure that funding is effective and focused on the right goals.
And to create greater demand for the best technologies and practices in energy conservation, we will use the purchasing power of the United States government. Our government can hardly expect citizens and private businesses to adopt or invest in low-carbon technologies when it doesn’t always hold itself to the same standard. We need to set a better example in Washington, by consistently applying the best environmental standards to every purchase our government makes.
As we move toward all of these goals, and over time put the age of fossil fuels behind us, we must consider every alternative source of power, and that includes nuclear power. When our cap-and-trade policy is in place, there will be a sudden and sustained pursuit in the market for new investment opportunities in low-emission fuel sources. And here we have a known, proven energy source that requires exactly zero emissions. We have 104 nuclear reactors in our country, generating about twenty percent of our electricity. These reactors alone spare the atmosphere from about 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be released every year. That’s the annual equivalent of nearly all emissions from all the cars we drive in America. Europe, for its part, has 197 reactors in operation, and nations including France and Belgium derive more than half their electricity from nuclear power. Those good practices contribute to the more than two billion metric tons of carbon dioxide avoided every year, worldwide, because of nuclear energy. It doesn’t take a leap in logic to conclude that if we want to arrest global warming, then nuclear energy is a powerful ally in that cause.
In a cap-and-trade energy economy, the cost of building new reactors will be less prohibitive. The incentives to invest in a mature, zero-emissions technology will be stronger. New research and innovation will help the industry to overcome the well known drawbacks to nuclear power, such as the transport and storage of waste. And our government can help in these efforts. We can support research to extend the use of existing plants. Above all, we must make certain that every plant in America is safe from the designs of terrorists. And when all of this is assured, it will be time again to expand our use of one of the cleanest, safest, and most reliable sources of energy on earth.
For all of the last century, the profit motive basically led in one direction—toward machines, methods, and industries that used oil and gas. Enormous good came from that industrial growth, and we are all the beneficiaries of the national prosperity it built. But there were costs we weren’t counting, and often hardly noticed. And these terrible costs have added up now, in the atmosphere, in the oceans, and all across the natural world. They are no longer tenable, sustainable, or defensible. And what better way to correct past errors than to turn the creative energies of the free market in the other direction? Under the cap-and-trade system, this can happen. In all its power, the profit motive will suddenly begin to shift and point the other way – toward cleaner fuels, wiser ways, and a healthier planet.
As a nation, we make our own environmental plans and our own resolutions. But working with other nations to arrest climate change can be an even tougher proposition. China, India, and other developing economic powers in particular are among the greatest contributors to global warming today—increasing carbon emissions at a furious pace – and they are not receptive to international standards. Nor do they think that we in the industrialized world are in any position to preach the good news of carbon-emission control. We made most of our contributions to global warming before anyone knew about global warming.
This set of facts and perceived self-interests proved the undoing of the Kyoto Protocols. As president, I will have to deal with the same set of facts. I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges. I will not accept the same dead-end of failed diplomacy that claimed Kyoto. The United States will lead and will lead with a different approach—an approach that speaks to the interests and obligations of every nation.
Shared dangers mean shared duties, and global problems require global cooperation. The United States and our friends in Europe cannot alone deal with the threat of global warming. No nation should be exempted from its obligations. And least of all should we make exceptions for the very countries that are accelerating carbon emissions while the rest of us seek to reduce emissions. If we are going to establish meaningful environmental protocols, then they must include the two nations that have the potential to pollute the air faster, and in greater annual volume, than any nation ever in history.
At the same time, we will continue in good faith to negotiate with China and other nations to enact the standards and controls that are in the interest of every nation – whatever their stage of economic development. And America can take the lead in offering these developing nations the low-carbon technologies that we will make and they will need. One good idea or invention to reduce carbon emissions is worth a thousand finely crafted proposals at a conference table. And the governments of these developing economic powers will soon recognize, as America is beginning to do, their urgent need for cleaner-burning fuels and safer sources of energy.
If the efforts to negotiate an international solution that includes China and India do not succeed, we still have an obligation to act.
In my approach to global climate-control efforts, we will apply the principle of equal treatment. We will apply the same environmental standards to industries in China, India, and elsewhere that we apply to our own industries. And if industrializing countries seek an economic advantage by evading those standards, I would work with the European Union and other like-minded governments that plan to address the global warming problem to develop a cost equalization mechanism to apply to those countries that decline to enact a similar cap.
For all of its historical disregard of environmental standards, it cannot have escaped the attention of the Chinese regime that China’s skies are dangerously polluted, its beautiful rivers are dying, its grasslands vanishing, its coastlines receding, and its own glaciers melting. We know many of these signs from our own experience—from environmental lessons learned the hard way. And today, all the world knows that they are the signs of even greater trouble to come. Pressing on blindly with uncontrolled carbon emissions is in no one’s interest, especially China’s. And the rest of the world stands ready to help.
Like other environmental challenges
- only more so -global warming presents a test of foresight, of political courage, and of the unselfish concern that one generation owes to the next. We need to think straight about the dangers ahead, and to meet the problem with all the resources of human ingenuity at our disposal. We Americans like to say that there is no problem we can’t solve, however complicated, and no obstacle we cannot overcome if we meet it together. I believe this about our country. I know this about our country. And now it is time for us to show those qualities once again.Thank you.
Older posts: 1 2