Climate bill FAIL... tax and trade economy / job death blow.

Six US Senate Democrats voted to block EPA action on climate change; measure FAIL - 

A Senate resolution to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases failed narrowly Thursday, providing a temporary respite to environmental activists hoping to enact a mandatory cap on emissions before the end of the year.But the 47 to 53 vote showed that even in the wake of the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Congress remains divided over how best to address climate change. The contentious debate, in which some lawmakers suggested federal regulation would strike a devastating blow to the economy, suggested the Senate is far from decided on whether to put a price on the industrial emissions that stem from everyday activities such as lighting a home or driving a car.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who drafted the resolution that would have barred the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, said the central question was whether Congress or the administration would set the rules for curbing carbon dioxide. EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson has already proposed rules that would subject large greenhouse gas emitters -- such as coal-fired utilities and oil refineries -- to federal regulation starting next year.

Several backers, including moderate Maine GOP Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe, said they were still open to the idea of Congress crafting a climate bill. But it is very unclear what form that measure would take, because there are now several competing proposals. Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) just introduced legislation Wednesday that would promote energy efficiency and renewable fuels but would not place a price on carbon. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) met with key committee chairmen Thursday in an effort to draft a compromise Democratic proposal that would impose an overall cap on greenhouse gases.

"They're all over the place, which tells you there's no clear direction," said Bruce Josten, executive vice president for government affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "How many energy bills are floating around just in the Senate right now? It's very confused right now."

But Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said he was confident the Senate would pass climate legislation next month provided President Obama continues to press for the measure. Washington Post

For those of you "in the loop" or just keeping score, here is all the info you would ever need to make a "good" decision on our nations energy and environmental needs:

• EPA Chief: "U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels"
• Cap-and-Trade's Creator a strong Critic
• The Next Great American Bubble Cap-and-trade
• Climate "bill is a disaster"... A Missed Opportunity
• Climate Change, Carbon Trading, and Thievery - Crooks
• "Peak Oil May Solve the Climate Change Problem without Regulation."
• Climate Change - An Atheist and a religion tool
• Senator Graham To Vote Against the Climate Bill He Wrote
• As the cost of energy rises... so will poverty in U.S. now at 1 in 5.
• Cap N Tax - "Job death blow" report from CBO 
• Cap and Trade: Right Debate, Wrong Solution

StoryofStuff  - Do we need Cap N Trade?

It is NO answer to any climate, energy or environmental problems...

The Story of Cap & Trade from Story of Stuff Project on Vimeo.

H.R. 2454 Climate Bill Standard Severely Weakened; May Have Little to No Impact

VIA It's Getting Hot In Here  "at 0.001 percent, 35 percent growth doesn't amount to much."

Advocates of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454, or "ACES" for short) argue that the bill is far more than just a climate bill. It's a comprehensive piece of clean energy, efficiency and climate legislation, and taken as a whole, they argue, it should be considered transformational — even if the cap and trade portion of the bill may have been significantly weakened (see Breakthrough's detailed analysis of the ACES cap and trade program here).

But the question remains: will ACES really be transformational? And will it propel American quickly away from business as usual and towards the prosperous clean energy economy and dramatic emissions reductions we need?

Breakthrough's team has taken a close look at the bill's cap and trade provision, and discovered that the combination of offset provisions and a little-known provision called the "strategic reserve pool" could allow U.S. emissions to greatly exceed the supposed emissions "cap" set by the legislation.

Here we examine one of the other major provisions of the ACES bill, the national renewable electricity standard (RES) established by Title I of the bill. Unfortunately, our analysis concludes that the RES has been severely weakened since initially proposed in the discussion draft version of the ACES bill; as it now stands, the RES may barely increase U.S. renewable electricity generation compared to business as usual projections.

We conclude that as it now stands, business as usual renewable electricity generation may exceed the renewable electricity requirement if the discretionary efficiency waivers are fully utilized, and will boost qualifying renewable electricity generation to just 2 percentage points higher than business as usual in 2025 if the efficiency waivers aren't utilized at all. In short, the ACES RES will have between little to no impact on renewable electricity generation through 2025

We also compared the amount of qualifying renewable electricity required by the two version of the renewable electricity standards, and conclude that the H.R. 2454 version of the renewable electricity requirement, as passed by the E&C Committee, is 14% weaker than the originally proposed discussion draft standard in 2020 and 40% weaker in 2025, as illustrated in the graphics below…

It's no wonder neither the American Wind Energy Association or VoteSolar are particularly exuberant about the passage of the ACES bill through the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Here's AWEA's remarks & here's VoteSolar:

Nearly any policy action that encourages more renewable energy is A-OK with us. … However, as currently written, none of the pending RES policies will deploy significant amounts of solar. According to the Department of Energy's analysis of that 25 percent RES by 2025, which again is much stronger than the compromise goals emerging from Committees, the federal RES structure could lead to a 35 percent increase in solar compared to a 678 percent increase in wind. When you're starting at 0.001 percent, 35 percent growth doesn't amount to much.

Read full originally posted at the Breakthrough Institute (VIA It's Getting Hot In Here )

NYTimes - Interview With President Obama on Climate Bill

Regarding President Obama's recent press meeting about Climate Bill H.R.2454

Great words from White House transcript interview with President Obama, provided by the NY Times.

President Obama: ...I think that at the end of the day this bill represents an important first step. There are critics from the left as well as the right; some who say who doesn't go far enough, some who say it goes too far. I am convinced that after a long period of inaction, for us to have taken such a significant step means that we're going to be in a position to advance technologically, obtain huge gains in efficiency. I think what we're going to see is that if we're able to get this in place that it's going to be very similar to the Clean Air Act of '91 or how we approached acid rain, where all the nay-sayers are proven wrong because American ingenuity and technology moves a lot faster when incentives are in place.

President Obama: Well, here's my bottom line. I think you have to have meaningful targets so that by 2020, by 2050 we are actually seeing reductions in carbon emissions. I think we have to have a strong push toward energy efficiency. We know that's the low-hanging fruit, we can save as much as 30 percent of our current energy usage without changing our quality of life. So we've got to go in that direction. I think that there has to be a strong renewable energy component in it. And it has to be deficit-neutral, consumers have to be protected from huge spikes in electricity prices.

So I've got some broad criteria the House bill meets. There are going to be provisions in the House bill and in the Senate bill which I question, in terms of their effectiveness. I'm not going to have a line-item veto, so ultimately -- you know, I'll take a look at the final product. And if it meets those broad criteria -- moving the country forward on energy efficiency -- then it's a bill that I will embrace.

President Obama: Which I think is fascinating, because that tells me those guys are 16 years behind the times. I mean, here they are having an argument about the 1990s and we're in 2009 -- and they're making the same argument on health care. They're doing the same thing. They are fighting not even the last war, they're fighting three wars ago.

The American people have moved forward. They are way ahead. And for all the fear-mongering I think that, as I said, there's a recognition that the status quo is unsustainable.

We have now an additional 15 to 20 years under our belts where we've seen energy prices continue with their volatility, the environmental consequences moved more rapidly than anybody had anticipated, our economy has not been strengthened -- we've actually been -- we've actually fallen behind other countries on this front. The same is true on health care, what we've seen is huge increases in health care costs, less satisfaction, decreases in quality.

But long term, I look at America's history and that tells me that we don't shy away from the future.

Please read full transcript, of an interview with President Obama, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Carol M. Browner, the White House coordinator of energy and climate policy, provided by the White House at NY Times.

---

Haase - Although I often blog about disagreements, it is VERY important to understand that I agreed more with the ideas of President Obama and Dr. Chu than disagreed.  (it is just part of democracy, it gives balance and is vital)

In this transcript there is so many ideals I whole heartily agree with in energy independence, environmental protection and resurrecting Americas job markets.
I also agree that this is a 'first step' at achieving it... but not a step forward.  We have much better options outlined throughout this blog, EPA and other organizations.

I do not believe this bill does enough to protect the environment, get us off foreign fuels fast enough or curbs our bleak future of coal and nuclear power... I hope the president, senate, congress and public will look through enough of the CEO fluff run by lobbyist and energy interest companies, to hear the strong view points of EPA and long standing environmental groups to understand we can not afford to make compromises at this time.

All of this clean coal and nuclear interest will be the fiscal energy demise, bankrupting of all viable programs that we can and should have within a decade... not 'neverland'.

We need a stronger bill that provides MORE renewable energy for geothermal, hydro, waste energy, manf. building efficiencies, community wind and liquid fuels from bio-waste.

These ALL work now, ALL invest in American innovation, ALL can support transport and home needs and return on investment before the first phase of this proposed bill would even make a dent.

Just listen... Listening to all the past reasoning, passion and intelligent ideas by Dr. Chu and President Obama regarding energy and the environment, it does not appear they are disagreeing with me on technology or feasibility, but are compromising with bureaucracy to achieve short gains in the same areas of past failures...

I understand that three decades of no progress makes anyone feel pressured to make 'change', even if it's baby steps.

I am only asking them not to compromise that 'change'.  The inarguable, irreconcilable and fiscally crippling issues with clean coal and current nuclear energy are enough to mark this a 'draft'.

With my help (please ask), I will ensure an uncompromised  'final bill'  that would be something no one could look back on as a mistake.

After decades of them, we need to reflect long and hard on this bill.

Climate bill battle to cost a billion$ or trillion$ ?

In our time of economic crisis what's and the difference between a Billion or 6 Trillion?

 

The numbers - How much will it cost American taxpayers to curb US carbon-dioxide emissions? Far more than the issue of polar-bear protection...

 

The political climate bill battle observers say started on May 20. Government witnesses told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee how much the
leading climate change legislation - the Lieberman-Warner bill (also known as "America's Climate Security Act") - is likely to cost the US economy in terms of economic growth: "As much as 3.8 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) - about $983 billion annually to cut CO2 emissions by 40 percent by 2030, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The consensus among climate scientists is that the US and other nations need to cut their emissions by 80 percent by 2050 to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

 

Bush himself slammed the bill, saying it would cost the US economy $6 trillion and "would Veto US Climate Change Bill".... His estimate drew quick denials from those who support the legislation, including Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat and long-time environmentalist.

 

The answer to the question of economic impact - devastating if we take a reactive path.

EPA Chief: "U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels"

An EPA chart was presented during the Senate's debate of the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade legislation that showed the carbon reductions under that bill would not materially effect global carbon concentrations in the atmosphere.

SENATOR INHOFE: ...This is what we determined during the Warner-Lieberman bill last year, 13 months ago, and that was the EPA that said this is the difference it would make. And let's keep in mind, the IPCC said they wanted to keep it down below 550 parts per million. And this shows by the EPA chart that with or without the developing nations it makes virtually no change.

Do you still agree with this chart? Dr. Chu,

SECRETARY CHU: Uh, no, I don't agree with that chart.

INHOFE: Do you, Secretary Jackson?

ADMINISTRATOR JACKSON: I believe that essential parts of the chart are that the U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels ..

Watt's Up With That concludes with Inhofe's analysis on the effects of the bill if the USA acts unilaterally without China and India:

"I am encouraged that Administrator Jackson agrees that unilateral action by the U.S. will be all cost for no climate gain," Sen. Inhofe said. "With China and India recently issuing statements of defiant opposition to mandatory emissions controls, acting alone through the job-killing Waxman-Markey bill would impose severe economic burdens on American consumers, businesses, and families, all without any impact on climate."

"...I was somewhat surprised that Secretary Chu disagreed with EPA's analysis of what would happen if the U.S. acts alone to address climate change, which cap-and-trade supporters claim is a global problem," Sen. Inhofe said. "EPA's analysis that global greenhouse gas emission levels can only be stabilized with meaningful, mandatory action by China and India is widely accepted. I extend an invitation to the Secretary to see whether he wants to clarify his remarks."

So without the participation of China and India, the climate bill will have virtually no impact on global CO2 emissions.

Please read full from source and You can see the transcript of a video of both these Obama administration officials responding at complete odds with each other under questioning from Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe at the Senate hearing on climate bill.

Senator Graham To Vote Against the Climate Bill He Wrote

Via David Roberts at the Grist: the climate bill's already slim chances are now considerably slimmer.
Lindsey Graham -- an original cosponsor of the Senate climate bill -- has been backing away from that bill for a while. Now, according to CongressDaily, he's gone entirely:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., today said he would vote against a climate change strategy he helped develop with Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., citing new changes that further restrict offshore oil and gas drilling and the bill's impact on the transportation sector.

Related:Cap-and-Trade's Creator a strong Critic  

You would think they would listen to the guy who started it?

JS online 'Cap-and-Trade's Unlikely Critics: Its Creators'

Economists Behind Original Concept Question the System's Large-Scale Usefulness, and Recommend Emissions Taxes Instead

Related? 

(Reuters) - The U.S. debt will top $13.6 trillion this year and climb to an estimated $19.6 trillion by 2015, according to a Treasury Department report to Congress.

Why the 2012 Farm Bill is a climate bill | Farm Bill 2012 | Grist

GRIST:

While many recognize that putting land into conservation programs leads to cleaner water, healthier soil, and robust wildlife habitat, few realize that CRP land also plays a major role in fighting climate change. According to the USDA [PDF], one acre of protected land sequesters 1.66 metric tons of carbon every year, carbon that would otherwise end up in the atmosphere. The 7 million acres about to be cut from the CRP have been putting 11.6 million metric tons of carbon into the soil every year.

The Environmental Protection Agency says that this amount of carbon is equivalent to the annual emissions of 2 million passenger vehicles. All that stored carbon will be sent back into the atmosphere if those 7 million acres are plowed under to plant more industrial-scale corn for ethanol and livestock feed.

Please read more from: http://www.grist.org/farm-bill/2012-01-09-the-farm-bill-is-a-climate-bill

What People Are Saying about the Climate Bill...

World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Director of U.S. Climate Policy Lou Leonard:
"I applaud this important step, but more work is needed. Passing a strong domestic climate change bill is critical to the success of international negotiations on the new global climate agreement. Only with a global partnership can we solve this inherently global problem. Investments in international climate cooperation will also open up markets for American companies for clean technologies and help communities build resilience to climate change impacts."

Greenpeace USA executive director Phil Radford:
"Despite the best efforts of Chairman Waxman, this bill has been seriously undermined by the lobbying of industries more concerned with profits than the plight of our planet. While science clearly tells us that only dramatic action can prevent global warming and its catastrophic impacts, this bill has fallen prey to political infighting and industry pressure. We cannot support this bill in its current state."

cnet senior writer Martin LaMonica:
"There is concern that the targets won't effectively cut back on global warming emissions. But on the whole, green technology advocates and business people were pleased to see the U.S. move forward with some form of regulation to put a price on carbon emissions."

The American Wind Energy Association:
"We are concerned that the significantly lower renewable targets currently being discussed, as compared to proposals from President Obama, Chairman Bingaman and Chairman Markey, will severely blunt the signal for companies like ours that manufacture turbines and components to invest billions of dollars to expand production and our workforces in the U.S."

Washington Post columnist Steven Pearlstein:
"there is no question that there are few pieces of legislation that are likely to have a more profound effect on the U.S. economy. It would bring about dramatic changes in the relative prices of energy and goods produced by energy-hungry industries. It would redistribute trillions of dollars in business sales and household income and generate hundreds of billions in government revenue. And it would represent the most dramatic extension of government's regulatory powers into the workings of the economy since the early days of the New Deal."

Draft of hot air, pipe dreams that could yield more emissions and energy use.

GRIST - Senate Majority Harry ReidHarry ReidSen. Harry Reid. (D-Nev.) said Tuesday that he and other senior lawmakers had drawn up a "rough draft" of climate and energy legislation to be introduced in two weeks.

"I now have a rough draft of what we're going to do," he told reporters. "I hope to be able to have a bill introduced [the] week after next."

President Obama has pushed Congress to pass a comprehensive bill to battle climate change and foster alternative and renewable energy sources this year, as they consider their options on energy and climate legislation, it's important to be clear about what will move the country forward and what will move it backward. Will our leaders put us on the road towards the carbon pollution cuts desperately needed to take back control of our economic, environmental, and national security, or will they drive in the wrong direction and make matters even worse? - GRIST


Unless it includes a cap, an energy bill could make carbon emissions even worse
Unless the overall Senate bill includes a cap on stationary source emissions, some energy bill provisions would actually make carbon emissions worse.  Here are some examples at the GRIST

The American people have waited for long enough to curb the toll of death and illness from power plants' other pollutants. Now the big power companies are proposing, like the Devil to Dr. Faustus, that Americans trade off their health as the price of the companies reducing their global warming pollution. No deal.

When Obama and members of the Senate return from the Independence Day break, they will face a choice on what kind of future to deliver the American people. One path -- climate and energy legislation -- can make good on decades of unmet promises to break the nation's addiction to oil, clean up the air we breathe, and win the clean energy race.

The other path will deliver nothing more than another piecemeal, dirty energy bill that will set the country backwards, not forwards.

The choice should be obvious. Will it be?

Read more from GRIST

• How an energy bill could fuel more global warming
• Climate and energy legislation to be introduced in two weeks

PLEASE remember NONE of this will make a 'dent' in lowering global CO2 levels due to insurmountable coal, oil and energy use projected by India and China.

Boxer-Kerry bill, no hope to pass, prosperity for nation or tangible climate solutions...

NewYorkTimes -  "It's going to need a lot of work," ...

Kerry last week sought to change the vernacular surrounding the climate bill and sell its concepts more broadly, insisting it is not a "cap and trade" proposal but a "pollution reduction" bill. "I don't know what 'cap and trade' means. I don't think the average American does," Kerry said. "This is not a cap-and-trade bill, it's a pollution reduction bill" (E&E Daily, Sept. 25).

The Boxer-Kerry bill will build in large part off H.R. 2454 (pdf), legislation approved in June by the House following several marathon months of negotiations that involved lawmakers representing coastal and industry-heavy districts. Exactly what is the same in the two bills remains to be seen. As for differences, Senate Democratic aides say they expect the legislation to divert from the House bill's 17 percent emissions target for 2020 and go with an even more aggressive 20 percent limit. The bill also will stay silent on exactly how the Senate should divide up emission allowances.

"No matter the semantic games employed, or the extent to which Democrats wish to hide the truth from the American people, cap and trade will mean more job losses, more pain at the pump, and higher food and electricity prices for consumers," said EPW Committee ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.)."

Please read full at NY - Times

Why New Clean #Energy Bill Cuts More Winners than losers

cleantechnica...here’s the thing. The only states that would likely choose these less renewable alternatives are some of the eight heavily coal-dependent states that now prevent us from having any national renewable standard at all, (Kentucky, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming) but even some of them, like Wyoming and North Dakota are defecting to wind now.

At most, it will be these eight states that get more than 80% of their energy from coal that would the ones that will see prices rise if they switch to more expensive alternatives like clean (CCS) coal and nuclear, rather than cheap wind or natural gas.

That is because the states that are most heavily coal-dependent tend to be much more inclined to embrace nuclear than renewable energy. Till now, these states have prevented any renewable energy standard nationally.

So if these states do cut their CO2 emissions – even if it’s with nuclear or clean coal or other source that more renewable-friendly states would never choose – then the U.S. as a whole would still see a big drop in emissions.

In particular, including and encouraging new (more environmentally sensitive) hydro is key, as many red states have hydro.

That is why, paradoxically, the looser standard would cut emissions more than the (un-passed 2009) climate bill’s projected cuts of 14% by 2020. According to the just-published Energy Department analysis, (if enacted) the CES would reduce projected CO2 emissions to fall 4% more by 2020.

Under the EIA “reference” case scenario, which assumes that current energy laws and regulations remain unchanged, annual electric sector CO2 emissions would only fall 12% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 26% in 2035.

By contrast, the CES would reduce 20% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 44% below that level in 2035 – mostly by cutting coal-fired generation by 54%.

Under Bingaman’s bill, the EIA estimates more than 80 GW of nuclear capacity would be added by 2035, compared to less than 10 GW if current policies were to continue, boosting nuclear generation by 62% by 2035, and keeping the U.S. ahead of China, which has the most ambitious nuclear plans in the world.

Both wind and biomass would also see a 42% boost from business-as-usual levels by 2025, the analysis says. But since new wind generation is booming, while nuclear is nearly stagnant, these relative percentages are not as conducive to nuclear expansion as they look.

All “clean” electricity sources installed after 1991 would count towards the 24% requirement, as well as efficiency upgrades to pre-1991 nuclear or hydro plants.

Within three years, additional resources that reduce electric energy loads would be assessed for inclusion,  including energy efficiency, biomass converted to thermal energy, geothermal energy collected using heat pumps, thermal energy delivered through district heating systems, and waste heat used as industrial process heat. The waste-to-energy is extremely comprehensive:

‘‘(6) QUALIFIED WASTE-TO-ENERGY.—The term ‘qualified waste-to-energy’ means energy produced—
‘‘(A) from the combustion of— ‘‘(i) post-recycled municipal solid waste; ‘‘(ii) gas produced from the gasification or pyrolization of post-recycled municipal solid waste;

‘‘(iii) biogas; ‘‘(iv) landfill methane; ‘‘(v) animal waste or animal byproducts; or ‘‘(vi) wood, paper products that are not commonly recyclable, and vegetation (including trees and trimmings, yard waste, pallets, railroad ties, crates, and solid-wood manufacturing and construction debris), if diverted from or separated from other waste out of a municipal waste stream.

Please continue reading at:

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/07/why-new-ces-bill-cuts-more-co2-than-climate-bill/

Clinton-era climate negotiator says cap-and-trade bill “gotten out of control.”

Tim Wirth— Democratic senator from Colorado, former Clinton-era climate negotiator, and current U.N. Foundation president—raised quite a hubbub this week when he told Bloomberg news that the cap-and-trade bill in Congress had "gotten out of control."

"The Republicans are right—it's a cap-and-tax bill," Wirth said. "That's what it is because they are raising revenue to do all sorts of things, especially to take care of the coal industry, and it makes no sense." He maintained that he supported passage of the Waxman-Markey bill in the House and remains a "cap and trade advocate."

Here's the key portion of Wirth's statement:
....As one of the original 1990 authors of the highly successful cap-and-trade legislation to address acid rain, I believe in the cap-and-trade approach and believe it should be targeted only at utilities. I also don't think an auction is necessary—in fact, none of the five successful cap-and-trade programs has included an auction, and one isn't necessary in the Senate energy/climate bill for it to be successful in reducing emissions.

Unfortunately, the existence of an auction can be used by opponents to caricature any and all cap-and-trade programs as "cap-and-tax." As a cap and trade advocate, I think we should avoid anything that gives climate legislation opponents a chance to label it as "cap and tax."

Read more from Grist

Climate "bill is a disaster"... A Missed Opportunity

From Donald Marron:
On Friday, the House of Representatives passed its climate change bill by a slim margin. The bill's key feature is a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases. That system would set national emission limits and would require affected emitters to own permits (called allowances) to cover their emissions.

The number one thing you should know about this bill is that the allowances are worth big money: almost $1 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and more in subsequent decades.

There are many good things the government could do with that kind of money. Perhaps reduce out-of-control deficits? Or pay for expanding health coverage? Or maybe, as many economists have suggested, reduce payroll taxes and corporate income taxes to offset the macroeconomic costs of limiting greenhouse gases?

Choosing among those options would be a worthy policy debate. Except for one thing: the House bill would give away most of the allowances for free. And it spends virtually all the revenue that comes from allowance auctions.

As a result, the budget hawks, health expanders, and pro-growth forces have only crumbs to bargain over. From a budgeteer's perspective, the House bill is a disaster....

Economists have spent decades demonstrating the potential benefits of using environmental taxes to help finance the government (and make no mistake, a cap-and-trade system is a tax; the Congressional Budget Office, much to its credit, even scores it that way). But that economic logic works only when a substantial fraction of the revenues are used to improve fiscal policy — e.g., reducing deficits or reducing distortions from the tax system. The House bill does neither.

Read full from By Greg Mankiw

China not happy with US climate bill

The United States set the bar too low and offered the world a poor example when it passed its climate change bill on Friday, according to a senior Chinese climate change official.

Li Gao, a division director with the Climate Change Department of the National Development and Reform Commission, said the US did not live up to international expectations when it approved the document.

Li said the bill's mid-term carbon emission target would probably be seized upon as the new standard by developed countries in the battle against global warming.

And the official told China Daily the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA) - disappointing though it is - may still not clear the Senate this fall because it was only approved by 219 votes to 212 in the House of Representatives.

Although the passing of the bill was a "positive step", Li said the mid-term target fell short of international expectations of what industrialized countries needed to do to effectively fight warming.

"The emission target, if converted to a 1990 baseline, is only about 4 percent by 2020," Li said. "This is far away from what China and the Group of 77 developing countries have requested of (developed countries)."

"Instead of aiming high, some developed countries will follow suit and push for lower targets," Li said.

Li said he was also concerned about a clause in ACESA that calls for tariffs after 2020 on imports from countries without systems for pricing or limiting carbon dioxide emissions. He said mixing up climate change and trade will only "make the issue more complex" and "damage international cooperative efforts to combat global warming".

Read more from China Daily 

EPA Climate Change and Water News Update

EPA Releases BASINS and WEPP Climate Assessment Tools (CAT): Case Study Guide to Potential Applications (Final Report) 

EPA and partners have developed two water and climate assessment modeling tools, the Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Non-point Sources (BASINS) and the Water Erosion Prediction Project Climate Assessment Tool (WEPPCAT), that facilitate application of existing simulation models for conducting scenario-based assessments of potential climate change effects on streamflow and water quality. The report presents a series of short case studies using the BASINS and WEPP tools. The case studies are designed to illustrate the capabilities of these tools for conducting scenario-based assessments of the potential effects of climate, land use, and management change on water resources. This report is of interest to modeling professionals including water and watershed managers, urban or regional planners, government officials, and scientists and engineers interested in using the BASINS or WEPP water models to assess the potential implications of climate change on water resources. For more information, visit: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/global/recordisplay.cfm?deid=242952.

Apartment and Condominium Units Can Earn WaterSense Label
EPA has modified its specification for new homes to enable apartment and condominium units to earn the WaterSense label, updated product requirements, and adjusted landscape criteria. Using WaterSense-labeled plumbing fixtures, efficient hot water systems, and low-maintenance, water-smart landscapes allows you and your family to enjoy the comforts of home while using less water and energy and spending less money on utility bills. Compared to a typical home, a WaterSense-labeled new home can save a family of four 50,000 gallons of water a year or more. That's enough to wash 2,000 loads of laundry and could amount to utility bill savings of up to $600 each year. Homes labeled after January 1, 2013 must meet the criteria of the revised specification. For more information on the new label, visit: http://epa.gov/watersense/new_homes/index.html.

Application Period for the 2013 Climate Leadership Awards Open Through October 12, 2012
EPA's Climate Protection Partnerships Division is committed to reducing greenhouse gases through cost-effective partnerships to advance clean energy and energy efficiency across the U.S. economy.  As part of this commitment, EPA co-sponsors the Climate Leadership Awards with three NGO partners: The Climate Registry, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, and the Association of Climate Change Officers.  Applications are being accepted for the 2013 Climate Leadership Awards through October 12, 2012. The Climate Leadership Awards is a national awards program that recognizes and incentivizes exemplary corporate, organizational, and individual leadership in response to climate change. In February 2012, the first-ever awards were presented to one individual and 20 organizations from across the U.S. who are leading the way in the management and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.  This year's award winners will be publicly recognized in early 2013 at an awards gala in Washington, DC in conjunction with the Climate Leadership Conference.  Applications and eligibility criteria are available at: http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/awards/index.html?CFID=1579296&CFTOKEN=16556336. 
 
EPA Video Highlights Utility Use of Clean Water State Revolving Fund to Invest in Water Recycling and Reuse 
EPA has made available online a video highlighting the Inland Empire Utilities Agency, a regional wastewater service provider and distributor of wholesale and recycled water in California, which used the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program to conserve water and reduce energy usage and greenhouse gas emissions. Efforts included pipeline construction for recycled water, watershed restoration, and an energy efficiency project that reduced the weight and related energy cost of processing biosolids in wastewater treatment. The Clean Water SRF program, through the Green Project Reserve, helps achieve innovative solutions to wastewater infrastructure needs through projects that address green infrastructure, water efficiency, energy efficiency, or other environmentally innovative activities. To view the video, visit: . For more information on the SRF's Green Project Reserve, visit: http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/cwsrf/Green-Project-Reserve.cfm.

Publication Released: Federal Resources for Sustainable Rural Communities
The HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities and USDA have jointly released the report Federal Resources for Sustainable Rural Communities. This report outlines available federal government programs that support rural communities in promoting economic development and enhancing the quality of life for rural residents. More specifically, this report provides information on federal programs related to Water Infrastructure and Water Quality, including the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, US-Mexico Border  Water Infrastructure Program Grants, Nonpoint Source Implementation Grants, and the Pollution Control Grant Program (Clean Water Act Section 106).  Additionally, the publication compiles all of the federal resources that can support rural communities in their efforts to promote economic competitiveness, protect healthy environments, modernize infrastructure and provide services to residents.  To view the press release, visit:http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/07/30/making-federal-resources-more-accessible-rural-communities. The report is available at: http://www.sustainablecommunities.gov/pdf/federal_resources_rural.pdf.

EPA and Other Federal Partners Launch Sustainable Community Case Study Database
The HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities has launched the Sustainable Community Case Study Database. This online resource provides access to research and reports on communities that are working with EPA, HUD, DOT, and other federal agencies to invest in transportation, affordable housing, and environmental protection.  Across the country, communities are putting the Partnership's livability principles into action and creating development that strengthens their economies, leverages assets, and provides residents with more housing and transportation choices.  The case studies within this database are just a few examples of communities working with federal agencies to addresses issues such as water management, green building, transit, housing, smart growth, and environmental protection.  To access this database, visit: http://www.sustainablecommunities.gov/studies.html.

This information was sent via email newsletter from Kathleen McAllister of www.horsleywitten.com by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water (EPA).  For past issuesof EPA Climate Change and Water News, visit http://www.epa.gov/water/climatechange. 

House Passes Bill That Makes It Harder For Scientists To Advise The EPA

ThinkProgress - The House voted 229-191 to pass H.R. 1422, which would change the rules for appointing members to the Science Advisory Board (SAB), a group that gives scientific advice to the EPA Administrator. Also called the Science Advisory Board Reform Act, the bill would make it easier for scientists with financial ties to corporations to serve on the SAB, prohibit independent scientists from talking about their own research on the board, and make it more difficult for scientists who have applied for grants from the EPA to join the board.

The purpose of the bill, according to Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), is to increase transparency and accountability to the EPA's scientific advisors. Burgess said on the floor Tuesday that the board "excludes industry experts, but not officials for environmental advocacy groups." With this bill, Burgess said the inclusion of industry interests would erase "any appearance of impropriety on the board."

But scientists, environmental groups, and health expertshave said that the bill compromises the scientific independence of the SAB, and makes it harder for the Board to do its job, thereby increasing the amount of time it takes to implement EPA regulations.

"The supposed intent [of the bill] is to improve the process of selecting advisors, but in reality, the bill would allow the board to be stacked with industry representatives, while making it more difficult for academics to serve," said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) on the House floor on Tuesday. "It benefits no one but the industry, and it harms public health."

As it is now, the SAB does allow and include advisors with industry expertise. Of the board's current 51 members, which are appointed by the EPA Administrator for three-year terms, three have industry expertise. But bill sponsor Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) says that's not enough.

"All we're asking is that there be some balance to those experts, and that there further be transparency and understanding of who was selected, why they were selected, and why others were excluded," he said. "We're losing valuable insight and valuable guidance because we don't include them in the process."

While transparency and accountability is generally deemed a good policy move on both sides of the aisle,some have accused Rep. Stewart of having an ulterior motive for introducing the bill — a distrust of scientists, a dislike of the EPA, and support for the oil and gas industry. Indeed, Stewart doubts the existence of man-made climate change, and has said he would like to see the EPA dissolved.

"I get it, you don't like science," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) on the House floor on Tuesday. "And you don't like science that interferes with the interests of your corporate clients. But we need science to protect public health and the environment."

The Union of Concerned Scientists has come out strongly against the bill, particularly the portion that says SAB members can not participate in discussions that cite their own peer-reviewed research. Republicans say this would make scientists biased for their own work — but scientists say this makes no sense.

Please continue reading from: 
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/18/3593645/house-epa-science-advisory-board-bill/

D-evil of a climate bill

"To just have one program that would preempt states and have a one-size-fits all federal approach really not only ignores the whole history of success in the environmental area but also would not be the wisest way to go in terms of either maximizing greenhouse gas reductions or to maximize the amount of job creation,"
said Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Director Doug Scott.


Reuters –  California and other states with aggressive environmental agendas said on Wednesday they fear a federal climate bill may unacceptably weaken their power...The federal bill is expected to include a key provision for a cap-and-trade program, which limits total greenhouse gas emissions and lets big polluters trade permits to emit.

Similar state plans are expected to be forbidden. That would be more drastic than a moratorium on state cap-and-trade considered in a bill passed by the House of Representatives. Please read more at Reuters (Yahoo news)

Climate bill more pork and corporate welfare than ethanol...

New York Times-  As the most ambitious energy and climate-change legislation ever introduced in Congress made its way to a floor vote last Friday, it grew fat with compromises, carve-outs, concessions and out-and-out gifts intended to win the votes of wavering lawmakers and the support of powerful industries.

The deal making continued right up until the final minutes, with the bill’s co-author Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, doling out billions of dollars in promises on the House floor to secure the final votes needed for passage.

The bill was freighted with hundreds of pages of special-interest favors, even as environmentalists lamented that its greenhouse-gas reduction targets had been whittled down.

Some of the prizes were relatively small, like the $50 million hurricane research center for a freshman lawmaker from Florida.

Others were huge and threatened to undermine the environmental goals of the bill, like a series of compromises reached with rural and farm-state members that would funnel billions of dollars in payments to agriculture and forestry interests.

Automakers, steel companies, natural gas drillers, refiners, universities and real estate agents all got in on the fast-moving action.

The biggest concessions went to utilities, which wanted assurances that they could continue to operate and build coal-burning power plants without shouldering new costs. The utilities received not only tens of billions of dollars worth of free pollution permits, but also billions for work on technology to capture carbon-dioxide emissions from coal combustion to help meet future pollution targets.

“I think that finding the right balance between providing new incentives to businesses, but not giving away the store, is always an art; it’s not a science because it’s never precise,” Mr. Obama said.

“He loves this bill and lobbied hard for it,” Mr. Emanuel said, “including the great, the good and the not-so-great provisions.”

Read more from New York Times

Cassandras of Climate Fear for Pushing Crap N Trade Bill

New York Times Paul Krugman likes to say he is "not engaging in hyperbole"... of despair over the fate of the planet catastrophe, and dire delusional ravings. Well I am not sure his article absolves him of this?

If I were to write for the NY Times I would not have even wasted a pixel of screen regurgitating the 30 year rant he is "not engaging in"... I would instead fill all columns with the optimism and tangible solutions our country has ignored and desperately needs to pull or ourselves out of this 'great recession'. Repairing the devastation of our energy and environmental ignorance of the past and move forward into the prosperity of future.

This entire article sounded like a fear, doom, gloom summary of the obvious to push the readers of NY Times to 'believe something should be done' and 'cap N fail' is our only hope and option...

NY Times Krugman - The result of all this is that climate scientists have, en masse, become Cassandras — gifted with the ability to prophesy future disasters, but cursed with the inability to get anyone to believe them.

And we're not just talking about disasters in the distant future, either. The really big rise in global temperature probably won't take place until the second half of this century, but there will be plenty of damage long before then.

For example, one 2007 paper in the journal Science is titled "Model Projections of an Imminent Transition to a More Arid Climate in Southwestern North America" — yes, "imminent" — and reports "a broad consensus among climate models" that a permanent drought, bringing Dust Bowl-type conditions, "will become the new climatology of the American Southwest within a time frame of years to decades."

So if you live in, say, Los Angeles, and liked those pictures of red skies and choking dust in Sydney, Australia, last week, no need to travel. They'll be coming your way in the not-too-distant future.

.....But the larger reason we're ignoring climate change is that Al Gore was right: This truth is just too inconvenient. Responding to climate change with the vigor that the threat deserves would not, contrary to legend, be devastating for the economy as a whole. But it would shuffle the economic deck, hurting some powerful vested interests even as it created new economic opportunities. And the industries of the past have armies of lobbyists in place right now; the industries of the future don't.

Nor is it just a matter of vested interests. It's also a matter of vested ideas. For three decades the dominant political ideology in America has extolled private enterprise and denigrated government, but climate change is a problem that can only be addressed through government action. And rather than concede the limits of their philosophy, many on the right have chosen to deny that the problem exists.

So here we are, with the greatest challenge facing mankind on the back burner, at best, as a policy issue. I'm not, by the way, saying that the Obama administration was wrong to push health care first. It was necessary to show voters a tangible achievement before next November. But climate change legislation had better be next.

Really? a 'nobel prize winning economist' truly believes that the two bills he has read are a 'true solution' to our energy, environmental and economic crisis that is causing the implosion of our country? Really?

I have far too much respect for him to think that.

Clearly he falls into the whole 'control of the press to secure legislative bill passage' thingy....

Please read full by PAUL KRUGMAN NY Times

Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering | The Guardian

A small group of leading climate scientists, financially supported by billionaires including Bill Gates, are lobbying governments and international bodies to back experiments into manipulating the climate on a global scale to avoid catastrophic climate change..

...geoengineering is opposed by many environmentalists, who say the technology could undermine efforts to reduce emissions, and by developing countries who fear it could be used as a weapon or by rich countries to their advantage. In 2010, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity declared a moratorium on experiments in the sea and space,except for small-scale scientific studies.

Concern is now growing that the small but influential group of scientists, and their backers, may have a disproportionate effect on major decisions about geoengineering research and policy.

"We will need to protect ourselves from vested interests [and] be sure that choices are not influenced by parties who might make significant amounts of money through a choice to modify climate, especially using proprietary intellectual property," said Jane Long, director at large for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US, in a paper delivered to a recent geoengineering conference on ethics.

"The stakes are very high and scientists are not the best people to deal with the social, ethical or political issues that geoengineering raises," said Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace. "The idea that a self-selected group should have so much influence is bizarre."

Please continue reading at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/06/bill-gates-climate-scientists-geoengineering