Senate Climate Bill: Two Futures, One Choice

Now that John Kerry and Barbara Boxer have introduced their climate bill in the United States Senate, this fall will be all about the dogs. To get the 60 votes they need to pass a bill, progressive Democrats will be trying to turn Blue Dog Democrats into Green Dog Democrats.

Welcome to the dog days of autumn. Watch for progressives to offer milk bones, kibbles and bits to coax their more conservative colleagues into commitments that conscience alone should be sufficient to dictate.

The challenge for leaders in the Senate, as it was in the House, will be to prevent the climate bill from being negotiated into something far less than required to reinvent the American economy and reverse our greenhouse gas emissions, and to do both quickly.

Whether Senate leaders succeed in producing public policy that averts climate disaster will depend in large part on how they frame the debate. Here are three suggestions.

First, the fence-sitters in Congress must be made to understand that climate change is not a matter of belief and it is not something we can bargain away. Climate change is a matter of physics and chemistry and associated science. We might quibble about precisely what global warming will do to us and how quickly it will happen. But the bedrock reality, already evident in the world around us, is that the atmosphere, the oceans and other natural systems vital to life have reached the limits of their tolerance of economic growth at any cost. They can't absorb more damage, not without making the planet a very unpleasant place for life as we know it.

This may be a difficult fact for many Senators to accept. Congress usually is an auction house and a horse-trading arena. But carbon emissions are to the atmosphere what virulent cancer cells are to the body. We can't wish them away. We can't bargain with them. If we want to survive, we must treat them as quickly and aggressively as we are able, with the very best tools we have.

Second, there is no such thing as business as usual. Senators who want to protect their constituents from change, including rust belt and fossil energy industries, are voting for an outcome that cannot happen. Senators who tell their constituents they can continue living and doing business in the old carbon-intensive economy are not leading. They are pandering.

The reality is, we face a stark choice between two futures. One is a future of unmitigated climate change that proves disastrous to ecosystems, our economy, our national security, our public health and our public debt as government at all levels struggles to deal with a nation of Katrinas - not just hurricanes, but extreme weather events, severe drought, the loss of coastal communities and infrastructure, killer heat waves, more pests and diseases, and so on. That is the future we will create by default if we try to prolong business as usual.

In the second future we still will see evidence of climate change - we've made that inevitable by refusing to act earlier - but we will have made the transition to an economy powered by clean resources and technologies, in which we have stopped relying on foreign and finite fuels, and in which sound environmental practice and socially responsible behavior are ingrained in all we do.

Third, we are not an island. We have been isolationists many times in our history. In the context of climate change, for example, the Senate decided during the Clinton years that the United States would stand alone in refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. But climate change makes clear that one nation's pollution is every nation's problem. We are interconnected with other societies and nations in a global economy, a global energy market, and a planetary commons.

As the military establishment has concluded, poverty, dislocation and unrest in any part of the world have national security implications for the United States. That is especially true with climate change, which will destabilize some of the most volatile regions of the world.

Because we live in an interconnected world, it is in the self-interest of rich nations to help poor nations satisfy the basic needs of their people with environmentally benign resources and behaviors. Technical and monetary assistance to the developing world - one of the sticking points in reaching an international climate deal -- is not charity; it is necessary for our mutual assured survival.

Reuters predicts this will be a "labor intensive" fall for progressives as they try to figure out how to craft a climate bill that gets the votes of moderates and conservatives. For example, Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio reportedly wants language that protects steel, glass, paper, aluminum and other energy-intensive industries.

Coal-state Senators want to protect the industries that produce, haul and burn the most carbon-intensive and dirtiest of fossil fuels. For example - again according to Reuters - Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, where mining companies are blowing up mountains, destroying streams and rivers and polluting groundwater for cheap coal, wants a bill whose carbon-cutting goals are relaxed enough to buy time for the development of carbon capture and storage technologies. Democratic Sen. John Tester of Montana also wants a bill that bets heavily on clean coal technology to protect the mining industry in his state.

But by most estimates, clean coal technology is a decade or more away, if it proves plausible at all. Leading climate scientists tell us that carbon emissions from industrial nations like the U.S. must peak around 2015-2017 and begin a rapid decline. We don't have time to relax our timetable for emission reductions or to wait for untested new technologies to save us.

In these new frames, policy makers must start asking different questions.

The question Senators should be asking is not, "How will I protect my current industries?" It's "How can I help the industries and workers of the old economy make the transition to the new energy economy, as rapidly and seamlessly as possible?"

The question is not, "How long will our coal and oil supplies last?" It's "How much of these fuels can the atmosphere stand, and how quickly can we move away from them?"

The question is not, "Why should we send more money to developing nations?" It is, "What can we do to help end extreme poverty around the world so that we create greater security, greater economic and environmental stability, fewer resource conflicts, and vast new markets for green goods and services?"

As they decide which of our two futures they will support, Senators should dust off the landmark study issued last June by the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the work of 13 federal agencies. Although it was the first major climate report of the Obama Administration, its conclusions are based on science reports produced by the Bush Administration.

Overall, the report concludes that climate change already is reshaping our lives in the United States with warmer winters, heavier downpours, rising sea levels and drought. The report goes on to offer federal scientists' best predictions of what will happen region by region if we try to continue business as usual. Here is a sample:

Southwest: Climate change will produce more intensive drought in this region, resulting in increasingly scarce water supplies and conflicts for water between industries, agriculture and cities. Climate change will result in higher temperatures and invasive species that "accelerate transformation of the landscape"; more flooding with risks to people, infrastructure and ecosystems; and a disruption of the region's unique tourism and recreation industries. Sen. McCain should keep this in mind as he weighs whether his advocacy for more nuclear power will stand in the way of his vote for a strong climate bill.

Great Plains: If Sens. Dorgan and Tester oppose a strong climate bill, they will in effect support more droughts and disappearing water resources in their region. Most of the region's water comes from the High Plains aquifer, where withdrawals already outpace recharge. Climate-induced drought and faster evaporation rates will lead to more stress on this vital resource. As a result of this stress and higher temperatures, agriculture, which covers 70 percent of the Great Plains states, will suffer declining productivity.

Midwest: Without forceful action against climate change, Sen. Brown's region will suffer more frequent, severe and longer-lasting heat waves. The water level in the Great Lakes will decline, affecting shipping, beaches, ecosystems and infrastructure. The region will experience bigger and more intense rainfalls leading to more flooding, along with periods of water deficits. Flooding will endanger local economies, public health and infrastructure. Agriculture will be hurt. Livestock production will become more costly due to heat, while spring flooding will delay planting seasons. Insect pests and weeds will increase.

Southeast: Average summer temperatures will increase 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit under a high-emissions scenario, stressing people, animals, plants and the built environment. Pavement and rail lines will buckle from the heat. Diminishing water supplies are "very likely" to affect the regional economy and its natural systems, and lead to more water conflicts between states. Southeastern coastal states will experience more intense hurricanes (higher wind speeds, more rain and bigger storm surges) due to rising ocean temperatures and sea levels. Low-lying areas, including some communities, will be inundated more frequently, some permanently. The region will suffer major disruptions to its ecosystems, along with the benefits those systems provide. It will be transformed from the Sun Belt to the Heat Belt, adversely affecting quality of life in the region and resulting in a decrease in population.

Northeast: Warming temperatures will shift maple syrup production from the United States to Canada. Dairy and fruit production will diminish, too, as well as lobster and cod fisheries. The length of the snow season will be cut in half across much of the region. Winter sports, which now contribute $7.6 billion annually to the region, will be hurt; only one part of the region, farthest north, will be able to support a viable ski industry. As in other regions, hotter temperature and poorer air quality will cause problems for human health, particularly in cities.

Other Coastal States: Sea level rise already has resulted in the loss of 1,900 square miles of coastal wetlands in Louisiana during the past century, weakening the Gulf Coast's natural buffer against hurricanes. Coastal Senators who oppose strong climate action will sentence their constituents to significant increases in sea levels that endanger homes, communities, roads, energy facilities and other infrastructure in low-lying and subsiding areas. For example, about 2,400 miles of roads and 250 miles of freight rail lines could be inundated along the Gulf Cost alone. Coastal dead zones will increase in size and intensity in the Gulf and the Chesapeake Bay.

It should be apparent that there is no business as usual. There is no status quo. There are only two futures, one bleak and dangerous, the other challenging but still fundamentally bright and hopeful. Senators will have to choose which future they support and which America they represent: a no-can-do nation that fails to rise to the preeminent challenge of our time, or a can-do nation that mobilizes its energy, genius and patriotism to remake the country so that it prospers in the 21st Century.

Senators who worry about the impact of higher fossil energy prices on businesses and families vastly underestimate the power of clean energy technologies, the coping skills and innovative capacity of the American people, and the willingness of their countrymen to pitch in for our common global good.

We face two futures, but there is only one responsible choice. Let that be the framework in which climate action is debated in the weeks to come.

 

Comments

[Jerry Cope]

09:27 PM on 10/06/2009

The comments from those who support BAU models, those who would burn the world to maintain the status quo for a few more years, never cease to amuse me. These so called "skeptics", and there are not many in their ranks who are not well aware of the fate they wish to impose on the planet, one of massive suffering and subsequent loss of life, are in fact content to destroy the world for their own personal gain. They operate under the pretense of "conservatism" and some ill-conceived notion of independence, when what they really propose is massive dependence and endless expansion of government services is what is no longer an arguable thesis. The science is conclusive, the results already apparent across the globe.
Many of these individuals, who are in fact criminals and should in the near future be tried for crimes against humanity, are on the payrolls of PR firms and lobbying concerns dedicated to ensuring profits for the few who are determined to continue with BAU as long as possible. If you meet one in the street, or a cafe, or a bar, make sure they are the subject of scorn, ridicule, and if possible a lobotomy, thereby rendering them harmless to future generations.
If possible, do it soon.

[CO2Offsets]

12:39 PM on 10/06/2009

At the World Green Energy Symposium recently in Philadelphia, Pa, Gulf Stream Turbines presented patented submersible turbine technology to be placed in the Gulf Stream Current, 20 miles offshore south Florida. Astoundingly these turbines were 3 times more productive (24/7) and energy efficient than wind turbines, are cost comparable, and pose no threat to marine life. Each Gulf Stream Turbine can save 10,000 tons of CO2 emissions per year,compared to a fuel plant. Wind's going rate as of September, 2009 is selling for US $ 1.76 million per Megawatt, and in the next 10 years, wind energy companies are expecting to install 446,000 Megawatts, that represents a staggering market value of US $ 785 billion a year. Pike Research, published the 2nd Qtr of 2009, "The high capital costs associated with renewable energy technologies is largely avoided with marine kinetics. The capital costs of marine renewable energy systems will be 50 to 100 times smaller than investments required to create the same amount of electricity from either wind or solar," If carbon regulations and the future carbon markets are realized by 2015 that represents a market value of in excess of US $ 20 billion. " The United Nations (UN) estimates that the total "technically exploitable" potential for waterpower (including marine renewables) is 15 trillion kilowatt-hours, equal to half of the projected global electricity use in the year 2030. Of this vast resource potential, roughly 15 percent has been developed so far."

[Chic Bowdrie]

03:53 PM on 10/05/2009

"It should be apparent that there is no business as usual." The only thing apparent is that global warming alarmists will continue to scare and want to tax the heck out of us. The CO2/warming relationship is not clear and until it is, we need to invest efforts in preparing for the inevitable floods and droughts that have always occurred. Now that we are broke and owe China, what kind of leverage do we use to get them to reduce their emissions? Boycott Walmart?

[plantguy]

09:41 AM on 10/05/2009

Cap & Trade = Job Loss that middle aged americans are counting on to send their children to college and support their family that cannot be easily replaced.

[donnajr]

09:33 PM on 10/04/2009

really looking forward to paying carbon

[1will]

07:55 PM on 10/04/2009

CO2 only makes up .383% of the Earth's atmosphere. Man mad CO2 is a little less than 3.25% of the .383% total CO2 in our atmosphere.
You won't see these numbers on any GW article, website or news service.

[BBecker]

02:34 AM on 10/05/2009

Ken, I completely agree: Any cap-and-trade system must be structured in a way that encourages, not nullifies, emission reductions beyond the cap. I've written in the past that whatever bill passes Congress, and whatever international deal is struck, is likely to be the minimum we should do, not the maximum. We should push for the most aggressive possible emissions cap. But with rare exceptions, political bodies tend to achieve the lowest common denominator of action -- the level that is sufficiently compromised to attract enough votes. That won't be good enough. Emitters at all levels should be allowed to be as aggressive as they can be cutting their emissions without having their contributions nullified by allowing others to emit more.

[KenJohnson]

03:28 AM on 10/05/2009

Bill, Thanks for the thoughtful response. I hope someone in the Senate understands this issue and takes initiative to propose a remedy.

[Pharos]

01:15 PM on 10/06/2009

Of course you will find the concentrations of gases in the atmosphere on such sites. What are you talking about?

From one such site:

dry air Gas Mixing ratio (mol/mol)

Nitrogen (N2) 0.78
Oxygen (O2) 0.21
Argon (Ar) 0.0093
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 365x10-6
Neon (Ne) 18x10-6
Ozone (O3) 0.01-10x10-6
Helium (He) 5.2x10-6
Methane (CH4) 1.7x10-6
Krypton (Kr) 1.1x10-6
Hydrogen (H2) 500x10-9
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 320x10-9

[KenJohnson]

04:34 PM on 10/03/2009

"There are only two futures, one bleak and dangerous, the other challenging but still fundamentally bright and hopeful." This may be overly optimistic. The recent UNEP report projects a 6.3F end-of-century global temperature increase "even if industrialized and developed countries enact every climate policy they have proposed at this point." This is "nearly double what scientists and world policymakers have identified as the upper limit of warming the world can afford in order to avert catastrophic climate change."

The question that supporters of the climate bill have been evading is why it makes sense, in the face of an impending threat of such magnitude, to implement a "least-effort" regulatory framework that will limit emissions reductions to a predetermined target, and which will subvert any attempt to achieve further reductions by allowing any such reductions to be nullified by increased emissions elsewhere? This deficiency could be remedied, e.g. by giving EPA authority to establish allowance set-asides for states' complementary climate policies. Has Bill Becker's Presidential Climate Action Project, "an enterprise that has developed nearly 200 recommendations for changes in federal energy and climate policies" recommended any such remedy to either the House or the Senate?

[WilliePilgrim]

11:38 AM on 10/03/2009

While we fiddle with the feel good aspects of the illusion that we can controll climate by controlling human impacts on the environment, despite the obvious fact that the short term goals here will result in marginal if any of the desired changes regarding climate, the genuine threats that we know can be fixed right now go underfunded. Really, 20 million for a center for climate change in SanFrancisco and yet the giant raft of plastic garbage in the pacific gets next to nothing to actually clean it up...It'll be a great day when instead of kiosk at an airport to buy carbon credits in some mysterious legerdemain, I can by penny stocks or govenrment bonds dedicated to supporting the technological innovations that will bring us fusion, space based solar satellites and new systems for reaching into space where those who actually study this know, it is raining soup, while we're still hunched over in fear and self-loathing over the unsightly vision of our knotted shoelaces and fearful of falling on our faces. If you want to understand humans, watch the monkeys and if you want to understand how science works beyond the theory, ask the engineers.

[PlaceboStudman]

11:17 AM on 10/03/2009

The biggest mistake, in my humble opinion, with the climate argument goes back to the "save the planet" slogan. It is not the planet we want to save, it's humanity. The planet will be here for approximately another 5 billion years, until the sun goes super nova and engulfs the Earth. Humanity, not so much. We as a species, and in fact all life on Earth may only have a few hundred years left at the rate we are going.

You said that carbon emissions are to the environment what cancer is to the body. But there is growing evidence that carbon emissions may be one of the factors of cancer in the body itself. The honest truth is, climate and energy bills are far more effective ways of managing Health Care, by reducing some of the reasons people get sick in the first place, thus reducing the need for insurance, thus reducing the costs.

So when we think of Climate and Energy, we can't think of it just as saving the environment or saving the planet, we need to think of it as saving life on Earth

And that is the most compelling argument I've ever heard personally

[RomeoMD25]

07:08 PM on 10/03/2009

HR 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

to let corporate polluters reap huge windfall profits by charging consumers more for energy and fuel as well as create a new bubble through carbon trading derivatives speculation. It does nothing to address environmental issues

Wall Street also will reap a huge bonanza through carbon trading derivatives speculation exploiting what Commodity Futures Trading commissioner Bart Chilton believes will be a $2 trillion market - "the biggest of any (commodities) derivatives product in the next five years." Others see a future annual market potential of up to $10 trillion based on these schemes

Contributing $4,452,585 to Democrats in 2008 (around $1 million to Obama) was mere pocket change for what it can reap from scams like cap and trade disguised as an environmental plan. The scheme was devised. GS helped write it. The House passed it and sent it to the Senate.

i feel sorry for you
you are a prime example of brainwashed sheep

there is no connection between CO2 and Cancer(this is the stupidest thing i ever heard)
we even use CO2 in laparoscopic operations (appendectomy)

[Sigurdur]

07:38 PM on 10/03/2009

If this opinion piece had a few facts it might be interesting.
1. The most that temps "might" rise as a result of co2 is .3C. That is from the latest papers published. Lindzen as an example.
2. The result of warmer Pacific Ocean temps is moisture for the southwest. The result of cooler Pacific Ocean temps is drought for the southwest.
The periodic flucutaions are called El Nino and La Nina which drive climate
3. The writer is using model results which have very high error bars. Statistically, they are useless and have not proven to be reliable predictors of the future climate.

The Kerry/Boxer bill is an excellent attempt at enlarging government, but with a negative economic cost. More people starving in the US or homeless from this bill, if it were to pass, is not desireable.

[Non Sibi]

02:29 AM on 10/04/2009

I read the article, and hoped to find some enlightened discussion in the comments. And all I find are a couple of reasonable comments, and two "flat-earthers," One doing the Sarah Palin cap-and-tax nonsense, setting up strawmen about derivatives trading, and the other talking Inhofe nonsense about the temp rising 0.3C max. You might want to tell that to the rapidly diminishing polar ice caps, and the disappearing Alaskan coastal villages.

I think I see "American Petroleum Institute" on your tee shirts.

And I have some land to sell you in the Florida Keys.