Congress Wimps out on Energy Policy: Time to Conserve!

Heartland Consumer Power District exec Mike McDowell is surely thrilled that obstructionist Republicans like Senator Thune and wimpy Democrats like Representative Herseth Sandlin have killed serious clean energy legislation for now. Instead of imperiling our economy with "heavy-handed expensive government mandates" (i.e., plans like cap and trade, which are empirically proven to reduce pollution and not kill the economy), we can trundle along with a status quo that supports the polluting, irresponsible energy economy that will leave our grandkids nothing to burn but resentment.

But wait: McDowell does have a plan I can work with:

Part of our LEED Platinum commitment is sustainability. This means smarter use and reuse of common consumer products. The positive impact on the environment as well as reducing oil consumption is startling. It can be done with simple changes in behavior, using existing technologies at affordable prices. It can be done without heavy-handed expensive government mandates and without waiting for some silver bullet technology to be developed to make it work [Mike McDowell, "Consumers Can Take LEEDing Steps to Reduce Oil Use," HCPDBlog.com, 2010.07.21].

McDowell and I agree on the power of conservation, and if our Congress can't overcome the Big Oil and Coal lobbies, then conservation is perhaps the best grassroots pocketbook policy we can do. McDowell and I agree that recycling is great. We agree that replacing plastic bags with canvas sacks and backpacks at the grocery store is a great way to reduce oil consumption.

McDowell also points out the remarkable savings to be gained from recycling motor oil:

• It is easier and cheaper to recycle used oil than to make new oil from crude. One gallon of used oil can produce the same amount of motor oil as 42 gallons of crude oil while requiring about a third of the energy.
• If all used motor oil in the U.S. were recycled, it would result in a saving of 1.3 million barrels of oil per day.
• Used oil can be re-refined into good-as-new lubricating oil. Oil never wears out it just gets dirty [McDowell, 2010.07.21].

1.3 million barrels a day. That's more oil than both the Keystone and Keystone XL pipelines will transport at full capacity. One change in our energy practices, recycling our motor oil, could eliminate the need for a massive, environmentally dangerous project and reduce our dependence on dirty foreign oil.

If we can't motivate Congress to change our energy policy, then we'll have to do it ourselves. let's all be conservatives and conserve, conserve, conserve!

Climate Change (and Climate Science) Real, Action Necessary

My day job keeps me from arguing climate science as much as I ought. Fortunately, there are lots of scientists smarter than I who are on top of that debate (via Facebook pals and NYT):

Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems....

A carbon-pricing system is the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions. Either cap-and-trade, a system of taxing emissions, or a combination of the two could provide the needed incentives. While the report does not specifically recommend a cap-and-trade system, it notes that cap-and-trade is generally more compatible with the concept of an emissions budget.

Carbon pricing alone, however, is not enough to sufficiently reduce domestic emissions, the report warns. Strategically chosen, complementary policies are necessary to assure rapid progress in key areas such as: increasing energy efficiency; accelerating the development of renewable energy sources; advancing full-scale development of new-generation nuclear power and carbon capture and storage systems; and retrofitting, retiring, or replacing existing emissions-intensive energy infrastructure. Research and development of new technologies that could help reduce emissions more cost effectively than current options also should be strongly supported [links mine, "Strong Evidence on Climate Change Underscores Need for Actions to Reduce Emissions and Begin Adapting to Impacts," News from the National Academies, 2010.05.19].

Read the full reports on climate change from the National Research Council of the National Academies here:

1. Advancing the Science
2. Limiting the Magintude
   
3. Adapting to the Impacts

I must confess to a little uneasiness at seeing the third title. The scientists appear to be acknowledging that we've made a mess, trouble's coming, and there's no way to avoid it all. Those darn scientists—always such realists.

---------------
Update 2010.05.26: Meanwhile, Rep. Don Kopp (R-35/Rapid City) continues to embarrass the state he was elected to serve. He takes to the pages of "Dakota" Voice to perpetuate the pernicious lie of his anti-science climate change resolution.

Green Notes: Dump Coal, Cap Carbon, Create Jobs...

All sorts of green notes!

1. A new report from the Civil Society Institute and Synapse Energy Economics maps a feasible path to meeting all of America's energy needs and use zero coal and nuclear power by 2050. The "Beyond Business as Usual" plan also saves money.
2. Badlands Blue notes that a majority of Republicans and conservatives "would back a comprehensive energy policy that both boosts domestic energy production and caps carbon emissions." Such a policy even has more Teabaggers for it than agin' it. Of course, the poll was conducted by a bunch of Republicans....
3. Don't let those temporary Knight & Carver layoffs get you down; Howard is still working to be a leader in green jobs. Howard's Rural Learning Center is getting a $99K grant from the state Department of Labor to train wind turbine technicians. MDL reports that, thanks to this grant, traning can start in September and reach 325 workers.
4. And how about some more green jobs... green bean jobs. Mike Knutson cites evidence that local food production—the novel concept of farmers growing real food for their neighbors to eat—"could produce $882 million in sales and add 9,300 jobs in the Midwest." Of course, Rebecca Terk and the South Dakota Legislature already know we should buy fresh and buy local. Dennis Daugaard, are you listening?
   

Congress, Listen Up! Voters Want Action on Climate Change

...and no, John, "action" does not include "filibuster."

When we finally clear health care reform from the table, what should Congress take up next? Climate change and energy security. No, not just because I say so (although the world would be a better place of legislation passed through the Madville Times first). Congress should act on climate and energy because the voters want them to.

A new poll by Benenson Strategy Group finds cap-and-trade legislation would win a popular vote 58% to 37% (ah, so that's why my conservative friends get so excited about saying America's a republic and not a democracy: they don't want the people's will to be done). Dems and Republicans split as you might expect... although Dems are much more strongly for it than Republicans are against it. But the big point: the ever desirable middle, all those Independents who think this partisan bickering is silly and just don't want to have to grow gills, support legislation including cap-and-trade 52% to 41%.

Even when asked about cap and trade as a measure to address climate change, with no added info about job creation or other economic benefits of not turning Earth into Venus, only a minority of voters say cap and trade would hurt the economy.

And remember GOP pollster Frank Luntz? He advised President Bush in 2002 to focus people's attention on the "lack of scientific certainty" about global warming. Luntz's latest research finds that the climate change deniers are becoming irrelevant: a majority of Americans (Obama voters and McCain voters) believe the climate is changing, but even more agree that we should pass climate change legislation for national security. Luntz's research also finds majorities of Obama and McCain voters want cap-and-trade legislation that "will limit the amount of pollution companies can emit, giving companies incentives to reduce emissions—and holding those who don't accountable…" (Tony! People understand externalities! We're winning!)

Read Luntz's full report (in PDF) here.

I often get nervous when my thinking matches that of a majority of Americans. But that's just me. Senator Thune, Representative Herseth Sandlin, you should get nervous when your thinking doesn't.

Farm Bureau Picks Chinese Hegemony over American Energy Independence

Kelly Fuller wonders what the Farm Bureau is smoking. At their annual meeting in Seattle, the corporate mouthpieces of monoculture, factory farms, industrial food, and Big Ag are taking the same hard line against energy security legislation that made the U.S. Chamber of Commerce lose members. The Farm Bureau appears to plan to stop using "polite," "respectful," and "friendly" language* with any "extremists" who threaten their profits (oh, sorry: I mean their storied way of life) with sensible cap-and-trade legislation.

Perhaps the Farm Bureau will further change their language... to Chinese:

Andy Grove, co-founder of Intel, liked to say that companies come to “strategic inflection points,” where the fundamentals of a business change and they either make the hard decision to invest in a down cycle and take a more promising trajectory or do nothing and wither. The same is true for countries.

The U.S. is at just such a strategic inflection point. We are either going to put in place a price on carbon and the right regulatory incentives to ensure that America is China’s main competitor/partner in the E.T. revolution, or we are going to gradually cede this industry to Beijing and the good jobs and energy security that would go with it [Thomas Friedman, "Who's Sleeping Now?" New York Times, 2010.01.10].

The Farm Bureau has its cute little marketing caps pulled so far down over their eyes they can't see that cap-and-trade is about establishing a sustainable energy future. The American Clean Energy and Security Act will lay the groundwork for a new energy economy that will make energy more affordable and more secure in the long term for farmers and everyone else in America. It will also make our planet a little cleaner.

We can seize this moment to pass serious energy security legislation, including a cap-and-trade system to set a market price on carbon, and position ourselves to compete with China on energy technology, the golden ticket of the modern economy. Or we can stick our heads in the Saudi sand and the oil sands and let this become the Chinese Century.

But if the Chinese get rich on clean energy technology, maybe they'll buy more meat from American factory farms....

p.s.: 48% of Canadians consider climate change a "critical threat" to their country. 28% of Canadians say the same about terrorism.

pp.s.: The Pope might also be wondering what the Farm Bureau is smoking. Of course, the Farm Bureau thinks churches don't have any business advising us how to live in the world.

---------------------------
*This language from American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman sounds alarmingly like a declaration of war on civil discourse. I'm expecting a particularly ugly marketing campaign from AFBF's front blogs, with more of diversionary attacks against reasonable people like Michael Pollan. Stay tuned....

---------------------------
Update 2010.01.17 12:53 CST: Paula Crossfield at Civil Eats writes the Farm Bureau is "denying climate change, undermining labor, and losing relevancy."

Copenhagen Enjoys Progressive Energy Policies and Economic Growth

As leaders in Copenhagen work on fixing the planet, they may hear my conservative friends argue that government restrictions on carbon emissions and requirements to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy would hurt economic growth. That's at least more reasonable than contending that a few hacked e-mails disprove decades of scientific research.

Or is it?

A central argument for resisting binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is concern for economic growth. However, experience from Denmark shows that with a persistent and active energy policy focused on increasing energy efficiency it is possible to maintain high economic growth, while at the same time reducing the dependency on fossil fuels and protecting the environment.

Denmark's energy efficiency is today among the highest in the EU, and continues to rise each year. The country has one of the most efficient uses of energy and a low level of CO2-emission in relation to production levels, compared to other EU and OECD countries. Since 1980, Denmark's economy has grown by 78%, alongside nearly stable energy consumption and reduced CO2 emissions.

The country's sustainable growth has been created by a combination of investments in technological development, green taxes and a political effort to promote the use of renewable energy. Since the 1970s Denmark has seen major investments and research into alternative energy sources, especially wind, and efficiency improvements of existing power stations.

Today, renewable energy comprises 19% of overall energy consumption. This has increased energy supply security and contributed significantly to the attainment of Denmark's climate targets. From 1990 to 2007, economic activity in Denmark increased by more than 45%, while CO2 emissions decreased by more than 13% [Ambassador Einar Hebogard Jensen, "Bangladesh on the Road to COP15 in Copenhagen," The Daily Star, 2009.08.28].

The city of Copenhagen also burns 75% of its garbage for electricity and heat. 36% of its residents bike as their main mode of transportation. The Danes also feel pretty darned happy.

In other news Copenhagen-watchers might find interesting, Mr. Price at Robbinsdale Radical shares videos from Copenhagen from South Dakota's Jamie Horter. She's the Augustana student working for strong climate change action at the summit.

Jamie might want to pass around copies of this new Ipsos Public Affairs poll that finds 70% of Americans believe global warming is real and that 61% of those folks believe it's mostly human-caused. 52% support using cap-and-trade to tackle carbon emissions. The poll also finds people are more worried about jobs than electric rate increases: support for cap-and-trade drops to 43% if it includes a hypothetical $25-per-month hike in electric bills, but that support bounces back to 60% if that hike is accompanied by "a significant number of 'GREEN' jobs."

Pass ACESA I: Cap and Trade Works

[On Thursday, September 24, I had an enjoyable conversation with Matthew McGovern and Rick Hauffe from Repower South Dakota and Matt McLarty from the Environmental Law & Policy Center. This post is Part 1 of a series based on that interview.]

Regular readers know that, after some doubts, I've come down in favor of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454—ACESA). The bill is frequently referred to, usually by opponents, as the "cap-and-trade" bill. ACESA covers much more than that single issue, such as energy efficiency, alternative energy, and smart grid technology.

Pass ACESA
a Madville Times series

1. Cap and Trade Works
2. The New China Syndrome
3. Market Solving Already?
4. Techno-Hope
5. Perfect vs. Good
6. Smart Grid
7. The Big Picture

Read H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act

But cap and trade is a big part of the bill, and it's worth looking at.

Cap and trade is the creation of a market mechanism to limit carbon emissions and impose a cost to capture the externalities those emissions create. Right now, I can fire up a coal plant and emit all the carbon I want, without paying for the harms that carbon causes (like fewer Pacific island tourist destinations, dead people, and sickly squid and other marine life, not to mention "storms, drought, mass migration, and pandemics" that might trigger terrorism and armed conflict.). Cap and trade creates a system where I either pay for the damage my carbon emissions are doing or invest in better technology that reduces my emissions and maybe even makes me money on the side as I sell my unused quota of carbon allowances to other companies that can't make reductions as easily as I can.

(Nobel laureate Paul Krugman gives an Econ 101 explanation of how cap-and-trade works and how Glenn Beck gets it wrong.)

Cap and trade may sound familiar: as noted here previously, the United States has done it before. Cap and trade is the policy we used to successfully eliminate acid rain. The Clean Air Act of 1990 created a cap and trade system for sulfur dioxide emissions, one of the main causes of acid rain. The program achieved 100% compliance at 20–30% of the projected cost in the 1990s.

The 1990s—you remember that decade, right? Low unemployment, economic boom, a federal budget surplus. What happened to the million of jobs the National Association of Manufacturers said sulfur dioxide cap and trade would kill? The job losses never happened. Industry always cries wolf over enviromental regulations, and time and time again, those self-interested predictions of economic ruin never come true.

As policy gravy, according to Matt McGovern of Repower South Dakota, the EPA calculates that the 1990 Clean Air Act was also a cost-effective public health measure: for every dollar spent, the United States has enjoyed $40 of public health benefits in the form of lower health care costs and fewer missed workdays. I'll leave it to more actuarial heads to calculate the cost-benefit ratio of not having to move a quarter of the world's population to higher ground—think Hurricane Katrina times a thousand.

The United States has used cap and trade before to reduce acid rain and improve public health. We can use it again to reduce carbon emissions and promote innovation in clean energy technology.

[Stay tuned for more on ACESA this week on the Madville Times!]