One Hand Clapping ...

The latest news suggests that the Lieberman-Warner Coal Subsidy Act (also known as the Climate InSecurity Act, CISA) has moved from critical condition to the morgue. As it will require 60 votes to get past any threatened filibuster (not that the Senate Democratic Party leadership could force a filibuster on anyone other than their own Senators fighting for Americans' privacy rights), corraling enough Senators to vote for even the CISA's inadequate measures looks to be an impossible task.

Death by Apathy

As Joe Romm phrased it at Climate Progress,

Serious climate legislation had been in critical condition for some months. Doctors and family members finally pulled the plug this week, and the patient appeared to lose all vital signs. The coroner listed the cause of death as "apathy."

While I might quibble with Joe about whether to call Lieberman-Warner "serious or "seriously dangerous", he captures a very serious issue here: apathy. Apathy in face of ever mounting evidence of the existing damage from Global Warming and looming threats of more damage to come is no longer excusable, no longer understandable, and has now become reckless endangerment of America's and humanity's future prospects.

What is truly sad, truly, is that so much of what is necessary can fall into a no regret strategy, with 'win-win' categories. We can 'geo-engineer' to a better planetary environment with biochar and white roofing, gaining other benefits at the same time, win-win-win paths. We can pursue greater energy efficiency, leading toward more comfortable lives while creating good jobs, reducing pollution, and spending less money on energy. With each day that passes, renewable energy is becoming more cost competitive with fossil fuel energy, even before we discuss making "external" costs internal to the calculation of energy prices. We can do so much good ... even without considering the climate benefits.

Thus, one hand clapping: the Coal-Subsidy Act (fundamentally inadequate in face of the threat before us, before the US) seems unlikely to muster enough support to pass.

One hand not clapping: that it won't pass because Senators are engaged in reckless endangerment and acting as if it is too strong a measure.

Sigh ...

In the face of apathy, angst over the future.

But, back to the Coal Subsidy Act and its (imminent) demise.

Senator Boxer has said that she will shelve the bill if it is weakened too much. What is "too much" might require explanation as there are efforts to weaken the bill to try to gain more votes in support. For example, from one of the bill's authors:

Warner yesterday said he was looking for changes before the floor debate that would allow the president to "pull back the throttle" if the legislation's emission targets cannot be met with available technology, or if the U.S. economy was under stress through, for example, $5 a gallon gasoline.

Hmmm ... Does anyone not expect that gasoline is likely to hit $5 per gallon well before Lieberman-Warner's cap on carbon emissions would even begin to take effect? Would this loop hole virtually guarantee leakage from any cap? Is that weakening the bill too much?

There are Senate Democrats who are holding out for special provisions to protect polluting industries in their states, such as Sherrod Brown:

I have serious concerns about any climate-change bill that doesn't take into account energy-intensive industries like we have in Ohio -- glass and chemicals and steel and aluminum and foundries," Brown said.

"He's concerned," Brown spokeswoman Joanna Kuebler explained yesterday. "He's leaning toward a no."

Kent Conrad wants to protect coal-fired electricity in North Dakota. More legitimately, Maria Cantwell seems to want to ensure that those who already have low-carbon footprints are not unduly penalized in favor of those with a more polluting shoe size.

We want to make sure people who are already good at reducing CO2 emissions will continue to do that and not be penalized.

This, of course, is not even talking about those who simply don't believe in science, like James Inhofe (R-Exxon). Now, quite sadly, the "alternatives" being put on the table are even weaker and guarantee utter disaster, like George Voinovich's (R-Ohio) conservative (lack of) principles on climate legislation.

Sigh.

Listening to the sound of one hand clapping.

Comments

[wm1066]

Do many people get that the sound of one hand clapping is a hand slapping a face?

[joebhed]

We need to act on climate change legislation.
But, let's get it right.
Today's compromise proposals are a result of a lot of history from when oil was $35 per barrel.
The debate is now being informed by the reality of an energy-economy based on almost $125 per barrel oil.
Every aspect of all proposals ought to be looking for only the best return to the taxpayer and ratepayer for the solution that is forthcoming.
Are there lower-carbon solutions for the energy-intensive industries in Ohio and Pennsylvania?
Who would pay for those?
The same people who will pay the price for doing nothing.
The rest of us.
The problem with Liebermann-Warner is that it pursues free market solutions to major public health and environmental policy issues.
Under L-W, the flow of funds from the consumer to the solution is going through the invisible hand of the currently disgorged financial services industry known as the commodities market.
Carbon Futures !!!
Ladies and Gentlemen.
If you want to have the money to do whatever it is that will solve the real human and environmental consequences of climate change, act now.
Rise up and demand a reversal of the unconscionable, so-called, Cap-and-Trade program of emissions allowances.
Cap-and-Trade equals Carbon Futures.
HELLO !!
Think Oil Futures!
Think $4 per gallon!
Believe it or not folks, Carbon Futures is designed to be the backbone of all current climate change policy proposals.

[shrugged]

Not to worry about warming, we stopped warming a decade ago and for the last 16 months have been drastically cooling. The oceans are now cooling. The models have been adjusted and show cooling for the next 20-30 years? Time to buy fur coats.

[joebhed]

I thought Siegel would be back to you by now.
Fur coats sound like a good short-term investment.
16-months?
Not too much of a climatic trend.

[shrugged]

10 years without warming, maybe a trend. Looking at 100 years, you see cycles up and down?
But, if CO2 drives the temperature, CO2 has been increasing drastically over the 10 years, why no warming.

[A. Siegel - Huffpost Blogger]

This is a falsification and distortion.

1. Wow, 16 months, that is truly a climate record.

2. Re that 16 months, why not check recent weather? For a good discussion, see: http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/17/noaa-the-second-warmest-march-on-record/

3. About this gamesmanship over the 10 year, this is a deliberate distortion of the weather record. 1998 was a hot year, for predictable reasons. Look at a longer record and the distortion of stating "10 years" becomes clear. http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/new-gw-denialists-deceptive-lie-on-global-temperatures/

[shrugged]

# 2, See NOAA http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
The average temperature in April 2008 was 51.0 F. This was -1.0 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 29th coolest April in 114 years.
# 3, see NASA restated data, they found an error in their post 2000 data
And NASA states:
Also our prior analysis had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures.
Note global temperature data has some key issues post 2000 due to shutting down of Siberian stations

[burnt]

Blackmail and extortion... drive energy prices up high enough to force the acceptance of lower pollution standards resulting in more coal generation.

Solution... allow individual households to strive for grid neutrality in every community. Reinstate legislation and significantly increase funding for alternative energy generation credits for research and installation. Eliminate oil industry subsidies and replace with substantial windfall taxation to help fund alternate energy technologies and household connectivity.

Those households that produce excess generation should be paid at prevailing energy rates that are calculated every month. If we want energy independence, we must increase the incentives to produce energy at each household. Not only will this stimulate energy conservation on an individual level, but it will increase distribution and production reliability.

CheneyOilCo has stolen our future. When are we going to say... ENOUGH!

alienated in Seattle

[joebhed]

A lot of really good suggestions.
But I note your call for government action in legislation for funding both off-grid and other renewable and conservation efforts.
Unfortunately, under current thinking, renewables and efficiency will not solve our future energy problems.
What we really need is the most cost-effective source and use of funding to get us from here to a more carbon-balanced future.
The Congressional Budget Office recently found that the quickest and best way to get to funding the mechanisms necessary to solve climate change is with a Carbon Tax.
We need to first replace the odious Cap-and-Trade carbon allowance marketing scheme du jour with an honest-to-goodness Carbon Tax.
And we need to do it before ANY bill hits ANY President's desk.

Once we decide a rational financing scheme, we can argue the merits of Carbon Capture and Sequestration(CCS).
Versus maybe switching our liquid fueled fleet to nuclear-powered, off-peak electric cars
After we all have solar water heaters and greater self-sufficiency.
In order to do it, we need FUNDING.
And a Carbon Tax is the BEST way to get that funding and use it.
Wake up, environmentalists.
Free-markets solutions - was.

[A. Siegel - Huffpost Blogger]

Have you seen the Greenpeace examination of CCS? Have not fully read but, at the core, it makes sense. For me, CCS is a cost-heavy, benefit low, time-late, high risk pursuit.