Hill Heat

NARRATOR: China. India. Some of the world’s worst polluters. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton forced them to the table, making real change by laying the groundwork for the historic global agreement to combat climate change.

As president, she’ll invest in a clean energy future, and the jobs that go with it. And stand firm with New Yorkers opposing fracking, giving communities the right to say no. Because our future depends on getting this right.

CLINTON: I’m Hillary Clinton, and I approve this message.

Sisters and Brothers -

Just days before the Iowa caucus, Hillary Clinton left the campaign trail for a high-dollar fundraiser at a hedge fund. That same hedge fund is a major investor in fracking, an incredibly destructive practice of extracting natural gas by pumping hundreds of secret chemicals into the ground.

Hillary Clinton supports fracking. I do not.

And just as I believe you can’t take on Wall Street while taking their money, I don’t believe you can take on climate change effectively while taking money from those who would profit off the destruction of the planet.

Please contribute to our campaign right now to help elect a president who isn’t beholden to special interests that profit off of pollution.

Dick Cheney pushed through changes to the Safe Drinking Water Act that legalized fracking, despite the fact that fracking companies keep the chemicals they pump into the ground a secret.

People who live near fracking locations no longer have drinkable water, and in some cases their tap water is actually flammable. Oklahoma has even seen a rash of earthquakes that many believe are a result of fracking.

In short, fracking is a disaster for the planet.

We need a president who is not beholden to special interests and who will do everything in his or her power to fight the effects of climate change. It’s clear that to elect that kind of president, millions of people need to come together and chip in whatever they can.

Make a contribution to our campaign now to send a message that you want to elect a president who will do everything possible to fight climate change.

We can’t afford to let people who would destroy our planet elect our next president.

Thank you for your support.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders

It seems highly likely to me that climate change poses a major problem for the planet. I say "highly likely" rather than "certain" because I have no scientific aptitude and remember well the dire predictions of most "experts" about Y2K. It would be foolish, however, for me or anyone to demand 100% proof of huge forthcoming damage to the world, if that outcome seemed at all possible and if prompt action had even a small chance of thwarting the threat. If there is only a 1% chance the planet is heading toward a truly major disaster and delay means passing a point of no return, inaction now is foolhardy. Call this Noah's Law: If an ark may be essential for survival, begin building it today, no matter how cloudless the skies appear.

It's understandable that the sponsor of the proposal believes Berkshire is especially threatened by climate change because we are a huge insurer, covering all sorts of risks. The sponsor may worry that property losses will skyrocket because of weather changes. And such worries might, in fact, be warranted if we wrote ten- or twenty-year policies at fixed prices. But insurance policies are customarily written for one year and repriced annually to reflect changing exposures. Increase possibilities of loss translate promptly into increased premiums.

So far, climate change has not produced more frequent or more costly hurricanes or other weather-related events covered by insurance. As a consequence, U.S. super-cat rates have fallen steadily in recent years which is why we have backed away from that business. If super-cats become costlier and more frequent, the likely - though far from certain - effect on Bershire's insurance business would be to make it larger and more profitable.

As a citizen, you may understandably find climate change keeping you up at nights. As a homeowner in a low-lying area, you may wish to consider moving. But when you are thinking only as a shareholder of a major insurer, climate change should not be on your list of worries.

SEC. lll. CREDIT FOR FUEL REFINED AT CERTAIN REFINERIES.
(a) CREDIT AGAINST EXCISE TAXES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter B of chapter 65 of subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
‘‘SEC. 6433. CREDIT FOR FUEL REFINED AT CERTAIN INDEPENDENT REFINERIES.
‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT.—In the case of an eligible taxpayer, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by section 4081 an amount equal to the product of—
‘‘(1) the number of barrels of crude oil which—
‘‘(A) are received after December 31, 2015, at a refinery owned by the eligible taxpayer, and
‘‘(B) not taken into account under this section for any preceding period, and
‘‘(2) $3.
‘‘(b) LIMITATION.—The amount of crude oil taken into account under subsection (a) for any day shall not exceed 155,000 barrels.
‘‘© SPECIAL RULE FOR CERTAIN REFINERIES RECEIVING CRUDE OIL BY LONG-DISTANCE PIPELINE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of crude oil received at a refinery which is capable of receiving crude oil from a pipeline which is in excess of 35 miles long as of January 1, 2015, subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting ‘$0.30’ for ‘$3’ in paragraph (2) thereof.
‘‘(2) ORDERING RULE.—For purposes of applying the limitation under subsection (b), crude oil shall be treated as being received first at refineries to which paragraph (1) does not apply.
‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.—In this section—
‘‘(1) ELIGIBLE TAXPAYER.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘eligible taxpayer’ means any taxpayer who owns a refinery other than a major integrated oil company (as defined in section 167(h)(5)(B)).
‘‘(B) AGGREGATION RULES.—For purposes of determining gross receipts under subparagraph (B), all persons treated as a single employer under subsection (a) or (b) of section 52 shall be treated as one person.
‘‘(2) BARREL.—The term ‘barrel’ means 42 United States gallons.
‘‘(3) FRACTIONAL RATE OF BARREL.—In the case of a fraction of a barrel, the credit allowed under subsection (a) shall be the same fraction of the amount of such credit with respect to a whole barrel.
‘‘(e) TERMINATION.—This section shall not apply to crude oil received after December 31, 2022.’’.
(2) PROTECTION OF HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.— The last sentence of section 9503(b)(1) of such Code is amended by inserting ‘‘or 6433’’ after ‘‘6426’’.
(3) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for subchapter B of chapter 65 of subtitle F of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
‘‘Sec. 6433. Credit for fuel refined at certain independent refineries.’’.
(b) CREDIT AGAINST INCOME TAXES.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
‘‘SEC. 45S. INDEPENDENT REFINERY CREDIT.
‘‘(a) ALLOWANCE OF CREDITS.—For purposes of section 38, in the case of an eligible taxpayer, the independent refinery credit determined under this section for the taxable year is an amount equal to the product of—
‘‘(1) the number of barrels of crude oil which—
‘‘(A) are received after December 31, 2015, at a refinery owned by the eligible taxpayer, and
‘‘(B) not taken into account under this section for any preceding taxable year, and
‘‘(2) $3.
‘‘(b) LIMITATION.—The amount of crude oil taken into account under subsection (a) for any day shall not exceed 155,000 barrels.
‘‘© SPECIAL RULE FOR CERTAIN REFINERIES RECEIVING CRUDE OIL BY LONG-DISTANCE PIPELINE.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of crude oil received at a refinery which is capable of receiving crude oil from a pipeline which is in excess of 35 miles long as of January 1, 2015, subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting ‘$0.30’ for ‘$3’ in paragraph (2) thereof.
‘‘(2) ORDERING RULE.—For purposes of applying the limitation under subsection (b), crude oil shall be treated as being received first at refineries to which paragraph (1) does not apply.
‘‘(d) DEFINITIONS AND SPECIAL RULES.—For purposes of this section—
‘‘(1) any term used in this section which is used in section 6433 shall have the meaning given such term under section 6433, and
‘‘(2) rules similar to the rules of section 6433(d)(3) shall apply.
‘‘(e) COORDINATION WITH CREDIT AGAINST EXCISE TAX.—The amount of the credit determined under this section with respect to any crude oil shall be reduced to take into account any benefit provided with respect to such crude oil under section 6433.
‘‘(f) TERMINATION.—This section shall not apply to crude oil received after December 31, 2022.’’.
(2) TREATMENT AS PART OF GENERAL BUSINESS CREDIT.—Section 38(b) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘plus’’ at the end of paragraph
(35), by striking the period at the end of paragraph
(36) and inserting ‘‘, plus’’, and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘‘(37) the independent refinery credit determined under section 45S(a).’’.
(3) DENIAL OF DOUBLE BENEFIT.—Section 280C of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘‘(j) CREDIT FOR INDEPENDENT REFINERIES.—No deduction shall be allowed for that portion of the expenses otherwise allowable as a deduction taken into account in determining the credit under section 45S for the taxable year which is equal to the amount of the credit determined for such taxable year under section 45S(a).’’.
(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
‘‘45S. Independent refinery credit.’’.
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall apply to crude oil received after December 31, 2015.

One official at a group fighting to preserve the export ban said environmentalists are concerned that the White House’s “door [is] wide open for wheeling and dealing and trading.”

Some in the White House “think there’s a way to get a good conservation package” in exchange for allowing oil exports, said a source off the Hill who is closely tracking the talks who requested anonymity.

In addition to other controversies that are threatening to swamp a government funding deal outright, the source said, Obama’s aides are aware that handing Republicans a win on oil exports without significant wins for Democrats on other issues could look like “walking back the commitments the president made in Paris” to rein in U.S. emissions by nearly one-third over the next decade.

Though Johnson slammed as “unconscionable” the growing openness among some Democrats and green groups to a trade-off that would roll back the export ban in exchange for renewable energy and conservation benefits, that willingness to compromise showed no signs of abating on Tuesday.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, shrugged off environmentalist fears about trading conservation and renewables’ benefits for oil exports. There is “division” among green groups over whether to cut a deal, she said in a brief interview. “I’ve heard environmentalists say this is a great opportunity; others say it’s not,” she said.

Any deal would also likely include some type of aid for refineries in the Northeast that have benefited from cheap domestic crude that cannot be exported currently. Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) said he said he is in discussions for an approach “to make whole American refineries that in many cases would simply go out of business” should exports be permitted.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters that oil exports were not objectionable enough to sink a possible deal on their own.

Ending the 1970s-era ban on exports, the year’s top priority for the American Petroleum Institute, is “not where we want to go,” Hoyer said. “But on the other hand, if there were substantial agreements by the Republicans on some things that we thought were very important, that might be something” to consider during the budget talks.

The Sierra Club’s New Jersey chapter called out its junior Democratic senator directly on Tuesday, pleading for Cory Booker to “stand up to Big Oil” by ruling out any change to the export ban.

“We already have 15 pipelines proposed throughout our state and this plan will bring more dirty fossil fuel infrastructure through our communities,” Sierra’s New Jersey director, Jeff Tittel, said in a statement.

SolarCity CEO Lyndon Rive, head of the nation’s biggest rooftop solar power company, fueled talk of a deal that would marry clean-energy tax benefits with conservation funding – as well as other Democratic priorities – during an interview in Paris yesterday. If allowing exports “in return, enabled us to have long-term visibility into continuing to incentivize and promote solar, then I think that’s a fair trade,” Rive said.

Even as lawmakers openly mull a deal, few in the Senate have reckoned with how the Democratic demands under a deal that allows exports would fare among senior House Republicans. Not only does House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop want broader reforms in exchange for any extension for federal conservation spending, but many House conservatives are ideologically set against boosting breaks for renewable energy.

And unrelated disagreements over tax policies this week, such as the earned income credit, may yet force the GOP to punt on a broad package of tax-break extensions that would leave the Democrats without a vehicle for their must-have incentives for wind and solar. Should the tax package evaporate, prospects would dim for an oil exports deal despite the apparent White House openness.

“I think it would be really hard to support it without the tax provisions as part of a broader, pro-environmental package to accompany the lifting of the ban,” one Democratic aide said.

1. WMB Ask #1: Net zero greenhouse gas emissions well before the end of the century

Businesses and investors need a strong long-term goal in the Paris Agreement that sets a clear destination and time frame, and that operationalizes a global emissions pathway which holds warming below 2°C. This would provide the policy certainty and clarity needed to drive low carbon and climate resilient investment in the real economy. By providing long-term details in national decarbonization strategies to 2050, governments will increase business confidence in making multi-decadal low carbon capital investments.

Preferred Text

• Article 2 (Purpose)
  “The purpose of this Agreement is to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2°C and preferably below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by ensuring deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions, and to achieve the global transformation to low carbon and climate resilient economies and societies.”
• Article 3 (Mitigation)
  “To achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2 of this Agreement, Parties collectively aim to reach net zero global greenhouse gas emissions well before the end of this century.”
• COP Decision
  “Strongly encourages Parties to formulate and communicate, by 2018, national decarbonization strategies to 2050, to facilitate the mobilization of climate finance and investment.”

2. WMB Ask #2: Strengthen commitments every 5 years

After COP21, from 2016 to 2020, businesses will unleash additional low carbon innovation and investment. Continuous improvement should apply not only to businesses but to governments as well. By strengthening their commitments every 5 years, starting in 2020, governments will keep pace with private sector innovation, stimulate increased private sector ambition, and progressively realize the transformation of the global economy.

Preferred Text

• Article 3 (Mitigation)
  “Successive nationally determined commitments shall be communicated every 5 years.”

  “Each Party shall progressively strengthen the ambition of their successive nationally determined commitment every 5 years from 2020 onwards, informed by the global stocktake set out in Article 10 and by the best available science, until the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC and the objective of this Agreement are achieved.”

• Article 10 (Global Stocktake)
  “The CMA shall, in 2024 and every 5 years thereafter, take stock of the implementation of this Agreement, to assess collective progress towards achieving the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC and the objective of this Agreement, in order to inform the formulation and communication of successive nationally determined commitments.”
• COP Decision
  “Requests all Parties to communicate an updated nationally determined commitment well in advance of the twenty-sixth session of the COP (by the first quarter of 2020 for those Parties ready to do so), with a view to enhancing the ambition of their nationally determined commitment.”

  “Decides to convene a dialogue among Parties in 2019 to take stock of the collective efforts of all Parties, to inform the communication of their updated nationally determined commitments.”

3. WMB Ask #3: Enact meaningful carbon pricing

Carbon pricing is one of the key policy instruments needed to harness the power of business to tackle climate change. With the majority of INDCs either putting or considering a price on carbon, whether through carbon taxes or markets, the Paris Agreement should recognize their efforts and the merits of these approaches to driving emissions reductions. Over a thousand companies have reported using an internal carbon price or plan to do so, in anticipation of future regulation. A price on carbon incentivizes low carbon innovation, shifts investment towards low carbon technologies, and helps ensure sustained economic competitiveness. To be effective, carbon pricing needs to be adopted globally, to reach high enough levels to change investment decisions and behaviour towards lower carbon ones and to converge to avoid trade friction.

Preferred Text

• Preamble
  “Emphasizing that many Parties have already put a price on carbon, and that where the price is sufficient to drive lower carbon investment and behavior, this is an important, efficient, and cost-effective approach to achieving deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions.”
• Article 3 (Mitigation)
  “The CMA shall further facilitate international cooperation between Parties in the implementation of mitigation activities.”

  “Parties shall ensure the environmental integrity of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes used towards the fulfillment of its nationally determined mitigation commitments. Internationally transferred mitigation outcomes must avoid double-counting and be real, permanent, additional and verified.”

• COP decision
  “Invites all Parties to consider further international cooperation in the implementation of nationally determined mitigation commitments.”

  “Requests that the IPC commence a work programme to develop standardized accounting rules which ensure the environmental integrity of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes, with a view to the IPC making recommendations to the CMA at its first session.”

  “Decides that the CMA shall, at its first session, adopt standardized accounting rules which ensure the environmental integrity of internationally transferred mitigation outcomes.”

• NDCs
  Many submitted NDCs put a price on carbon, whether through carbon taxes or markets, and if through markets, anticipate potential links to other markets.

4. WMB Ask #4: New and additional climate finance at scale

The satisfaction of the Copenhagen pledge to mobilize $100 billion per year of climate finance in 2020 is key to an ambitious deal in Paris. But building the low carbon economy will take trillions – not billions – of dollars in climate finance. To shift these trillions, the Paris Agreement will need to improve the predictability of financial flows, improve domestic enabling environments to facilitate climate investment, and direct international support towards low emission and climate resilient investment.

Preferred Text

• Article 6 (Finance)
  “Developed country Parties, and other Parties willing to do so, shall scale up the mobilization of climate finance from USD 100 billion per year from 2020.”

  “Parties shall improve the predictability of finance flows, including through the transparency system set out under Article 9.”

  “All Parties shall strive to improve domestic enabling environments, to encourage the mobilization of climate finance from a wide variety of sources, including public and private, bilateral and multilateral and alternative sources.”

  “Parties shall enhance international support for low emission and climate resilient investments, and reduce international support for high emission and maladaptive investments.”

• COP Decision
  “Decides that Parties shall, in accordance with their national circumstances, consult and cooperate to mobilize climate finance and investment, including partnering with other Parties and with the private sector.”