Climate Politics Page 1 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Climate Politics

Climate Politics.............................................................................................................................................................................................1 Climate Good 1NC........................................................................................................................................................................................6 Climate Good 1NC........................................................................................................................................................................................8 2NC Impact Calc – Warming Quick...............................................................................................................................................................9 Uniqueness: Will Pass – Longer Version of 1NC Card.................................................................................................................................10 Uniqueness: Will Pass – Bro Card for 1NR..................................................................................................................................................12 Uniqueness: Will Pass – Committees .........................................................................................................................................................13 Uniqueness: Will Pass – House And G8......................................................................................................................................................14 Uniqueness: Will Pass – AT: Mccain............................................................................................................................................................15 Uniqueness: Will Pass – Vote Count...........................................................................................................................................................16 Uniqueness: Will Pass – Odds.....................................................................................................................................................................17 AT: Healthcare Prevents Climate Passage.................................................................................................................................................18 AT: Healthcare First....................................................................................................................................................................................19 Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Senate .............................................................................................................................................................20 Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Democrats .......................................................................................................................................................21 Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Healthcare First................................................................................................................................................22 Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Recession.........................................................................................................................................................24 Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – China ...............................................................................................................................................................25 Uniqueness: Nuclear Concessions =/= Passage........................................................................................................................................26 AT: Senate Will Use Reconciliation.............................................................................................................................................................27 Climate Bill Inevitable................................................................................................................................................................................28 Climate Bill Inevitable................................................................................................................................................................................29 I/L: Political Capital Key..............................................................................................................................................................................30 I/L: Bipartisanship Key................................................................................................................................................................................31 Cap And Trade Solves Nuclear Power........................................................................................................................................................32 Cap And Trade Solves Nuclear Power........................................................................................................................................................33 AT: Not Enough Loan Guarantees..............................................................................................................................................................34 AT: Obama Won’t Push Nuclear Power......................................................................................................................................................35 AT: Nuclear Power Still Too Expensive.......................................................................................................................................................36 AT: Loan Guarantees Now..........................................................................................................................................................................37 AT: States Solve Loan Guarantees.............................................................................................................................................................38 AT: States Solve Loan Guarantees.............................................................................................................................................................40 1 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

Climate Politics Page 2 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: Nuclear Power Bad...............................................................................................................................................................................41 AT: Nuclear Power Bad...............................................................................................................................................................................42 AT: Loan Guarantees Expensive................................................................................................................................................................43 AT: No Workforce/Manufacturing Capacity................................................................................................................................................44 Federal Government Key To Nuclear Leadership.......................................................................................................................................45 Nuclear Leadership Good—Prolif (1/2).......................................................................................................................................................46 Nuclear Leadership Good—Prolif (2/2).......................................................................................................................................................48 Nuclear Power Good—Reprocessing (1/2).................................................................................................................................................49 Nuclear Power Good—Reprocessing (2/2).................................................................................................................................................50 Nuclear Power Good—Poverty...................................................................................................................................................................51 Nuclear Power Good—Water Wars.............................................................................................................................................................52 AT: Nuclear Power Overuses Water...........................................................................................................................................................53 AT: Cap And Trade Not Kt Warming...........................................................................................................................................................54 AT: Wind Solves..........................................................................................................................................................................................56 AT: Solar Solves..........................................................................................................................................................................................57 AT: Stimulus Solves....................................................................................................................................................................................58 AT: Cap And Trade Inevitable/No Timeframe.............................................................................................................................................59 AT: Cap And Trade Inevitable/No Timeframe.............................................................................................................................................60 AT: State Cap And Trade Solves.................................................................................................................................................................61 C&T Good—Extinction................................................................................................................................................................................62 Ext. C&T Solves Warming...........................................................................................................................................................................63 Ext. C&T Solves Warming...........................................................................................................................................................................64 Ext. C&T Solves Warming...........................................................................................................................................................................65 Cap And Trade Modeled.............................................................................................................................................................................67 Cap And Trade Modeled.............................................................................................................................................................................68 Cap And Trade Modeled.............................................................................................................................................................................69 Cap And Trade Modeled.............................................................................................................................................................................70 Cap and Trade Modeled.............................................................................................................................................................................71 China Key To Solve Warming.....................................................................................................................................................................72 Positive Feedbacks.....................................................................................................................................................................................73 AT: Current Emission Levels Too High.......................................................................................................................................................74 AT: G8 Solves.............................................................................................................................................................................................75 AT: Free Market Solves/Government Control Bad......................................................................................................................................76 AT: Carbon Leakage...................................................................................................................................................................................77 2 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

Climate Politics Page 3 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: EPA Regulation Solves.........................................................................................................................................................................78 Climate Models Good.................................................................................................................................................................................79 Warming Anthropogenic............................................................................................................................................................................80 AT: Recent Events Disprove Climate Change............................................................................................................................................81 AT: Recent Events Disprove Climate Change............................................................................................................................................82 AT: Climate Change Theory Inconsistent...................................................................................................................................................83 AT: Negative Feedbacks.............................................................................................................................................................................84 AT: Solar Radiation Cuases Warming.........................................................................................................................................................85 AT: Natural Temperature Cycles................................................................................................................................................................86 AT: Satellite Data Proves No Warming.......................................................................................................................................................87 Warming Bad—Sea Level...........................................................................................................................................................................88 Warming Bad—Economy............................................................................................................................................................................89 Warming Bad—Environment......................................................................................................................................................................90 Warming Bad—Disease (1/2).....................................................................................................................................................................91 Warming Bad—Disease (2/2).....................................................................................................................................................................92 Warming Bad—Water Wars........................................................................................................................................................................93 Ext. Warming Causes Water Scarcity.........................................................................................................................................................94 Warming Bad—Forests...............................................................................................................................................................................95 Warming Bad—Systemic Death/Poverty....................................................................................................................................................96 AT: Trade Turn............................................................................................................................................................................................97 AT: Trade Turn............................................................................................................................................................................................98 AT: Trade Turn..........................................................................................................................................................................................100 AT: WTO Checks Trade Wars....................................................................................................................................................................101 AT: C&T Kills Economy.............................................................................................................................................................................102 AT: Climate Bill Kills Economy..................................................................................................................................................................103 AT: Climate Bill Kills Economy..................................................................................................................................................................105 AT: C&T Kills Economy – Auctions ...........................................................................................................................................................106 C&T Good—Hegemony.............................................................................................................................................................................107 Ext. Climate Kt Leadership.......................................................................................................................................................................108 AT: Competitiveness Turn........................................................................................................................................................................110 AT: Cap And Trade Fails/Economy Turns.................................................................................................................................................111 EIA Indict (Electricity Prices)....................................................................................................................................................................112 ***Climate Bad***....................................................................................................................................................................................113 Nuclear Power Decreasing.......................................................................................................................................................................114 3 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

.......................................................................................................................................................................................154 C&T Bad – Poverty ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Teddy & Megan .................................................................................................................................................................................................134 Climate Models Bad...........................................................................................131 AT: Drought......................................................................................................................................................................................................................117 AT: Reprocessing Solves Prolif..................................................................................................................... C&T Kills Competitiveness................................................................136 Ext.................................................................................................................................146 Ext..................139 Ext......138 Ext..................................................................................................................................................................127 AT: C&T Solves Warming...................................... Mitchell......................132 AT: Forests..........................................................................130 AT: Disease Spread.........................................................................141 Ext....................................................................................................................................................................................................................142 AT: C&T Solves Economy.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................118 AT: Nuclear Power Solves Water Wars.............................................................................................................................................................................................................144 2NC Trucking Industry Module.......................................................................116 Nuclear Power Bad – Prolif .............................................................................................................................119 C&T Bad – Warming ......................................................................................................................................145 Trucking Industry Brink...................................................................................................................................................................................................... C&T Kills Economy...............152 C&T Bad – Free Trade.....................................................................................................................................................................155 Healthcare Kt Climate......................................................................................................................126 C&T Fails – Warming ...................................Climate Politics Page 4 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Nuclear Power Bad – Extincion...............................................................................................................................................................................................................148 C&T Bad – Competitiveness (2/2).........................156 4 Ellis..........................133 Greenhouse Theory Flawed...........................121 C&T Can’t Solve Warming. Trucking Key to Economy..................................................143 AT: C&T Solves Economy – Green Jobs......................................................................................... C&T Kills Economy..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................120 C&T Can’t Solve Warming.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................147 C&T Bad – Competitiveness (1/2).................................................... C&T Kills Economy............................150 Ext............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................128 AT: Sea Levels...................................................123 C&T Can’t Solve Warming.........................................................................................................................115 AT: Nuclear Power Leadership... Can’t Solve Warming/Economy............................135 C&T Bad – Economy ......................................................................................125 C&T Can’t Solve Warming....................................................................................................................................................

Teddy & Megan . Mitchell.Climate Politics Page 5 of 156 7WJ – HPSW 5 Ellis.

energy security. some of the governors. This is more than a third of the $150 billion he promised over the next 10 years for clean energy investments. this investment inside a trillion dollar package merely colors the economic recovery with a pale green hue.Climate Politics Page 6 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Climate Good 1NC Climate bill will pass – but it’ll be a tough fight Samuelsohn. 2/3. because we have 60 votes. it must be appreciated for its cross-cutting immensity — it is fundamental to national security. EPA that carbon dioxide could be regulated as a pollutant under the law. Teddy & Megan . Since the Supreme Court affirmed in Massachusetts v. With former EPA chief Carol Browner heading up his climate team in the White House. in the Northeast. however. and I think a lot of communities have already moved — I mean. pending further review.msp?id=2174) Yale Environment 360: I remember watching you last year in the Senate debate on the floor as [you] were voting on the Lieberman-Warner [climate] bill. agricultural policy. and the real issue is how aggressively the law will be applied. President Bush was waiting at that point with a veto pen. adopt a mandatory federal renewable energy target. land-use planning.co. dangerous feedback loops. For Obama.edu/content/feature. as delay into 2010 will wreck it on the shoals of mid-term investment in a clean energy grid.S. who would sign a bill. global commerce.e360. working with your senators. Obama has another chance to redirect land use away from highway sprawl and in a low-carbon. By itself. the electorate is way ahead of some of our colleagues here. The president must also instruct his cabinet to clarify the impact of global climate change on each of their respective portfolios. But with the federal Transportation Bill up for reauthorization in 2009. Instead. but it is essential to Obama's success. Coming to Copenhagen with the necessary legislative accomplishments — in addition to regulatory ones — will be harder still. The administration should also strengthen energy efficiency incentives and clean energy tax credits. extreme weather events. and environmental protection. the question of coal rests largely in Obama's hands. unequivocally." In Copenhagen. because we have a Democratic president. and energy efficiency — $54 billion worth. Science. Obama has tapped the talent he needs to implement a powerful regulatory strategy. economic recovery. It is not an energy Obama will still face heavy regulatory and legislative lifting to turn promise into reality before Copenhagen. “We’re Going to Get It Done. Mitchell. If he does. Global warming has been crammed into a "green" box for the sake of political expediency. At his direction. He is talking frequently about energy and climate change. The president's executive action on coal will invigorate Copenhagen and bring seriousness to bilateral discussions with China. public health and safety. where powerful lobbies have held science at bay. given the acceleration of global ice melt. part of the Guardian Environment Network. and it will be hard fought. state compacts in the Midwest. the political winds at his back are now as favorable as they will ever be. The proposed economic recovery package has been disappointing to advocates of public transit. because the science is more compelling. he will be ahead of schedule on that score. really hinges upon the fate of coal-burning power plants under the Clean Air Act. to Copenhagen. and green jobs. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson will guarantee steep future emissions reductions from the transportation sector. he must demonstrate how science has been restored "to its rightful place" in America in strong climate regulation and law. Americans have been purposefully led astray about the reality of global warming and about the positive . in terms of energy efficiency projects. By approving the waiver after a formal review process. The boldness of Obama's regulatory strategy. there are greater possibilities this time around. and his economic recovery package makes important commitments toward public and the political establishment and prepare them to come together with the nations of the world in Copenhagen to meet this grave challenge. To secure his crowning achievement there 6 Ellis. For almost a decade.uk/environment/2009/feb/03/network-obama-climate-meeting-copenhagen) chairman of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.yale. Expectations are high that he will exercise the executive authority he already has under the Clean Air Act to achieve some quick victories and put pressure on Congress to act boldly. clean energy. in the West. http://www. So there’s a very different dynamic. the world's coal juggernaut. and the United States needs to lead.” http://www. and spend freely from his enormous store of political capital to lead the government to enact comprehensive federal climate legislation. and smart growth. and shipping. and he should empower them and other government scientists to speak loudly. credibility to the promise he made in his inaugural address to "roll back the specter of a warming planet. global leadership. Over half the American economy has already voluntarily put itself under mandatory [carbon] reduction schemes. inaction on climate change. cement plants. because we have a responsibility to people.guardian. it will certainly change the tone of what happens with coal in Congress longer-term. exercise the full might of his executive powers and regulatory discretion under the Clean Air Act to jump-start action. He is in a position to seize 2009 and do three things to meet the climate challenge: properly educate the American public about climate change and the need for immediate action. with sparse dollars allocated to those needs. The EPA plainly has the right to control CO2 emissions. So I think Obama’s political capital key – passage now is vital to global action that will solve warming Guardian 9 (From Yale Environment 360. As expected. The legislation must be signed into law this year. American leadership offers the only hope of success. the president must travel to Copenhagen with real regulatory and legislative achievements. Manufacturers will soon have to deliver higher mileage vehicles on an accelerated schedule. and potentially irreversible changes. it has become an open question as to how existing coal plants and permits for new ones will now fare under the act. says that emissions must be stabilized by 2015 and in decline by 2020. Can you talk a little about the [changed] dynamics? John Kerry: This time there’s a reality to it. and increase . Simultaneously and climate plan. and allow the thorny bailout of Detroit to proceed without any doubt as to where the industry must head. the as people begin to analyze the realities here. other kinds of things mayors have done. it’s a very complicated issue. Even if President Obama himself decides to attend the talks — and hopefully he will — his mission will fail unless he carries with him a year's worth of demonstrated results to lend weight and Rajendra Pachauri. After eight years of U. televised address to the nation about the climate crisis and the need for immediate action and U. Obama must also make a prime-time. in its rightful place. though. Signs are good that Obama genuinely means business. and frequently to the American public about the true science of climate change and the urgency of our present circumstances. despite currently low fuel prices. other heavy industries. Such a speech would send a clear signal to the American . his inspiring oratory alone will not be sufficient. and Energy Secretary Steven Chu. the EPA's first order of climate business is already moving forward: granting a long-delayed waiver to California to allow the state to impose more stringent auto emissions rules. The new president must use the bully pulpit of his office to provide quick and remedial education. and he has the authority to stop new dirty coal plants cold. If that first signal gets amplified. Doesn’t mean it’s going to be easy — it’s not. He proved it his first week in office when the EPA revoked an air permit for the Big Stone II coal plant in South Dakota. Interview with Senator John Kerry. the White House science adviser. which 13 other states are poised to adopt as well. The latest science only underscores the need for immediate action. Now you have President Obama. can tolerate no further delay. mass-transit direction. In the short term. so if the package survives its passage through Congress.S. Obama has well chosen his scientific team in John Holdren. Obama must expend political capital in Congress and work with leaders to complete passage of science-based federal legislation capping greenhouse gas emissions. the Clean Air Act can jump-start climate action by speeding aggressive federal standards for building and appliance efficiency and placing limits on other carbon-intensive sources of pollution — steel mills. light rail. the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Jane relationship that exists between sustainable economic prosperity and environmental stewardship Lubchenco. 7/27 (Darren. the United States will reclaim the mantle of global leadership when it takes its seat in Copenhagen.

and it increases the chances of passage this year. while the window of opportunity is wide open. It establishes a new. It makes a cap-and-dividend plan largely immune from criticism that it will be costly to the public." Under this program. Whether the allocations should be shared and what the right ratios ought to be will be the subject of intense political negotiation on Capitol Hill. nobody does. will protect the most vulnerable American families from rising energy prices and will help build a long-term constituency for climate action. cap-and-dividend provides the best point of departure because it creates a fundamental break with business-as-usual. Peter Barnes. In the present economic crisis. began by asking a simple question: Who owns the sky? Without a price signal. would set the stage for passage of a comprehensive international treaty to slow global warming. Teddy & Megan . cognitive frame of reference: the democratic principle that an equal share of the sky belongs to each person. but one of them is rising as a preferred choice because elections. This American accomplishment. None of the options is perfect. everybody owns the sky and the emissions cap then becomes universally comprehensible as it begins to turn us toward a low-carbon . There is considerable debate about the form which a cap and a price signal should take — in recent weeks a carbon tax has even been a topic of renewed discussion. nor will there be another financial context more sensitive to a strong new signal. The extra income. future 7 Ellis. Indeed. With cap-and-dividend. As the global economy starts to rise from collapse. permits to pollute the air with greenhouse gases would be auctioned and the proceeds returned to citizens. a time when political courage disappears. brought by President Obama to Copenhagen along with other concrete actions. which should be targeted especially to the poor.Climate Politics Page 7 of 156 7WJ – HPSW There will not be another political opportunity as ripe as now. Mitchell. it must do so with a price on carbon as part of its cure. winning. Now is the year for President Obama to act. and global warming pollution will proceed essentially unchecked. it protects low-and middle-income families from rising energy prices. Many believe it may be necessary to reserve some portion of the auction revenues for investments in clean energy programs at home and in adaptation and technology transfers abroad. who originally formulated this concept and has championed it tirelessly. Still. It's called "cap-and-dividend. the prospect of sending monthly dividend checks to families is a political winner.

with more frequent and severe The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks. who warned droughts.co. when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel. transport and industrial infrastructure. cities. And as the Arctic warms. Billions would undoubtedly die. The world's geography The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. “On a planet 4C hotter. Mitchell.Climate Politics Page 8 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Climate Good 1NC Warming guarantees multiple positive feedbacks triggering extinction – adaptation cannot solve Tickell. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. Teddy & Megan . floods and hurricanes. would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age. To see how far this process could go. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra.guardian. The Gaurdian. "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. and the more the Arctic warms. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable. complete with ports. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable. that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions. Bob Watson told the Guardian last week.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Climate Researcher. bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. all we can prepare for is extinction”. notably the summer The more the ice melts. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. 8 (Oliver.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange) We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming. This is a remarkable understatement. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean. and much of the world's most productive farmland. the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way. the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. melting of the Arctic sea ice. Sir David King. look 55. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth. 8 Ellis. in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser. 8/11http://www. both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea. and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. All the world's coastal plains would be lost.

due to human activity. once a critical greenhouse concentration threshold is passed.000 years. scientists at least have the sense of humour to term what drives this process as "positive feedback". Faced with circumstances that threaten human civilisation. If that happens. the most prevalent greenhouse gas. This has already been observed in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic. Other dynamics include the decreasing ability of oceans to absorb CO2 due to higher wind strengths. Let us be clear exactly what we mean. with different ocean circulation. So. increases the amount of heat absorbed. Teddy & Megan . a atmosphere. In just 250 years. Mitchell. 8/15. the implications of which are potentially catastrophic for life on Earth. we could reach a tipping point for the beginnings of runaway climate change. linked to climate change. warming the When these gases accumulate beyond a certain level . L/N) In just 100 months' time. if we are lucky. wind and rainfall patterns. approximately 1. 8 (Andrew Simms. as a result of the coal-fired Industrial Revolution. The loss of ice cover reduces the ability of the Earth's surface to reflect heat and. and based on a conservative estimate.800bn tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. by revealing darker surfaces. we have released more than 1. Because of such self-reinforcing feedbacks.a "tipping point" . The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere today. number of feedback loops amplify warming through physical processes that are either triggered by the initial warming. This is often referred to as irreversible climate change. “Guardian Weekly: Just 100 months left to save Earth: Andrew Simms on a New Green Deal that could forestall the climate change tipping point”. Currently. is the highest it has been for the past 650. the maximum concentration of greenhouse gases allowable to forestall potentially irreversible changes to the climate system. and changes to land use such as the growth of cities and the felling of forests.Climate Politics Page 9 of 156 7WJ – HPSW 2NC Impact Calc – Warming Quick The impact is quick – 81 months to extinction Guardian Weekly.global warming will accelerate. and the effect of those environmental feedbacks. the Earth's climate will shift into a more volatile state. 9 Ellis.000 tonnes of CO2 are released into the atmosphere every second. how do we arrive at the ticking clock of 100 months? It's possible to estimate the length of time it will take to reach a tipping point. potentially beyond control. One example is the melting of ice sheets. global warming will continue even if we stop releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. or the increase in greenhouse gases. and adding to climate change. Greenhouse gases trap incoming solar radiation. increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. In climate change. To do so you combine current greenhouse gas concentrations with the best estimates for the rates at which emissions are growing.

who believe that we’ve got to do this. It’s not a partisan issue. This bill is about jobs — clean energy jobs that stay here in America. Do you think there’s any truth to that? Kerry: I don’t agree. It could produce ten thousand times its own electricity needs just from wind. Al Gore. So. He says President Obama. got global climate change impacts hitting states all across the country. Over half the American economy has already voluntarily put itself under mandatory [carbon] reduction schemes. Do they want to fix the system? No. fire risks. we don’t want anything partisan out of this. President Bush was waiting at that point with a veto pen. what’s their global climate change policy? To stick their heads in the sand and pretend it isn’t happening? And risk catastrophe for our nation and the planet? I think people will recognize the importance of these issues as we go forward. I’ve also talked to Newt Gingrich. and they votes. I mean. In fact. in terms of energy efficiency projects. stronger drought. It is an anti-pollution bill that protects children from all the impacts of bad air. and they’re also going to run ads describing this challenge appropriately in certain states to encourage people to change their mind. I know that the House started at a higher level and had to move backward somewhat. e360: Can you talk about what general issues you intend? Kerry: The kinds of things are offsets. and we’ve just got to get it caught up. and so scientists are deeply alarmed. What’s their energy. you didn’t win West Virginia and Montana and the Dakotas and these states that are the swing states. Now you have President Obama. hiring people involved with grassroots organizing. So as the evidence comes in. because we have a responsibility to people. Less rainfall. without the assistance that we’re going to put in this bill to help them. a very strong bill. what’s their plan? What plan do they have for anything? Do they have a plan for heath care? No. because those are decisions that will be made down the road here as we get together in the next weeks. Secondly . it’ll be very tough. adaptation technology transfer. e360: What specifics are you going to add to the bill from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? Kerry: I can’t tell you what we will do or not do. Doesn’t mean it’s going to be easy — it’s not. there are many reasons for people to embrace what is going to be done here. So. This is an issue that ought to be based on science. is it hard to push this? Kerry: We don’t want [to be] divisive. and there may be several things we feel we can tweak. all of whom believe that this is a big deal for America’s economy. But we’re going to have to find a level of compromise here that works for people. it’s going to be regulated by the EPA. You’ve got tech companies. there are greater possibilities this time around. They’re just trying to figure out what’s the best way to try to deal with it. This is about how do we meet those interests. That decision has yet to be made. this is legislating. working with your senators. You have the Europeans calling for stronger targets. putting advertisements together. in the West. e360: How much does the health care debate influence the climate debate — success on health care breeds success on climate and failure on when you fail at something it also doesn’t end the opportunity to get something done. Different people are raising money. but it got the votes. I know it’s tough. in a run for a second term. because we have a Democratic president. We may just put them into the bill with [Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman] Barbara [Boxer]. and I respect that. two days ago. Thirdly. because if it doesn’t. some of the governors. and it is a huge step forward for energy independence for our country. So this will be hard fought. talking about how many jobs they created in their states as a consequence of their moves on environmental policy. We may mark it up ourselves.Climate Politics Page 10 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Uniqueness: Will Pass – Longer Version of 1NC Card Climate bill will pass and solve the economy – but it’ll be a tough fight – Obama’s political capital is key Samuelsohn. Can you talk a little about the [changed] dynamics? John Kerry: This time there’s a reality to it.” http://www. on economics. e360: From a political standpoint. I can’t tell you what the level will be in the bill. and on good environmental policy — good economic this bill is really a bill for the transformation of the American economy. and so you have DuPont and Siemens. You have to be reasonable — West Virginia has huge unemployment. to Copenhagen. This is a jobs bill. These issues are going to rise and fall based on how well they are addressed. potential goals for Copenhagen. because we have 60 votes. That’s one thing that’s changed. Teddy & Megan . Are you concerned that you might be too polarizing as a senator representing Massachusetts now? Kerry: I really don’t think so. and the United States needs to lead.yale. that it was watered down too much in the negotiations.. because the science is more compelling. I think what’s changed is that the science is coming back major businesses and corporations have signed up realizing that this is critical to their economic future. make stronger. e360: At the press conference after Lieberman-Warner last year you talked about how this was one of the first times that the senators had had to grapple with the issue. I think encouraged us to do that if we can in various places. It’s taken a lot of time to try to get health care through here. 7/27 (Darren. It represents one of the fastest growing sectors of many of our states. North Dakota. and the status quo hurts Americans. You have to take risks. and we’re going to have to negotiate here — obviously intelligently — and get the the House bill is actually a very good bill. What’s your opinion? Kerry: I introduced legislation several years ago that had higher levels of reductions. So I think e360: As an advocate without President Bush around. and what they’re doing. in the Northeast. may I add significantly. and I think a lot of communities have already moved — I mean. the electorate is way ahead of some of our colleagues here. you’ve dramatically faster — and in greater affirmation of the predictions — than anybody had thought. and a major coal interest. e360: Some say that the House bill is too weak. this is not a campaign. beetle pine nut bugs that are eating forests in Colorado and Montana. Things are happening to the negative because of climate change. after every single House amendment vote that took place in the Energy and Commerce Committee. state compacts in the Midwest. there’s a huge grassroots effort going on right now that will support the people who are involved with this. a lot of folks who are on the lower end of the economic income scale. that provide a higher standard of living. Their “no” is a vote for the status quo. I look forward to it. this is not a race for the presidency. that we’re going to create jobs that don’t go overseas. “We’re Going to Get It Done. like Florida Power and Light and American Electric Power. and it will be hard fought. I think that that realization is striking home with people. But they’re going to try to educate the public about it. This is an economic jobs bill. and they can dispute and completely discredit any arguments that they’ve lost jobs because they’re doing those things. it has been determined by the policy. So I think that the public is ahead of some of the politicians in Washington on this. who would sign a bill. What’s changed from last year to this year? Kerry: I think our colleagues are well aware of the problem and concerned about it. reporters’ e-mail inboxes were flooded with press releases from the National Republican Congressional Committee attacking the House Democrats who voted on those amendments. and local populations are perceiving those things. Let this debate be joined. So the key here is to build as broad a coalition as is possible. So there’s a very different dynamic. People make too much of all that stuff. our commitment to clean coal technology is in fact a huge incentive for coal states to recognize that this is a good moment. Again. the as people begin to analyze the realities here. including North Dakota. other kinds of things mayors have done.msp?id=2174) Yale Environment 360: I remember watching you last year in the Senate debate on the floor as [you] were voting on the Lieberman-Warner [climate] bill. the Climate Action Partnership.. and they’re going to run ads in support of people where they do this. it’ll be a very big deal. Interview with Senator John Kerry. even gave us some ideas about things they would have liked to have done but weren’t able to. any time you’re successful it opens up the opportunity to go out and be successful again. [American Wind Energy] Association. could be in trouble because of this cap-andtrade bill. e360: In [the 2004 presidential] campaign. and various power companies. different kinds of entities. I think this bill health care could be trouble? Kerry: Well you know how this place works. that pay people decent salaries.e360. Governor Christine Gregoire here. I have no illusions about it. on facts. The Republicans. We’re trying to find a way to save the coal industry. We had Governor Bill Ritter from Colorado here. is the number one potential state for wind in the country. Mitchell. coal has a better opportunity for its future if it comes on board this bill. though. But there this is a growing recognition of a major challenge to Americans’ security and economic interests. And we’re still fighting that. it’s a very complicated issue. Kerry: Well. e360: Republicans think they can take the House and Senate back with this vote. We met with Markey and Waxman. we will show.edu/content/feature. [with] enormous positive assets. But 10 Ellis. people who look at the facts are going to realize what’s really happening here.

as well as an improvement in the health of children because you’re reducing pollution. we’re better off passing something. what people ought to understand is that legislation isn’t forever. I’m optimistic about the capacity to do it. I think people understand that. it’s a significant engine of growth for the economy. to achieve that. And if you want to enhance China’s prospects of signing onto [a treaty]. e360: What happens if this can’t pass this year — does this go on the shelf like health care? This is going to grow in significance and importance. Kerry: It’s been overblown — the Indians are repeating what they’ve always been saying. and I think that as people learn that this is actually a winner. and the cost to others is a range. “Wow. Hopefully we’ll have time to do it. there was some pretty harsh reaction toward the United States. to do what we need to do. that we’re helping to mitigate any kind of cost increase against the individual homeowner or electricity user. Kerry: We’d all like it — ideally you’d get a November signing. because it is harder to take more [CO2] out of the atmosphere the more you delay. we should pass something. but that is what has to be fleshed out in the negotiating process. that’s pretty good. and the Chinese likewise. So that’s now being scoped into it. I thought the 2 degrees C goal [temperature increase target] they came out of [the G8 meetings] with is pretty significant. and a bona fide effort by the United States. It also carries with it some requirements with respect to what you do. So in fact delay hurts the American consumer. it’s $40 in their pocket. and regrettably it’s going to get actually more expensive. Is it sufficient yet to deal with what we have to deal with going into Copenhagen? Not yet. overall. I think that China is doing a lot more than people know or think. budget issues. But it’s going to take leadership. that’s our goal. domestically. that are going to be necessary. That puts pressure on China and India and everybody else. and just where we are. and if we get a bill out of committee here. we can react.Climate Politics Page 11 of 156 7WJ – HPSW is already better than a lot of people think it is or know it is. You know. e360: Senator Reid has said that he would like it signed into law by Copenhagen. But we have to see what happens to the Senate schedule. among many. negotiating with China and with other countries? Kerry: Not at all. e360: When you look at the G8 meetings that just happened. If evidence came in in a few years showing we could slow it down. and it also doesn’t take into account the final things in the House when they voted. and that gets more expensive. If evidence came in saying we’ve got to speed it up. health care. because a 2 degrees goal carries with it certain obligations. over an entire year for a family of four. That was on the Waxman-Markey original bill. if you had a law. e360: And going into Copenhagen. and we need to show them exactly how. Things don’t end with Copenhagen. But when they learn that there are billions of dollars there to help develop clean coal technology. CBO [Congressional Budget Office] — and the EPA — has demonstrated that the cost to the lowest quintile of Americans is actually no cost. we can always react. and Speaker Pelosi has said the same. between 75 dollars and a hundred and something. And also increasing the security of the United States because you’re reducing energy dependency. and everything else. too. with some adjustment as we go along to the realities of science and economics and other things as they come at us. a lot of people are going to say. Teddy & Megan .” e360: What level of specificity do you think the United States needs going into Copenhagen? Kerry: Well I think what the House has done. does that tie the United States’ hands. Whatever we achieve in Copenhagen is a first major step. e360: Do we leave Copenhagen with a document that is the Copenhagen Protocol? Kerry: I hope so. So if your interest is in getting something done. because they don’t know yet really what’s in it. e360: How do you convince senators here to vote for a bill knowing that China hasn’t yet signed on the dotted line? Kerry: We have to do what we have to do no matter what. which we do very effectively in this. when they learn there are incentives for energy efficiencies or new technologies. this is not the scary thing people have described it as. it’s a jobs winner. Kerry: 11 Ellis. Would it be better if we finished the job here and got it passed? Absolutely. that’s a good level to go in with. the issue doesn’t suddenly go away. This is not a static process. it’s a jobs creator. and you have the House bill at that moment. or Secretary Clinton’s trip to India. But that’s without taking into account energy efficiencies or taking into account the new technologies. Mitchell.

put a price on US greenhouse gas emissions. but the passage of the Waxman-Markey Bill through the House of Representatives is a landmark victory for Obama's energy policy. for the fist time. The WaxmanMarkey Bill would also require that at least 15% of US electricity production by 2020 come from renewable sources. Attempts to water down the bill could. Teddy & Megan . Senate agriculture and forestry committee chairman senator Tom Harkin of Iowa said passage of the bill would be tough. including farmers. With Obama clearly willing to expend significant political capital to secure the passage of legislation which will. Having gained approval from the lower house. Senators from Midwestern and industrial states are concerned that a cap-and-trade system could raise energy costs for consumers. Mitchell. The bill ratified by the House would create a cap-and-trade system intended to curb emissions while creating a market for trading pollution permits and funding investment in new energy sources. will face a far tougher time in the Senate. who support more stringent environmental standards. The bill's cap-and-trade programme allocates 85% of credits to industry without cost. risk the support of senators. Further political horse-trading is inevitable. also referred to as the Waxman-Markey Bill after its authors. however. while forcing US companies to comply with stricter environmental standards than their overseas competitors. according to Bloomberg. where the upper chamber's composition makes the polarisation of regional interests far more pronounced. such as Vermont independent Bernie Sanders. which is predicated on a transition away from dependence on fossil fuels and significant investment in renewable technologies. factories. including energy secretary Steven Chu and foreign relations committee chairman John Kerry. 12 Ellis. Revenue from the auction will be redistributed to low-income households. with the remaining 15% to be auctioned. the bill now passes to a sceptical Senate for ratification. oil refineries and vehicles to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. It aims to cut fossil fuel emissions from power plants. have been working on securing Senate support for the bill since January. Climate Bill To Face Tough Time In Senate) The US House of Representatives voted 219 to 212 in favour of the 'American Clean Energy and Security Act' on June 26 in a hard won victory for one of President Barack Obama's key legislative policies. Even with Obama's support. President Obama has asked Congress to pass a bill before December's UN climate change conference in Copenhagen but gaining Senate support for the Waxman-Markey Bill will be a key test of his legislative pull. with at least six of the Senate's 20 committees working on alternative legislation. the bill is unlikely to survive in its current form.Climate Politics Page 12 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Uniqueness: Will Pass – Bro Card for 1NR Cap and trade will pass the Senate because of Obama’s political capital and solve for warming– but it will be a tough fight BMI 7/1/09 (Americas Oil and Gas Insights. The passage of the bill. Indeed. passage of a wide-ranging climate change bill before the end of 2009 now seems assured. Key members of Obama's administration.

and it will make it easier. and that it will. There will be so much in there. who'll help combine their work into one massive bill this fall. Energy.Climate Politics Page 13 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Uniqueness: Will Pass – Committees This year’s version of the bill will pass—all key committees support it Hotakainen 7/12/2009 (Rob. Nebraska. WEA) Last year. Miami Herald. but there's a new strategy this year that will make it harder for senators to reject it." she said in the interview. http://www. Finance. It should have a broader appeal. "There will be so much in this bill. which Boxer heads.Environment and Public Works.miamiherald." While vote counts vary. Boxer's standalone climate-change bill fell to defeat. Agriculture and Foreign Relations . it's all difficult.html. "Boxer faces challenge of a lifetime' on climate change bill". most observers say the bill's fate will lie with 15 or so Democratic moderates. "It's a different dynamic. Boxer figures she has the best odds ever of getting a bill signed into law. After years of battling with the Bush administration. Boxer said the approach was unlike any she'd experienced since she joined the Senate in 1993. Six committees . There will be investments in transportation. Commerce. Having said that. many of whom fear that a vote Boxer is trying to round up some Republican votes to offset opposition from the likes of Democratic Sens. There will be great incentives for energy efficiency.com/news/politics/AP/v-print/story/1138238. and she predicted that it will simplify passage. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of for climate change legislation could hurt their re-election chances. Those committee heads have been meeting for months with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Mitchell. Boxer has been telling audiences for years that Congress must act. There will be help for areas that need flood control. There will be great opportunities for agriculture.will have jurisdiction over the bill. 13 Ellis. Teddy & Megan .

Climate Politics Page 14 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Uniqueness: Will Pass – House And G8

We control momentum—House passage and G8 meeting. Bishu 7/17/2009 (Deswta, Ethiopian Review, "House Passes Landmark Climate Change Bill, Now Heads to Senate",
http://www.ethiopianreview.com/articles/14962, WEA)

The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed a sweeping climate change bill today that will significantly change
the way Americans use and produce energy. The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), which passed on experts predict another battle.

a 219-212 vote, now moves to the Senate, where

Environmental groups hailed the bill's passing.
prepared statement. "President Obama

"This vote was a major hurdle, and we've cleared it," Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a

can walk into the G8 summit of world leaders in Italy next week with his head held high. Now we have momentum to move and improve legislation in the Senate and put it on President Obama's desk so he can go to December's international summit in Copenhagen with the full backing of the Congress and the American people."

Before the vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told her colleagues "we cannot hold back the future." She offered four words that she said represent the meaning of the legislation. "Jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs," she said.

14 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

Climate Politics Page 15 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Uniqueness: Will Pass – AT: Mccain

McCain will give in despite his frustration over the bill. Yarow 7/16/2009 - economics degree at University of Delaware and master's in journalism from NYU (Jay, The Business
Insider, "What Will John McCain Do With The Climate Bill?", http://www.businessinsider.com/what-will-john-mccain-do-with-theclimate-bill-2009-7, WEA)

With the cap and trade bill sitting in the Senate awaiting proper debate, E&E Daily takes a very long look at John McCain's record on climate trade and tries to come up with an idea about how he'll vote.

Until Waxman and Markey put their names on the front page of the climate bill, McCain dominated any discussions about cap and trade legislation. He's tried introducing the legislation three different times and each time he's been shot down, pretty handily.
Now that there's a piece of legislation with some popular support, some momentum, surely he's happy? Well, not really.

And try as they might E&E can't really provide much insight as to how McCain will vote. They've got Republican Senator George Voinovich implying that McCain would vote against the bill because he knows it will hurt Americans. Opposing that point of view is John McCain himself, sort of: In contrast with GOP comments during last month's House debate, McCain argued that a capand-trade bill would work during the country's historic recession, citing the economic opportunities from a climate bill and questioning modelers who do not consider technological innovation and other ways to lower the policy's costs. He also held firm in his opposition to a "safety valve" limit on price limits, a point environmentalists say would stymie development of low-carbon energy sources. And McCain trumpeted the science, citing congressional delegation trips he had led to Antarctica,
the North Pole and Alaska.

McCain thinks the bill has a lot of crap in it (who doesn't?) but when push comes to shove, he'll exercise his influence on the debate, shape it so he's happy, hold his nose and vote yes.
Our reading of the article: John

15 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

Climate Politics Page 16 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Uniqueness: Will Pass – Vote Count

Nate Silver says it’ll get to 60 votes – but it will be a close call Yarow, 7/6/09 (Jay, The Business Insider, Nate Silver: Enough Votes In The Senate To Pass The Climate Bill) Political wonk and stats guru, Nate Silver says there's enough yes votes available in the Senate to get the climate bill passed but there will be probably be more compromises. After the House approved the climate bill, Silver created a regression model to determine how a Representative would vote. His model was pretty accurate, so he applied it to the Senate to see how it will vote. The model factors in ideology, partisan nature of a state, carbon emissions per capita, poverty, lobbying and employment in carbon intensive industries. Overall, Silver's analysis finds there are 52 voters likely to be in favor of the bill, but thinks there are 62-66 votes up for grabs. Here's the breakdown:
* Silver sees 44 highly likely yes votes, all Democrats, and 34 highly likely no votes, all Republicans. * In the middle there are 6 democrats that Silver deems "likely" yes votes. That would be 50 yes votes, enough for Biden to cast a deciding vote in favor of the legislation. * There are 3 more "possibly maybe" votes from Mark Begich (D-AK), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME) putting the total yes votes at 53. * There are 9 "problematic Democrats" that include: Evan Bayh (D-IN), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Mary Landireu (DLA), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and Ben Nelson (D-NE). These folks can expect calls from Rahm Emmanuel as the vote draws near. * There's four long shot Republicans: John McCain (R-AZ), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Mel Martinez (R-FL), and Chuck Grassley (R-IA).

While this should be assuring to any climate bill supporter, the real number that matters in the whole debate is 60. That's the number needed to bring the bill to vote and shut off filibustering. On major pieces of legislation, like the climate bill, Silver says the votes in favor of the bill usually fall in line with the votes against filibustering.

the bill isn't a slam dunk. There's going to be lots of compromising to get from 53 possibly approving Senators into 60 Senators definitely willing to have a vote on the bill. Once the bill is put to a vote, it looks likely it will be approved, unless the compromises kill the bill. As Silver puts it, "The
So, question is how many ornaments the Democrats could place on the Christmas Tree before it starts to collapse under its own weight.

Climate bill will pass with compromises – Nate Silver’s statistical analysis proves Doremus, 7/7/09 (Holly, Legal Planet: The Environmental Law and Policy Blog, Forecasting climate votes in the Senate) Nate Silver, the statistician who gained prominence in the last election cycle with his predictions for the presidential race, has modeled the prospects of the Waxman-Markey climate bill in the Senate. The analysis is necessarily based
on a number of assumptions, such as that the bill doesn’t change in its progress to the Senate floor. So its an artificial exercise, but an interesting one.

Silver’s model finds 51 votes with a reasonably high probability (75% or higher) of voting in favor of the bill (that’s not how Silver divides up the probabilities, but there’s a clear split in his model between Mark Begich of Alaska (77.98%) and the next highest Senator, Olympia Snowe of Maine (55.13%)). That would be barely enough to pass the bill, but not nearly enough to break a threatened filibuster. Silver sees 9 problematic votes in the
Democratic caucus and only 2 Republicans (Snowe and Collins of Maine) with a double-digit probability of breaking ranks with their party.

Overall, this is a slightly better assessment than I expected. Although the model considers only 52 Senators to be more likely than not to vote for the bill, there are somewhere between 6266 votes that are perhaps potentially in play. But . . . further compromises would almost certainly be needed, some of them designed to placate as few as one senator. The question is how
many ornaments the Democrats could place on the Christmas Tree before it starts to collapse under its own weight.

16 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

the House passing global warming legislation for the first time and a looming December deadline for international talks on a new treaty to reduce heat-trapping gases. "Every year the feel comfortable operating in the context of the House bill." he said.com/politics/ap/51807187. however. vehicles and businesses. the threat of real damage gets worse. Vice President Al Gore. Mitchell. ”AP Interview: Lieberman. despite past rifts with Dems. who went on to win a Nobel Prize for his work on global warming. 17 Ellis. The science. and to "ameliorate some of the pain associated with an enormous societal change" in how Americans power their homes. San Francisco Examiner.sfexaminer. Lieberman says the odds for passage "are better than even" — thanks to a president who is behind the bill. he said.Climate Politics Page 17 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Uniqueness: Will Pass – Odds Climate bill has better than even chances of passing Cappiello. sounding like his 2000 presidential running mate. http://www. even catastrophic damage." said Lieberman. also has gotten more compelling since he wrote his first global warming bill more than a decade ago. He also says it would raise the money needed to make "revolutionary investments" in cleaner forms of energy. "That's the thing I like most and why I This year. problem gets worse. still fights for global warming law”. Teddy & Megan .html) Lieberman still thinks that cap-and-trade is the best way to control global warming emissions. 7/27/09— (Dina Cappiello.

while we're debating on the floor health care legislation. And Senate Democrats still expect to meet Reid's timetable for the global warming bill. A number of administration heavyweights—Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. For now. we'll meet it. Baucus has been engulfed in negotiations on health care reform. who sits on both the Environment and Public Works and Finance committees. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson. But we can walk and chew gum. when he will also be tackling some of the core pieces of a climate bill.” Secretary Vilsack brandished a new report from the Agriculture Department. The Obama administration continued its offensive on the climate bill. http://blogs." Manley said of the Sept.).) has set for six committees to sign off on their pieces of a sweeping climate bill. farmers stand to rake in a fortune from so-called carbon offsets. “Senate health care delay won't change cap-and-trade schedule. Lexis) Top Senate Democrats insisted today that their plans for moving a global warming bill this fall will not slip despite delays on President Obama's health care reform package.) today acknowledged that the Senate would not begin floor debate until after the August recess on health care legislation. Baucus agrees – they’ll get climate done in September Samuelsohn. as well as what allowances are auctioned." said Sen. Dems say. and science advisor John Holdren—told the Senate Agriculture Committee to relax.) confirmed that the plan still remains for committee action in September. 7/23/2009 (Darren. alongside several fiscal 2010 appropriations bills. Reid had previously wanted to pass the health care bill before the summer break and then return in September to start a conference with the House." 18 Ellis. including the distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars in emission allowances." Baucus told E&E. 28 deadline for six Senate committees to complete their pieces of a climate bill." Baucus said of the Sept. "Not aware of any change." An aide to EPW Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif. he said today. Still on track for climate passage – Senators can walk and chew gum at the same time Samuelsohn. senior reporter. "We'll be taking that up. WSJ 7/23/2009 (Wall Street Journal. At the same time. Farmers will make out a lot better with climate legislation than without it. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev. The upshot? Thanks to all the last-minute goodies included in the House climate bill. That extra income will more than compensate higher energy prices. and something we ought to do. "We're going to.” E&E News. Jim Manley. "Yes. with prospects for Senate success resting in large part on a small set of said he is gearing up for September.wsj. 7/28/2009 (Darren. in the Finance Committee.Climate Politics Page 18 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Healthcare Prevents Climate Passage Obama doesn’t have a one-track mind—pushing healthcare doesn’t rule out progress on climate. but from a different quarter—trying to assuage the fears of the all-important farm-state senators who can make or break the climate push in the Senate. And Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said he planned to meet Reid's deadline for moving his parts of the climate bill. literally. enjoying “significant net benefits. senior reporter. Lexis) Baucus (D-Mont. deadline for cap and trade. "Team Obama: why farmers should love the climate bill".) will meet a late September deadline for clearing global warming legislation despite the all-out push for a health care bill that has dominated the congressional agenda. Tom Carper (D-Del.” E&E News. "And we may be doing that. Baucus (D-Nev. But that shift in schedule does not affect Reid's Sept. Mitchell. “Baucus pledges to meet late Sept.com/environmentalcapital/2009/07/23/team-obama-why-farmers-should-love-the-climate-bill/tab/print/. he said. according to his spokesman. Teddy & Megan . have hearings on and fully intend to mark up allowances. 28 target that Majority Leader Harry Reid Senate Finance Chairman Max bipartisan negotiations he is leading in the Finance Committee. More than any other lawmaker. 28 target. "I think the idea of marking up in late September is viable. Mostly. Reid's goal is to resolve health care differences in the key committees in time for a September floor debate. WEA) The fact that President Obama focused on health care to the near-total exclusion of his energy and climate push in his press conference last night has some folks wondering: “Should we get over ourselves and concede that health care takes priority over climate action?” Not so fast. which allowances are free allowances. as well as provisions dealing with international trade. That schedule was abandoned after House and Senate Democrats struggled this week to find consensus in several committees.

Implementation of such regulations would no doubt be delayed by years of litigation by industry. At the same time.glgroup. but the development of such regulations keeps the heat on industry and Congress to come to a legislative solution. including the distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars in emission allowances. The administration is also working through the Environmental Protection Agency on a parallel strategy. Obama is still lobbying Congress on a daily basis for climate GLG 7/27/2009 (Gerson Lehrman Group. as well as provisions dealing with international trade.” http://www. 19 Ellis. CLIMATE: Baucus pledges to meet late Sept.) has set for six committees to sign off on their pieces of a sweeping climate bill." Baucus said of the Sept.com/News/Cap-and-Trade-Enactment-Likelihood-Fading-Utilities-ShouldntGet-Complacent-41899. "Yes. EPA issued an “Endangerment Finding” that greenhouse gas emissions constitute a threat to human health – thereby enabling EPA to develop regulations under the Clean Air Act with no further action by Congress. Baucus said he is gearing up for September. 28 target that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev. however.html) Administration officials and environmental groups continue to push Congress for quick action. Teddy & Megan . Utilities Shouldn’t Get Complacent. The White House is actively lobbying Congress for climate change legislation on an almost daily basis. with prospects for Senate success resting in large part on a small set of bipartisan negotiations he is leading in the Finance Committee.Climate Politics Page 19 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Healthcare First The vote will come soon despite the push for health care Samuelsohn.) will meet a late September deadline for clearing global warming legislation despite the all-out push for a health care bill that has dominated the congressional agenda. (Darren. More than any other lawmaker. 7/28/09. Mitchell. Baucus has been engulfed in negotiations on health care reform. Earlier this year. he said today. we'll meet it. “Cap and Trade Enactment Likelihood Fading. E&E News PM. when he will also be tackling some of the core pieces of a climate bill. deadline for cap and trade) Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.

com/disp/story.” observed Frank Maisano. “the largest problem is the regional nature” of the debate. a Washington-based energy specialist with Bracewell & Giuliani.chron. 20 Ellis. http://www.. Dlouhy 7/11/2009 (Jennifer A.mpl/business/6524623. WEA) Where the House membership is distributed by population — with delegations from green-friendly California and New York having 82 members — the Senate's equal distribution of seats means that coal-reliant Ohio has the same voting power as California. Mitchell. Teddy & Megan . “Regional issues tend to blow up in the Senate. Houston Chronicle. "Energy-climate overhaul an uphill battle in Congress". For supporters.html.Climate Politics Page 20 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Senate The Senate will be substantially harder than the House.

" says Nikki Roy. For all of its lofty intentions. WEA) Obama hailed the package. "That's not remotely an option in the Senate.html.sfgate. http://www. US News & World Report.Climate Politics Page 21 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Democrats Won’t pass—no Democratic unity. a worrisome invitation to a protectionist trade war. but it's nowhere near a done deal. Supermajority isn’t enough to get it through Senate.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/12/ED5618I1CC." says Roy. Coal states fear that generating plants will cut back on their favorite fuel.DTL&type=printable. Senate". Adding to the bewilderment is the political reality that climate change doesn't necessarily follow partisan lines. Included in the House version is a tariff on imports from countries that don't play by the U. Teddy & Megan . "Climate-change challenge shifts to the U. you could more or less enact the bill almost entirely on Democratic votes. The moribund nuclear industry wants a chance to rebound. 21 Ellis. "These Democrats will have a hard time voting for this unless they see the But Republicans in a serious bipartisan engagement. Garber 7/10/2009 (Kent. "Because there is such an overwhelming Democratic majority in the House. "Climate change bill faces hurdles in the senate". http://www. Collecting the 60 votes the Senate will need to stop a filibuster and win passage is no certainty.com/cgibin/article.S. WEA) the Senate presents special challenges. Mitchell. because you have to look beneath the partisan levels.S." Roy counts at least nine Senate Republicans who have expressed some support for tackling climate change and more than 20 Senate Democrats from manufacturing or oil-producing states who worry about how the emissions limits would affect their state's industries.usnews. The present Democratic majority doesn't stick together on global warming policy. the House bill was larded with so many giveaways and complexities that several environmental groups denounced it. Farm groups want ag-friendly sweeteners to promote biofuels and allow the sale of pollution credits to outside industries. who monitors Congress for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. rules. Midwest states worry about job losses if smokestack rules change. SFC 7/12/2009 (San Francisco Chronicle.com/articles/news/energy/2009/07/10/climate-change-bill-faces-hurdles-in-the-senate.

Climate Politics Page 22 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Healthcare First Healthcare coverage is pushing climate off the agenda. You can count climate change among the “priorities” now in the shadows." she said. That is partly because climate change.” said Sherrod Brown . and this is his best formula: Make the National Security Case for Energy Reform Climate change efforts are being put off—healthcare is a higher priority. giving them until Sept. "Three Ways Obama Wins Republicans on Climate Change". Messaging is a start. And they said “Health care is a huge.uk/world/2009/jul/09/congress-climate-change/print. and so is climate change. has agreed to extend by 10 days a deadline for all committees to finish their work on the climate change bill. 28. Sotomayor. health care. Several senators said they need the extra month to negotiate with moderates in both parties to reach agreement on a large and complicated bill. http://www.founder of EnergyWorks Community Relations. climate change later". But the move comes amid signs of rising opposition to the bill in the Senate from moderate Democrats as well as Republicans. 7.environmental politics news site. energy and the environment still are considered Birkenstock and granola issues. Barbara Boxer. she said. Climate change? Not so much. we know that the rest of America .” Aug. and the stimulus. complicated issue and critical that it be done. After all his arm-twisting on the F-22s. “Health care swallows up everything else for a while.guardian. Barack "We will do it as soon as we get back. "Health bill now. She insisted that the delay would not jeopardise chances of getting climate change legislation through Congress this year. The Obama operatives that are still engaged on climate change have finally started to tweak the message in a way that might help sell a bill even to science skeptics and the generally apathetic. when Obama is due to attend an international summit on climate change at Copenhagen. Palmer 7/11/2009 (Avery.is tuned all the way out. said she had scaled back plans of writing a first draft of a climate change bill before Congress goes on its August recess. so at some point. Goldenberg 7/9/2009 . but they will also need to tweak the policy. "I want to take this as far as we can take it.. Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer . http://redgreenandblue. "Senate Democrats push back deadline on Obama climate change agenda".” added Debbie Stabenow . Although the committees can still move on energy. Suffolk University Law School (Joe. D-Calif." she told reporters. Teddy & Megan . WEA) Energy didn’t get a sniff in last night’s Obama press conference. If Jon Stewart is snoozing. the committee will debate amendments and vote on a bill in early September.a goodly percentage of which is far across the spectrum from Stewart and outwardly hostile to climate change arguments .co. “Many of us are deeply involved in both. the Guardian. WEA) At least for now. he said. Mitchell. Instead.” Majority Leader Harry Reid .org/2009/07/23/three-ways-obama-wins-republicans-on-climate-change/.US environment correspondent for the Guardian (Suzanne. Climate bill got delayed. health care is the top priority for leaders on Capitol Hill and the bills intended to deal with climate change will have to wait. Boxer would not guarantee that Congress would be able to pass legislation before December. D-Ohio. Red Green and Blue . D-Nev." 22 Ellis. Health care is all touch-and-feel…it plays with everyone. said this week that she no longer intends to move an energy bill out of committee before the Senate leaves for its summer recess the time demands of health care legislation need to be taken into account. founder of LinkedIn. D-Mich.. the chair of the environment and public works committee who is spearheading the Obama environment agenda. WEA) Obama hit a snag in his ambitious climate change agenda today when Senate Democrats pushed back their deadline to product a draft bill until September. That wasn’t really a surprise given the way that health care has elbowed its way into the political spotlight. Obama has precious little political capital to bring reluctant Senate Blue Dog Dems or GOPs over to support of comprehensive climate change legislation (whether one can put the husk of WaxmanMarkey that passed the House in that category is another question). "The more we can do the better. “I think in terms of floor time. you have to decide what we’re going to focus on. With no soft power left. Obama will need to combine a new message with new concessions. CQ Politics. the health care bill’s going to consume our attentions and our passion. Walsh 7/23/2009 .

Mitchell. Boxer tried and failed a year ago to pass a climate change bill. Teddy & Megan .Climate Politics Page 23 of 156 7WJ – HPSW The downshifting in the Democrats' agenda comes a day after a meeting of Obama's energy and climate change team at the White House. 23 Ellis. and marks an acknowledgement by the Administration of the daunting challenge of getting enough votes for the bill in the delicately balanced Senate.

But if his health and climate change policies don't work.25197. not a destination.a cap-and-trade scheme -- could go missing from legislation that ultimately passes in the Senate. 24 Ellis.au/story/0. The challenge as a most strategically gifted politician is selling a disappointing result as a victory : we've made a down payment. Obama cannot escape the realities of the US economy. WEA) He also predicts the heart of Obama's climate change plan on carbon emissions -.00.html.25830885-7583. the Australian.Climate Politics Page 24 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Recession Cap and trade won’t pass—recession makes it too unpopular." Cook tells The "He can look to getting a third to a half of what he wanted." Obama. or 80 per cent. Norington 7/25/2009 (Brad. Teddy & Megan .news. Mitchell. "I think the President had a terrific vision and grand plans on where to go with health and climate change. and if Weekend Australian. meanwhile. we were not left with this budget deficit and the recession was not as deep. rather than 60. health and climate change as a journey. 70. is trying to brush off suggestions of setback. http://www. it might have worked out. saying it is OK with him to delay considering health care until the end of the year.theaustralian. he may have to tread that well-worn path of US presidents whose domestic fortunes wane: concentrate on foreign policy and hope for peace in the Middle East. "Popular faith in Obama dwindles amid setbacks".com.

and Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.com/leading-the-news/climate-billtakes-hit-in-senate-from-china-2009-07-11. Both Sen. given the likelihood that Republicans will lock down against it. the Hill. 25 Ellis. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark. Rushing 7/11/2009 (J. http://thehill. Brown. Teddy & Megan . "Climate bill takes hit in Senate from China". Taylor. Brown said it will naturally be difficult to persuade the public to support a bill that could increase costs for businesses if there’s a fear competition in China will gain an advantage. WEA) The refusal of China and other emerging economic powers to agree to emissions limits this week will make it tougher for key Senate Democrats to support a global warming bill. Lincoln and other Democrats say the reluctance of China and India to agree to emission restrictions clearly complicates the party’s effort to pass the bill. The legislation has an uncertain future in the Senate.Climate Politics Page 25 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – China China is refusing to cooperate on climate—this undermines support for the Senate bill. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Sen.) announced on Thursday that she is delaying the bill until after the August recess. Mitchell.) say they are skeptical of the climate change bill that passed the House last month.html.

natural gas and other fuels as part of an "all of the above" approach. but it is not going to make up for the tremendous defects that occur in the House bill. told reporters this week including a nuclear title is "vital" to his support for a climate bill. Lisa Murkowski.a heavy coal-production state -." Alexander said at a press conference this week unveiling a "blueprint" for constructing 100 nuclear power plants in 20 years. WEA) When asked if additional nuclear incentives in a climate bill would help win support from the senator from North Dakota -. Nuclear energy incentives do not appear to be the clincher for Republican swing voters either. "Nuclear Title May Not Be Enough to Push Senate Climate Bill Over the Top". said spokesman Robert Dillon. said the money or free allocations flowing to special interests is "offensive." "Certainly our energy bill has nuclear in it and hopefully it sees the light of day. ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. ClimateWire." Corker said. Lincoln spokeswoman Katie Laning Niebaum said. There are more questions than answers that people need to have before they are going to say they are going to start supporting this bill. John McCain (R-Ariz.Climate Politics Page 26 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Uniqueness: Nuclear Concessions =/= Passage Nuclear power concessions not enough Ling 7/17/2009 (Katerine." Dillon said. another possible supporter. "The bill needs to be junked. Teddy & Megan . such as the cost of the bill. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn. July 16). Bob Corker (R-Tenn. would welcome a stronger nuclear title in the climate bill but there are several other problems. .nytimes.com/cwire/2009/07/17/17climatewire-nuclear-title-may-not-be-enough-to-push-sena-19318.html? pagewanted=print. Mitchell. Sen. Alexander said he would be pursuing his goal in separate legislation to boost loan guarantee funds. said this week no amount of nuclear incentives would tempt him to support a climate bill that involved cap and trade (E&ENews PM July 13)." Sen.). "At this point she is not supporting a cap-and-trade bill. additional reporting from Allison Winter and Alex Kaplun and Darren Samuelsohn.). Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.. Sen. which Boxer has stated is the starting point for her committee draft.) also wants to see incentives for nuclear energy in any climate bill she would support but also more for biomass. 26 Ellis. who was also thought by many to be a possible supporter of a climate change bill. McCain said the "1. increasing resources for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and more money to nuclear research and development. a key potential Republican supporter. http://www. "No one can give us a clear estimate about the cost. Sen.).400-page monstrosity" House bill contains too many giveaways to special interests and trade protection measures (E&E Daily. New York Times.Dorgan simply said.." Fellow fence-sitter Sen. (R-Alaska). "We'll see. But McCain has also roundly criticized many other parts of the House climate bill.

including 27 Democrats. *54 Senators. Mitchell. regions such as the Midwest. voted for an amendment that would allow any Senator to initiate a vote to block any climate change provision which "cause[s] significant job loss in manufacturing or coal-dependent U.S.Climate Politics Page 27 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Senate Will Use Reconciliation No reconciliation—the Senate will have to get 60 votes to block a filibuster." 27 Ellis. voted against creating fast-track reconciliation protections for a cap-and-trade bill.html. Great Plains. As a reminder. rather than 51.dallasnews. including 13 Democrats. meaning that supporters need 60 votes to pass a bill. "Why the energy bill faces a tough Senate fight".com/archives/2009/07/why-the-energy-bill-has-faces. or South. resolution: * there were two important Senate climate change votes in April on the Senate budget 67 Senators. Mitchell 7/2/2009 (Jim. Dallas Morning News. WEA) Here are a few things to look for as the Senate deliberates the cap-and-trade energy bill as pointed out by former Bush advisor Keith Hennessey. http://energyandenvironmentblog. Teddy & Megan .

WEA) Advocates Approve Members of several interest groups pushing for a climate change bill said the new schedule is a positive step. international climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Palmer 7/11/2009 (Avery. in which countries will try to reach a global agreement to lower emissions of greenhouse gases. “I want to take this as far as I can take it. "Health bill now. five other committee chairmen will share jurisdiction over the bill. Mitchell. 28 Ellis. So the more we can do.Climate Politics Page 28 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Climate Bill Inevitable Delay on climate bill is good—it will still pass and gives more time to get additional votes. very important that we succeed in this effort to enact this law in this Congress. CQ Politics.” Sierra Club spokesman Josh Dorner said the Senate still has plenty of time to finish its work: “It doesn’t really change the overall schedule for getting the bill done. which would set a renewable-electricity mandate and open more of the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas drilling. the better. “It’s a very good thing. The measure will also incorporate a bill that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved in June. Boxer said the Agriculture and Foreign Relations committees may draft legislative text for her to incorporate into the bill. the more credible we are in the final negotiations. “It’s very.” Advocates for a climate treaty say the United States needs to show progress toward enacting a new law. Meanwhile. Boxer said Congress already sent a strong signal internationally with the passage of the House bill.” she said. In addition to Boxer. Teddy & Megan . director of congressional affairs at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. according to the administration. “Just having the House bill passed was a big boost. climate change later". allowing more time for the Senate to reach a consensus. the Finance and Commerce. “The further along we are on that path. There’s no benefit to noble failure here.” said Jake Schmidt.” said Manik Roy. Science and Transportation panels could hold separate markups.” The Senate also has a narrow window to pass energy legislation before the United Nations climate change negotiations this December in Copenhagen.

And she's concerned about how caps on emissions might affect coal-fired power plants that supply electricity to rural areas." Harkin said that the best way to capture carbon may be in pastures and trees. Harkin. trade legislation will take back seat to health care reform. another Californian who Barbara heads the Energy and Environment Committee. who has told Agriculture Online Thursday. “Cap. Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota told Agriculture Online Thursday. still want to get climate change legislation passed this year." 29 Ellis.the effort on climate change could be delayed. said he doubts that cap and trade legislation will be completed in the Senate this year. multi-billion dollar carbon market for farmers. coordinator of the Ag Carbon Market Working Group. Under cap and trade. That's what two influential Democrats in Congress Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. Teddy & Megan . which represents a coalition of farm leaders from commodity groups. has indicated interest in getting a climate change bill passed this year. said he still has questions about exactly how a cap and trade program would work. you've got to make sure it's actually happening. long favored farm programs that make "green payments" for long term practices such as planting trees and grasses. Mitchell. We realize that some in the leadership of Congress have established an aggressive schedule for cap and trade. That makes this issue crucial for agriculture. which was formed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2007. has outlined a goal of getting a bill out of his committee by Memorial Day. including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "Farmers know that it is critical that members of Congress with agricultural interests are stepping up to ensure that the interests of their constituents are represented and protected. "The sticking point is the inspection regime. Herseth Sandlin is on a the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. But that system does not include offsets like capturing carbon in soils on farms and in forests.health care reform. congressional leaders say” http://www. In the House." Herseth Sandlin repeated an assertion made earlier this week that she would not support cap and trade if it doesn't include agricultural offsets that would be paid to farmers and landowners under the program. large factories and power plants that put out greenhouse gasses would be required to buy offsets. "I think thats a very aggressive schedule. Californian Boxer. Europe already has mandatory cap and trade legislation that allows big sources of greenhouse gases to buy offsets from industries that are reducing greenhouse gas pollution. Besides serving on the House Agriculture Committee.jhtml? storyid=/templatedata/ag/story/data/1236946503706.agriculture. head of the Environment and Public Works Committee. along with possible legislation to cap greenhouse gasses and allow trading of offsets." she said Thursday. education. practices that take a commitment of many years. says Laura Sands. chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. How do you make sure people are actually complying?" Harkin wondered Thursday. you've got to make sure they're complying. Sands said. What is important right now for farmers is that agricultural and rural members of Congress establish a strong offsets provision that reduces the cost to the economy and develops a significant. In an e-mail message to Agriculture Online." Harkin said. something that advocates say has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% or more. In the Senate. "Our number one priority right now is health care reform. According to published reports.Climate Politics Page 29 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Climate Bill Inevitable Cap and Trade inevitable – now is not key Looker.com/ag/story. 3/13/09. "If you're going to have agricultural offsets. Whoever sequesters carbon. other congressional leaders. "I would agree with Senator Harkin's assessment that it's not likely that climate change legislation would be signed into law before the end of the year. We think a bill will pass in the next several years and what happens to offset proposals this year could set the precedent for any type of cap and trade policy that evolves in the future. Representative Henry Waxman.xml) With President Barack Obama and Congress tackling many big issues this year -. climate change -.Successful Farming Magazine Business Editor (Dan. Harkin said he still has questions about how a cap and trade law would work.

Associated Press Writer. health care tops the list. health care. The measure ended up passing in dramatic fashion. http://redgreenandblue.guardian. "Now my call to every senator. This restive nation also is wary of some of his proposals.” Associated Press. If Obama wants policy reform. In the end. and recorded the climate bill speech shortly after the Democratic-controlled House backed the measure on a 219212 vote late Friday. He faces an even more difficult test in shepherding the energy and climate legislation through the Senate. Obama leaned heavily on House Democratic holdouts to support the first energy legislation ever designed to curb global warming. the president's furious lobbying — coupled with a final push by allies including former Vice President Al Gore — carried much weight. liberal critics are dug in over elements they want to see in any legislation.org/2009/07/23/three-ways-obama-wins-republicans-on-climate-change/. the victory validated Obama's governing style — and that could bode well for his other top domestic priority.environmental politics news site. much-needed victory. Senate passage is far from certain. 30 Ellis. As Congress tackles that contentious issue.S. is this: We cannot be afraid of the future. His political courage today will dictate whether tomorrow’s environment will benefit from an abandonment of yesterday’s energy consumption habits. founder of LinkedIn. Democrats have a comfortable House majority. Obama recognizes as much. Moderate Democrats are looking to forge compromises to pass a measure. Red Green and Blue .founder of EnergyWorks Community Relations. health care. now is the time to take these three steps.uk/world/feedarticle/8581478) Facing a rare defeat. including deficit spending as Obama pumps an enormous amount of money into the economy and elsewhere. Copenhagen is just five months away. He scrapped his talk on his original topic. It was a win Obama certainly needed. there is a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate until the end of the session. given that Democrats lack the 60 votes needed to cut off a likely filibuster. 2009 (“Analysis: Obama scores major. But the climate legislation pitted Democrats who represent East Coast states that have been cleaning up their act against Democrats in the Mideast and other places that rely heavily on coal and industry. medical system. Obama's personal touch — and another dose of his political capital — will be required again. And we must not be prisoners of the past. The narrow House suggests potential trouble ahead with the Democratic rank-and-file as the White House seeks to tackle more big-ticket issues in Obama's first year in office. While his popularity remains strong. as well as to every American. Obama's left flank is beating up him and his allies over the effort to overhaul the costly and complex U.co. To a certain extent. Mitchell.Climate Politics Page 30 of 156 7WJ – HPSW I/L: Political Capital Key Political capital key to passage – Democratic majority and action now is key to solve warming Walsh 7/23/2009 ." Obama said in his weekend Internet and radio address. Sidoti 09 LIZ SIDOTI. http://www. Congress was getting ready for a weeklong holiday break and already health care was hanging in the balance. They have a longer. more expensive path to meet requirements in the measure. In private telephone conversations and last-minute public appeals. Suffolk University Law School (Joe. Political capital is key to get the climate bill passed—House pressure proves. Liberal groups are running ads against senators who won't publicly support a government program to compete against private insurers. WEA) The science says we’re at a tipping point.6-28. "Three Ways Obama Wins Republicans on Climate Change". Teddy & Megan . President Barack Obama put a big dose of political capital on the line and scored a major victory just when he needed one. Obama's overall ratings have slipped a bit.

which would be traded on markets like commodities. The narrow 219 to 212 victory on June 26 in the House has given Senate backers some level of hope. at which point he hopes to cobble together the pieces and get the package to the floor late in the fall. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. which is drafting its portion of the climate legislation. the two moderates from Maine.that they think would inch the package closer to passage. despite the concessions they might be forced into accepting. it will most likely be Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins. everything is negotiable. though she would not name names. Ohio.everything from allowing more offshore drilling for oil and natural gas to increasing funding for President nuclear energy -. including Lamar Alexander (Tenn. where supermajorities of at least 60 votes are needed for practically any major piece of legislation. especially after the House vote. This last piece of news is potentially huge. she said today…. Boxer predicted she would have at least one Republican cosponsor on her bill. director of communications and strategy for the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy. the bill would create a "cap-and-trade" system placing the first national limit on greenhouse-gas emissions. Obama will be promoting the effort to limit greenhouse gases at the Group of Eight meeting in Italy on Thursday. are the only likely GOP backers of the legislation at this point. even if they have concerns about the political impact of a “yes” vote in the final tally. As outlined. Some outside activists supporting the bill are taking a wait-and-see approach. Indiana and Michigan are pushing for more incentives to help their depressed industries shift to alternative energy sources. a controversial and still-evolving technology described by its developers as "clean coal" but derided by many environmentalists." said Anna Aurilio.). Four of Obama's cabinet secretaries will kick-start the push for the climate bill when they appear today before the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee. That measure might help attract moderate Democrats and some Even after making additional compromises to win over wavering Democrats. Bledsoe.) said in an interview yesterday. natural gas Reid can count on the support of about 40 to 45 senators for that basic premise. chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee." said Paul W. The same senators also will likely want more funding for carbon capture and sequestration. have made their case that nuclear power is the best for cleaning the skies of carbon emissions. "I am very optimistic. according to aides and outside activists backing the legislation. But the political realities of the Senate. 18. More evidence Washington Post.who will determine the legislation's fate or coal -.400-page House version of the bill already includes so many giveaways to corporate America that more horse-trading in the Senate could lead them to oppose the final version. director of the Washington office for Environment America. when the leaders of the world's largest economies are slated to focus on efforts to slow global environmental change. I don't think negatively. Maine's moderate Republicans. are weighing heavily on the chamber's leaders as they push to pass some version of the bill before the end of the year. but it would almost certainly lose the vote of Sen. and if Obama needs more Republicans. Byron Dorgan (D-N. 7/6/09 (http://www.including any business that burns fossil fuels such as oil. Even some of the chamber's most liberal members have resisted signing on as they await the best deal possible for key industries in their states. I think positively. Supporters are targeting a pool of roughly two dozen lawmakers -. A trio of Democrats from the Dakotas want more funding for wind power.com/51380/a-boxer-snowe-climate-bill) Via Climate Progress. acknowledging that they cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.). said yesterday.D. 7/16/09 (A Boxer-Snowe Climate Bill? http://washingtonindependent. chairman of the environment committee. "Senate leaders will likely be compelled to expand the political and policy appeal of the bill to reach key moderates in both parties.) won approval in the energy committee last month for the inclusion of new exploration for oil and natural gas as close as 45 miles off of Florida's coast on the Gulf of Mexico.). Reid could find himself a few votes short and desperately searching for Republican support. but several GOP senators. at least to break a filibuster. Teddy & Megan . 31 Ellis. 8.washingtonpost. Democrats have started giving up hope for bipartisanship on health care — to the chagrin of Republicans — but because a number of conservative Democrats are unlikely to vote for a cap-and-trade bill. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif. I don't deal in hypotheticals. with supporters acknowledging they are as many as 15 votes shy of victory and well aware that deals to attract more votes could erode the bill's environment-friendly objectives. Senators will weigh a slew of potential compromises -. As a legislator and a chairman.) plans to unveil a major global warming bill immediately after Congress returns from the August recess. Major emitters of greenhouse gases -. he may have to authorize Reid to give in for more funding for the construction of the nation's first new nuclear power plants in a generation. is planning to introduce a climate bill Sept. Bill Nelson (D-Fla. But others question the worthiness of legislation designed to reduce the effect of the oil-and-coal-drive manufacturing sectors if it includes giving more breaks to just those industries. As of today. who has regularly vowed to help filibuster any bill that brings drilling within the current limit of 125 miles. Democrats from the Rust Belt states of West Virginia. Republicans.Climate Politics Page 31 of 156 7WJ – HPSW I/L: Bipartisanship Key Bipart key to the climate bill Washington Independent. Reid has tasked a handful of committee chairs with completing their portions of the legislation by Sept. If there is a GOP co-sponsor.including about 15 of Reid's Democrats -.) and John McCain (Ariz. Sen. . with a Republican co-sponsor: Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif. A Republican cosponsor could give cover to moderate Republicans — and fence-sitting Democrats — to vote for cloture.would have to reduce their emissions or buy allowances. The technology is already slated for $10 billion in government-funded research in legislation that passed the House. The environmental lobby has rigorously opposed any new nuclear plants. Mitchell." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). The battle ahead differs from many on Capitol Hill in that ideology is considered to be less influential than geography.html) Obama's climate-change legislation begins a daunting march through the Senate this week." Sen. "It goes a little in all directions. Sens. E&E News reports that Sen. it will be necessary to bring a few Republicans on board.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/07/06/AR2009070603514_pf. gradually tightening those limits over the next four decades with a goal of reducing emissions 83 percent by 2050. "As a legislator. But environmental activists warn that the 1.

." Romm said.html? pagewanted=print. also called this week for loan guarantees for building new reactors to rise from $18. Teddy & Megan .). a Republican from Tennessee who is the strongest proponent of nuclear power in the Senate. but I am not sure what else you can do for nuclear.nytimes. including the former presidential candidate John McCain. One version.2bn) to $38bn. under consideration by the Senate. he said. Reid this week said he would be open to a nuclear component but.. "Nuclear Title May Not Be Enough to Push Senate Climate Bill Over the Top". http://www. WEA) Both supporters and critics of a climate bill agree that some sort of nuclear title is likely to be included in the measure taken up by the Senate in the fall. Mitchell. calling for a doubling of the number of nuclear reactors in the US by 2030. Another crucial element of the Republicans' "nuclear renaissance" are two rival proposals for a "clean energy bank" now before Congress.US environment correspondent for the Guardian (Suzanne. nuclear proponents hope. The "I think there will be a nuclear title. making its potential role in climate negotiations muted. whose applications are now under review by the department of energy. and staking a claim for the money to come from a proposed clean energy development bank. additional reporting from Allison Winter and Alex Kaplun and Darren Samuelsohn. and proposes easing controls for new nuclear plants.. a senior fellow with Center for American Progress. WEA) America's nuclear industry and its supporters in Congress have moved to hijack Barack Obama's agenda for greening the economy by producing a rival plan to build 100 new reactors in 20 years. "If you care about climate change .Climate Politics Page 32 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Cap And Trade Solves Nuclear Power Cap and trade will include nuclear power provisions if it passes. ClimateWire. envisages almost unlimited federal loan guarantees to encourage wind and solar power and. "I think there will be a industry is waiting to get reactor designs approved and construction and operating licenses for the 17 applications for new reactors. told reporters earlier this week. The 152-page Republican bill contains just one reference to climate change. Goldenberg 6/11/2009 . This conclusion comes after discussions with Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif. Republicans in the House of Representatives produced a spoiler version of the Democrats' climate change bill this week.5bn (£11. An industry source close to the negotiations said "nuclear will definitely play a more prominent role if a bill is to make it through the Senate" but defining a set of principles to be included in the bill is a work in progress for the industry." nuclear title on incentives for R&D .guardian." said Joseph Romm. In the Senate. "we just have to do it the right way." said Lamar Alexander. "US nuclear industry tries to hijack Obama's climate change bill".co. But what should go in it and how much impact that might have for the nuclear industry is unclear. Tom Carper (D-Del." Sen. new reactors.). he said. http://www. Carper declined to provide details of what might be in the proposal but added Energy Secretary Steven Chu will be visiting with senators before the August recess to discuss what Chu believes should be in the climate bill that would be supportive of nuclear. Other Republicans have called on the administration to underwrite the $122bn start-up costs of 19 nuclear reactors. Republican leaders. 32 Ellis. Ling 7/17/2009 (Katerine. Climate legislation will be a boon to the nuclear industry—Republicans and nuclear lobbies have hijacked it. "I expect there will be a modest nuclear title in the bill coming out of committee and we will add to that on the floor. New York Times.com/cwire/2009/07/17/17climatewire-nuclear-title-may-not-be-enough-to-push-sena-19318.. yes.uk/environment/2009/jun/11/us-nuclear-industry-plans-new-reactors/print.) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev. 100 new nuclear power plants is the place to start. chairman of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee.

The Hill. Obama will include nuclear incentives to help it pass Senate. But that looks set to change as a group of moderate Democratic and Republican senators who strongly back nuclear power tries to wrest industry concessions. 25 of the 60 Senate Democrats are just as concerned about what the recession is doing to manufacturing. a vice president for government outreach at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. as they are about global warming. As many as 20 to A key question is whether the industry and its allies can convince enough lawmakers that nuclear power. Timothy. Gardner 2009 (7/7. "Nuclear lobby presses for more loan guarantees". http://thehill. could stall in the Senate unless it contains incentives to help the nuclear power industry build the next generation of reactors.com/article/GCAGreenBusiness/idUSTRE56677B20090707. Concessions for nuclear could help win them over.com/leading-thenews/nuclear-lobby-presses-for-more-loan-guarantees-2009-06-21. long seen as an environmental headache due to its radioactive waste and potential safety risks. a centerpiece of President Barack Obama's green agenda. and the coal and oil industries." Roy said.and incentives to build nuclear plants could help them deal with the expenses and provide new jobs. The House of Representatives narrowly approved its version of the bill late last month and it included little mention of nuclear energy.S.S. Legislation that caps carbon emissions could make nuclear power more economical relative to other sources of electricity such as coal. 33 Ellis. Teddy & Megan .reuters. That's anxious to see nuclear get incentives because because Midwestern utilities mainly burn coal -. Rueters. "There's a whole group of senators that if you wanted to seriously engage them on the climate issue you would have to show them that you are doing everything you can to advance nuclear power in this country. is actually a solution to worsening global warming. Snyder 6/21/2009 (Jim.the fossil fuel that emits the most carbon dioxide -. a leading greenhouse gas. Mitchell. WEA) NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U. http://www.Climate Politics Page 33 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Cap And Trade Solves Nuclear Power Cap and trade is a boost to nuke power regardless of extra provisions. climate bill. Moderate Democrats from Midwestern states are especially utilities there could get slammed by greenhouse gas regulations. which is a big emitter of CO2. said Manik Roy. climate bill". "Nuclear could benefit from U.html. WEA) Nuclear power utilities should receive a boost from the climate bill now under discussion in the House because nuclear power doesn’t generate carbon dioxide.

.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200907161530dowjonesdjonline000943&title=us-senboxerhouse-climate-bill-already-boonto-nuclear-pwr. additional incentives aren’t key Hughes 7/16/2009 (Siobhan. D-Calif. "US Sen Boxer:House Climate Bill Already 'Boon' To Nuclear Pwr". "I don't know that we need to have more than that. a top U. Mitchell.S. http://www.nasdaq. Dow Jones Newswires. and the U.S. Senate lawmaker said. Teddy & Megan . Senate doesn't need to go beyond that to encourage nuclear power." Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer. The House bill is "a huge boon to the nuclear industry. told reporters after a Senate hearing. House of Representatives.S.Climate Politics Page 34 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Not Enough Loan Guarantees The current bill has enough nuclear power provisions.change bill that has passed the U. WEA) Nuclear power would be encouraged under a climate." 34 Ellis.

org/headline/2008/12/17-4. WEA) Obama appears unlikely to throw the nuclear industry under the bus entirely. on Nov. however. He was one of the most supportive candidates in terms of nuclear power during the Democratic primary and he has given mixed messages at best regarding his stance on the issue. 'There are no silver bullets to this issue. http://www. 25.' Obama said during the CNN/Youtube Presidential Debate on Jul. Cardinale 2008 (12/17. why not? I don't think there's anything we inevitably dislike about nuclear power. and if they're not solvable I don't want to invest in it.Climate Politics Page 35 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Obama Won’t Push Nuclear Power Obama wants nuclear power. Mitchell.' Obama continued. Inter Press Service. Teddy & Megan .' 35 Ellis. that's the problem. 'There are a whole set of questions and they may not be solvable. 'I'm not somebody who says nuclear is off the table no matter what because there's no perfect energy source. 23.. CommonDreams. 'But if they are solvable. 'I actually think we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix. 2007.commondreams.' Obama was asked again about nuclear power during a meeting with the Editorial Board of the Keene Sentinel newspaper in New Hampshire. "Obama faces hungry nuclear industry". 2007.' Obama said. But we're gonna have to try a series of different approaches.. We just dislike the fact that it might blow up and radiate us and kill us.

Teddy & Megan . assiging all of the costs of the first few nuclear plants to future plants is inaccurate. Because nuclear plants could have an operating life of 80 years. http://www. the benefit could be well worth the cost. Jack and Nicolas. WEA) Furthermore. it is very expensive to produce nuclearqualified components and materials because steep overhead costs are carried by only a few products. Spencer and Loris 2008 . economies of scale will be achieved. Mitchell.cfm. As more orders are placed. Further savings should be achieved by applying lessons learned from initial construction projects. Today. Additional production will allow these costs to be spread. 36 Ellis. **research assistance in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (6/19.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1961. Heritage Foundation.Climate Politics Page 36 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Nuclear Power Still Too Expensive Mass production creates economies of scale that solves cost concerns.*research fellow in nuclear energy. thus lowering costs overall. "Critics of nuclear power's costs miss the point".

former Economist writer and Nieman Fellow at Harvard (5/20. we have little confidence that ongoing discussions between D.nytimes. seen by Green Inc. cited “disagreements” between the Department of Energy and the Office of Management and Budget over regulations to carry out the loan guarantees. and biomass — and reflected the industry’s concern that a loan guarantee program for clean energy projects approved in the stimulus package was stuck in the federal bureaucracy. "Renewable Energy Industries Ask Obama to Speed Loan Guarantees". solar. Mitchell.” 37 Ellis. Teddy & Megan . hydro. renewable energy industry associations sent a letter on Wednesday to President Obama urging him to speed the program along. the letter stated.O.Climate Politics Page 37 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Loan Guarantees Now Now is key—the stimulus did NOT include loan guarantees for nuke power. New York Times Green Inc.” the letter continued. WEA) Worried that an important loan-guarantee program has ground to a standstill.com/2009/05/20/renewable-industries-askobama-to-speed-loan-guarantees/?pagemode=print.” “and The letter. nuclear. combined heat and power.blogs. “our member companies will be able to start construction of planned projects that would otherwise need to be delayed or canceled due to current capital market conditions. and the Office of Management and Budget over these regulations will produce a satisfactory result in a timely manner. as has been a similar loan program that predates the stimulus. geothermal. “With access to these loan guarantees. Galbraith 2009 . Three months have gone by since the stimulus packaged passed. Kate. http://greeninc. The signers represented virtually every type of clean energy — wind.E.

natural gas and electricity prices. to provide loan guarantees and other forms of financing support to ensure that capital flows to clean technology deployment in the electric sector. In closing let me assure you that the U. We believe the United States will need something similar to the Clean Energy Bank concept now under consideration by a number of members of Congress-a government corporation. nuclear industry is moving forward as quickly as we are able to license. such a program would be revenue-neutral and would not represent a subsidy. or both. Such a concept serves at least two national imperatives. The new nuclear power projects now in the early stages of development will not enter service until the 2016-2020. The states are doing their part. new nuclear plants and other clean energy projects will certainly be built. market value and financing capability of the companies that will build them. Mitchell. but in smaller numbers over a longer period of time. affordable housing. The modest loan guarantee program authorized by the 2005 Energy Policy Act was a small step in the right direction. which reduces the cost of capital. finance and build new nuclear plants in the United States. one of the most significant financing challenges is the cost of these projects relative to the size. on their own-particularly at a time when they are investing heavily in other generating capacity. modeled on the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. A loan guarantee allows more leverage in a project's capital structure. commercial and industrial-are already struggling with increases in oil. Creation of First. the rate of construction would accelerate thereafter. Assuming those first plants are meeting their construction schedules and cost estimates. In this environment. electric power companies do not have the size. We expect four to eight new U. cost of electricity from the project. and environmental controls. Bowman 2008 . New nuclear power plants are expected to cost at least $6 to 7 billion. Lexis Congressional. Comparable federal government commitment is essential. government routinely uses loan guarantee programs to support activities that serve the public good and the national interest-including shipbuilding. Frank L.S. construction of critical transportation infrastructure. "Greenhouse gas emission reduction". we see a compelling case for federal financing support that would reduce consumer costs. in turn reducing the Second. If it is structured like the loan guarantee program authorized by Title XVII of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Electricity consumers-residential.S. Seventeen companies or groups of companies are preparing license applications for as many as 31 new reactors. nuclear plants in operation by 2016 or so. transmission and distribution infrastructure.S. With the necessary investment stimulus and financing support. U. Teddy & Megan . That is why the U. steelmaking. in which project sponsors are expected to pay the cost of the loan guarantee. Nine applications for construction and operating licenses are currently under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a total of 15 new plants. WEA) In terms of new nuclear plant construction. We know that the next generation of clean energy technologies will be more costly than the capital stock in place today. rural electrification. state governments have enacted legislation or implemented new regulations to encourage new nuclear plant construction. it addresses the challenge mentioned earlier-the disparity between the size of these projects relative to the size of the companies that will build them. Testimony to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality. In the absence of a concept like a Clean Energy Bank. Throughout the South and Southeast. The public benefits associated with a robust energy loan guarantee program-lower cost electricity.000 MW of new nuclear capacity (that would be about 15 plants) on line in the 38 Ellis. but it does not represent a sufficient response to the urgent need to rebuild our critical electric power infrastructure. continued progress requires sustained policy and political support. The high cost of energy and fuel price volatility has already compromised the competitive position of American industry. student loans. federal loan guarantees provide a substantial consumer benefit.President of the Nuclear Energy Institute (6/19. These first projects must have financing support-either loan guarantees from the federal government or assurance of investment recovery from state governments. we could see approximately 20. Achieving significant expansion of nuclear power in the United States will require stable and sustained federal and state government policies relating to nuclear energy.S. deployment of clean energy technologies at the scale necessary to reduce carbon emissions-are significant.Climate Politics Page 38 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: States Solve Loan Guarantees States are doing their part already—only strong federal action can solve. Like all other advanced energy technologies. such a financing entity should be an integral component of any climate change legislation. and for many other purposes. financing capability or financial strength to finance new nuclear power projects on balance sheet.

immune to price volatility in the oil and natural gas markets. 39 Ellis. at a stable price. safe.000 to 70. Teddy & Megan . and 65.Climate Politics Page 39 of 156 7WJ – HPSW 2020 to 2022 time frame. Mitchell. reliable electricity. These plants will produce clean. around the clock.000 megawatts (or 45 to 50 plants) by 2030.

energy.pdf. combined with the higher capital costs and longer construction schedules of nuclear plants as compared to other generation facilities. Platts Inside Energy.*Managing director of Export and Agency Finance Group for Citigroup. an environmental group and nuclear research community on the future of nuclear power. http://www. Sachs & Co. "Some factors. and may make loan guarantees essential to attracting them. such as magnitude. will likely require federal financial support to allow the companies and investors to director of the investment giant Lehman Brothers. lawmakers pressed six representatives of the nuclear industry. including the possibility of delays in commercial operation of a completed plant or “another Shoreham”. of a new nuclear project. complexity. and residual uncertainties associated with the new. Derek. he said. In a hearing of the House Science and Technology Committee." Asselstine said." Asselstine said. Mitchell. regulatory and litigation-related risks that are unique to nuclear power. Teddy & Megan . but as yet untested NRC licensing process. Lexis.Climate Politics Page 40 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: States Solve Loan Guarantees Utilities won’t be able to access capital markets without the backing of the federal government – banks are waiting for a federal symbol of support Roy et al 2007 ." 40 Ellis. a point that investors are watching. taxpayer. We believe many new nuclear construction projects will have difficulty accessing the capital markets during construction and initial operation without the support of a federal government loan guarantee. including the regulated utilities that are considering a new nuclear project. A federal commitment to loan guarantees resolves regulatory uncertainty surrounding federal policy that would otherwise prevent investment Sands 2008 (4/28. and that investors remain wary. WEA) Summarized below are the consensus views of the six banks named above regarding the minimum conditions necessary for a workable loan guarantee program as authorized by Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that can achieve the twin goals of supporting the financing of new nuclear plants in the United States while adequately protecting the U.S.gov/nopr-comments/comment29. a nuclear investment expert told a House panel last week. move forward with new nuclear plant commitment. "Investors urge loan guarantees for nuclear plants". **also written with the managing directors for Goldman. and large initial capital investment. Some of the more controversial aspects of new nuclear power include government support for new plants. as well as Merill Lynch and Morgan Stanley ("Loan Guarantees for Advanced Nuclear Energy Facilities". "The total cost of the plant. including engineering design costs.lgprogram. this can be a substantial benefit for all the companies. James Asselstine. will make lenders unwilling at present to extend long-term credit to such projects in a form that would be commercially viable. WEA) Despite new licensing regulations meant to streamline the construction of new nuclear power plants. a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well as a retired managing told lawmakers that the changes made so far are still untested. Lenders and investors in the fixed income markets will be acutely concerned about a number of political. uncertainty over the rules and questions about nuclear waste still worry investors. "Given federal loan guarantee can help to facilitate the availability of debt financing for up to 80% of the the magnitude for a new nuclear plant investment. We believe these risks.

This is simply not a significant commitment for countries with populations of well over a billion and electricity demand growing at 10 percent annually. has a significant incentive to secure long-term energy solutions. Finland already gets 28 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. has made it clear that it would not subsidize the industry. energy-starved Asia is where a nuclear revival is more likely to begin. http://www.K. Heritage Foundation WebMemo #1977. Loris and Spencer 2008 . model could create a politically tenuous dependency relationship between government and industry. on the other hand. Nuclear power already provides 30 percent of the country's electricity. India and China both have ambitious nuclear plans. The U. "Nuclear energy: what we can learn from other nations". ranking fifth in the world for per capita electricity consumption. Presently. the U. Embracing nuclear energy as part of an effort to decrease the nation's dependency on foreign energy sources. "Brave Nuclear World?/COMMENTARY: Nuclear Revival? Don't Bet on It!". Flavin 2006 . WEA) With the nuclear construction business virtually dead in North America and Europe. alternatively. is already a net importer of energy and all but one of its coal-fired and nuclear plants are scheduled to be decommissioned by 2023.heritage. Because the U. safe and reliable form of energy. Up to 30 nuclear plants are planned in each country over the next two decades-which sounds impressive until you do the math. Indeed. building new reactors is a must for the U. Teddy & Megan . decided to phase out nuclear energy for political reasons and now imports some of this energy. and a possible sixth reactor would increase that amount substantially.Climate Politics Page 41 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Nuclear Power Bad Nuke power inevitable--Asia. The British government. which will likely be a model used throughout the United States. ProQuest. Japan is working to increase this to 37 percent by 2009 and 41 percent by 2017. Christopher. has 19 reactors that provide about 18 percent of the nation's electricity. net exporter of electricity.S.K.cfm. WEA) France is an example of a country that developed nuclear energy to reduce foreign energy dependence after the oil shock of the 1970s. World Watch. 41 Ellis. Mitchell.*research assistance @ Heritage. while the U. **research fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (7/2. Nuke power inevitable in Europe and Japan.President of the WorldWatch Institute (July/August. continues to squabble politically about nuclear power but has offered some subsidies to the industry. It now receives nearly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power and is a Japan is another country that has looked to nuclear power as a clean. while providing long-term politically stable support for nuclear power.K. As a result. Even if their nuclear dreams are realized.S.. the British model should provide a sustainable environment for nuclear power moving forward.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1977.[2] Finland has begun constructing a modern 1.600-megawatt reactor.[1] Germany. neither country will be getting even 5 percent of its electricity from nuclear power in 2020. if it is to avoid creating increased energy dependencies. however.[3] Finland.

three decades of antinuclear propaganda have left their mark. editorialized on it in October. Each article included independent. The problem is that the analysis always comes from the same anti-nuke crowd that's been "crying wolf" about nuclear power since the 1960s. They should not have been sleeping. Some guards were sleeping on the job.their evidence is from recycled hippie rhetoric and a misleading media Spencer 2008 . but no radiation was released. history. it's pretty thin gruel. affordable and emits nothing into the The unfortunate thing is that atmosphere. The article also contained accusations that a whistle-blower had been ignored. Jack. The media's continued fixation on this story suggests alarmism. The list goes on. Nonetheless. Teddy & Megan . at best. there are great.. Scary stuff. nuclear power is clean. So why have they been more vocal lately? Well. WEA) On January 4. nuclear power is enjoying a comeback. One of the least expensive forms of energy production. Some recent examples include incidents at the Davis-Besse plant in Ohio and the Vermont Yankee plant in Vermont.Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy at Heritage (2/1. and bias against nuclear power at worst. the incident was portrayed as a safety failure. Safety should remain a priority at nuclear power plants. Heritage Foundation. This allows them to avoid being overtly anti-nuclear while advancing an anti-nuclear agenda. At the Davis-Besse plant. for the people who railed against nuclear energy in the past under the auspices of environmentalism. USA Today ran the story in September. Let's be clear.heritage. 42 Ellis. nor was anyone endangered. A partial cooling tower collapse at the Vermont Yankee plant was far less serious than the Davis-Besse incident. quickly becomes ridiculous. The worst commercial nuclear accident in U. A handful of guards taking a 15-minute nap on company time does not fairly reflect the industry's level of safety. newsworthy stories to be written about nuclear power: No one has ever died as a result of commercial nuclear power in the U. Their conditions generally hinge on safety concerns. Mitchell. the best way to reduce CO2 is to produce more emissions-free nuclear energy. At the very least. Their formula includes overstating the safety concerns. Increasingly. nuclear power has proven extraordinarily safe over the past four decades. it promptly fired the contractors in charge of security. In the months since the sleeping-guards story first aired.org/Press/Commentary/020108a. The plant was never in jeopardy. and it was solved. activists cite it as example of the risks posed by power reactors. What seems reasonable. An inch of steel cladding prevented the hole from opening. Awkwardly. Non-radioactive water was spilled in the collapse. The Washington Post ran a front-page story about guards found asleep at a nuclear power plant. The result: stories that often portray nuclear power as inherently unsafe. the anti-nukers preach acceptance -. eh? Until you realize it's the same old story New York's WCBS-TV broke four months earlier. The obvious contradiction has forced even ardent activists to make some accommodation for nuclear power in their anti-CO2 rhetoric. numerous articles have been printed -.S.and not just by The Post.but with a catch. and then demanding an unattainable set of stipulations to meet their conditions. but exploiting fears about safety to advance an anti-nuclear agenda helps no one. But it wasn't. such reporting misleads the public about the safety of nuclear power. with rising energy prices and growing concerns over carbon dioxide emissions. http://www. third-party analysis giving credibility and legitimacy to alarmist views. caused no fatalities or casualties. That should have been the end of the story. and revisited it again in December. When the company that runs the plant found out. Yet that's what leading media are feeding the public. "Nuclear safety paranoia". Repeatedly. Although nuclear power's safety record means that activists can no longer play on "China Syndrome" fears.Climate Politics Page 42 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Nuclear Power Bad Nuclear power plants aren’t dangerous --.cfm. Many Americans remain concerned about nuclear safety. Their arguments are then fed to major media outlets that use them to frame nuclear-related articles. safety inspections revealed a hole forming in a vessel-head. In short: A problem arose. the 1979 partial meltdown at Three Mile Island. Although the problem was fixed and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission determined that the plant could have operated another 13 months without incident. For a news story. and that the steel cladding could have withstood pressures 125 percent above normal operations. and the anti-nuclear movement's updated message is calculated to play upon that anxiety. terrorists have never attacked a nuclear power plant. the story wasn't exactly front-page material. it was identified. Even when new. however.S. misstating the information used to support their positions.

the "credit subsidy" payments would be used as a kind of insurance premium that could be used to cover the cost of any defaulted loan. Mr. the government is only allowed to guarantee a volume of loans authorized each year by Congress.commondreams." Mr.Climate Politics Page 43 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Loan Guarantees Expensive Loan guarantees pay for themselves. Last year. Andrews and Wald 2007 (Edmund L. and Matthew L. Teddy & Megan ." 43 Ellis. at Mr. Nussle's confirmation hearing last week. Bush's nominee to become the White House budget director. In essence. Congress limited the government to awarding just $4 billion in loan guarantees for clean energy projects during the 2007 fiscal year. Domenici. http://www. Mr. Mitchell. "It is very clear that this is a self-financing program. has argued that there is no need for limits on the loan volume because power companies will be required to pay an upfront fee to cover the estimated cost of the guarantee. Domenici told James Nussle. Under current law.org/archive/2007/08/01/2910. "There should already be $25 billion to $30 billion in the loan guarantee fund.. "US energy bill aids expansion of atomic power". New York Times. WEA) That is a big change. who has been pushing the Energy Department to move much more aggressively in approving loan guarantees.

we are seeing the first signs of revival in the supply chain for new nuclear plant construction. http://nei. as well as some newcomers to the industry. In manufacturing.Climate Politics Page 44 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: No Workforce/Manufacturing Capacity Capability arguments are irrelevant. And there is manufacturing capability overseas in Japan and France. the more U. Different companies are moving at different speeds. Babcock & Wilcox recently renewed its federal accreditation for manufacturing nuclear-grade components.S. “Achieving Excellence in Human Performance: Nuclear Energy Training and Education”. These application submittals are expected beginning in 2007. heavy-forgings for reactor components. These companies are selecting technologies from two NRC-certified reactor designs. 14 companies and consortia have announced that they are preparing to submit license applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build up to 32 new reactors. The more it looks like new nuclear plants will be built. Mitchell. Office of the President Nuclear Energy Institute (Angie. for instance.it will develop with the industry Howard 7. Every major nuclear fleet operator is involved in some way. Teddy & Megan . capability will be developed.S. U.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2007/americannuclearsociety/) Finally. Today.Vice President. 44 Ellis. 02-15-7. nuclear companies have already placed orders with Japanese companies for long-lead. and two more designs that are under review by the NRC. The supply chain will respond as market demand dictates. but the momentum is real.

Marvin S. Mitchell. American reactors.S..Vice President of the Nuclear Energy Institute (4/29. Such efforts have provided a dramatic contribution to global security. WEA) Industry and government will be prepared to meet the demand for new emission-free baseload nuclear plants in the 2010 to 2020 time frame only through a sustained focus on the necessary programs and policies between now and then. Testimony to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Resources.Climate Politics Page 45 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Federal Government Key To Nuclear Leadership A federal commitment to nuclear power is the vital internal link to restoring U.-Russian nonproliferation agreement to recycle weapons-grade material from Russia for use in As it has in the past. Nuclear power's place in a national energy policy".S.S. 45 Ellis. Teddy & Megan . and to maintain America's leadership in nuclear technology development and its influence over important diplomatic initiatives like nonproliferation. strong Congressional oversight will be necessary to ensure effective and efficient implementation of the federal government's nuclear energy programs. nuclear power plant fuel depends on converted Russian warhead material. more than 50 percent of U. nuclear power leadership Fertel 2005 . as evidenced by the U. Currently. CQ Congressional Testimony.

S.pdf) The U. The U. However. but will also enhance its ability to advance its nonproliferation agenda.S.S.S. if it wishes to exert a positive influence in shaping the nonproliferation policies of other countries. including arrangements for the acquisition of long lead time components and coping with anticipated shortages of experienced personnel. as a Significant Global Supplier effective safeguards and other nonproliferation controls through close peaceful nuclear cooperation other countries. and maintaining leadership roles in supporting innovative improvements in advanced technologies. to participate actively in the international nuclear market. companies only are given subordinate roles in processing new plant orders. if the U. supplier and partner in the field of nuclear technology. If the U. if the U. There is a clear and compelling upsurge of interest in nuclear power in various parts of the world that is independent of U. As the sole superpower. As a consequence.S.S. requires. civil nuclear infrastructure will also be crucial to the success of U.S. utilities but will also enable the United States to promote Maintaining the U.S.S. the U.S. civil nuclear infrastructure will not only help the United States to build new nuclear power plants. Concurrent with the prospective growth in the use of nuclear power.S. is perceived as a major technological leader. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND U.S. will have considerable. nuclear infrastructure is capable of sustaining the goals of the 2010 program.nuclearcompetitiveness.S.S. nuclear infrastructure as well as the stature of the U. This suggests that the influence of the United States internationally could be enhanced significantly if the U. They also underscore the importance of the U. it will need to promote the health and viability of the American nuclear infrastructure. will need to actively pursue several key objectives New Nuclear Plant Orders Consumer countries are likely to turn for support and assistance to those states possessing the most vigorous domestic nuclear power programs that are placing new power plant orders.S.Q. It is.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final. Perhaps more importantly.S. it will weaken the ability of the U.S. therefore. if the 2010 initiative falters. policy and prerogatives. The U. The health of the U. a policy that significantly strengthens the U. These developments underscore the importance of maintaining the greatest integrity and effectiveness of the nuclear export conditions applied by the major suppliers. However. nuclear exports can be used to influence other states’ nuclear programs through the nonproliferation commitments that the U.S. has and should continue to be able to influence the nonproliferation regime as a superpower in the years ahead. “THE U. uranium enrichment. International confidence in the effectiveness of nuclear export controls was shaken by the disclosures of the nuclear operations of A. extending international fuel cycle services.S.S. Mitchell. influence will be best achieved to the extent that the U. essential that the United States have vibrant nuclear reactor.S. then this can only further weaken the U.S.S. Teddy & Megan . http://www. on-going influence on the international nonproliferation regime.Climate Politics Page 46 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Nuclear Leadership Good—Prolif (1/2) Overhauling domestic nuke power is vital to technological leadership – both to support technological innovation and reduce risks of proliferation Bengelsdorf 07 – consultant and former director of both key State and Energy Department offices that are concerned with international nuclear and nonproliferation affairs (HAROLD. or if U. nuclear infrastructure continues to erode. it can do so more effectively by being an active supplier to and partner in the evolution of those programs. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY”. the ability of the U. becomes more dependent on foreign nuclear suppliers or if it leaves the international nuclear market to other suppliers. but this will require the resolution of a number of formidable problems. Khan. and spent fuel storage and disposal industries that can not only meet the needs of U. in the international nuclear community. aspires to participate in these programs and to shape them in ways that are most conducive to nonproliferation.S. should establish a high priority goal to rebuild an indigenous nuclear industry and support its growth in domestic and international markets. regardless of how active and successful it is in the nuclear export market. The U.S. maintaining effective policies to achieve these objectives.S. Experts believe that the U.S. U. Conversely. efforts to play a significant role as a nuclear supplier and to advance its nonproliferation objectives. to influence nonproliferation policy will diminish.S. Constructive U. the global nonproliferation regime is facing some direct assaults that are unprecedented in nature. is able to achieve success in its Nuclear Power 2010 program and place several new orders in the next decade and beyond. White Paper prepared for the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness May. has so-called consent rights over 46 Ellis.

Climate Politics Page 47 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
the enrichment, reprocessing and alteration in form or content of the nuclear materials that it has provided to other countries, as well as to the nuclear materials that are produced from the nuclear materials and equipment that the U.S. has supplied.

The percentage of nuclear materials, including separated plutonium, that are subject to U.S. consent rights will diminish over time as new suppliers of nuclear materials and facilities take a larger share of the international nuclear market. Unless the U.S. is able to compete effectively in the international market as a supplier of nuclear fuels, equipment and technology, the quantity of the nuclear materials around the globe that the U.S. has control over will diminish significantly in the future.
This may not immediately weaken the effectiveness of the nonproliferation regime since all the major suppliers have adopted the export guidelines of the Nuclear Supplier Group. However, only the U.S., Australia and Canada have consent rights over enrichment and reprocessing of the nuclear materials subject to their agreements. Consequently, if there is a major decline in the U.S. share of the international nuclear market, the U.S. may not be as effectivbeen in helping to ensure a rigorous system of export controls.

47 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

Climate Politics Page 48 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Nuclear Leadership Good—Prolif (2/2)

Extinction Utgoff 2 (Victor, Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for
Defense Analyses and former Senior Member of the National security Council Staff, Survival, “Proliferation, Missile Defense and American Ambitions”, Vol. 44, No. 2, Summer, p. 87-90)

Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the
participants beforehand.8 Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum,

widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear ‘six-shooters’ on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.

48 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

Climate Politics Page 49 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Nuclear Power Good—Reprocessing (1/2)

New nuclear construction is vital to advancing the U.S. reprocessing agenda Bowman 2006 - CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute (9/13, Frank L., Testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development", http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2006/bowmantestimony91306extended, WEA) This

worldwide nuclear expansion also suggests that the once-through or “throw-away” nuclear fuel cycle now used in the United States is not a prudent or sustainable course for the long-term future. Closing the nuclear fuel cycle—reprocessing used nuclear fuel, recovering the fissile materials that can produce more energy, fabricating those fissile materials into fresh fuel, and recycling that fuel into advanced nuclear reactors designed to handle these fuels without creating concerns about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—is a global imperative in the long term. This vision underpins the president’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which combines nuclear
fuel supply, used nuclear fuel management and non-proliferation policies into a single, integrated initiative.

The U.S. nuclear energy industry strongly supports research and development of advanced fuel cycle technologies, like those incorporated in the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. Given the prospect of major expansion of nuclear power in the United States and globally, it is appropriate to continue the long-term research and technology development necessary to realize this longer-term vision of a nuclear fuel cycle
optimized to extract maximum value from nuclear fuel and reduce the radiotoxicity and volume of the waste products requiring longterm isolation. Any such program must, however, have at least two defining characteristics. First, a reprocessing/recycle program must be sustainable over the relatively long period of time necessary to develop advanced fuel processing technologies and advanced reactor systems. Continuity is essential. In order to be sustainable, any such program must enjoy broad-based, bipartisan support and endorsement within the policy community and among our nation’s political leaders. That policy and political support must proceed from a clear-eyed and realistic understanding of the investment and time required to develop advanced fuel cycle technologies, which is measured in tens of billions of dollars and decades. It is not clear to the U.S. nuclear industry that the president’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or other similar initiatives now being discussed, have achieved the degree of sustainable support necessary to ensure long-term continuity and success. Second, a reprocessing/recycling program must be flexible enough to accommodate technological successes and failures (and there will be both), with clearly-defined success criteria, decision points and exit strategies.

The nuclear energy industry fully supports an aggressive, continuing effort to define, develop and finance the technology development program necessary to close the nuclear fuel cycle, including deployment of appropriate technologies that meet policy goals, in order to position nuclear

energy as a sustainable source of energy. But, again, regardless of reprocessing technologies and the fuel cycle selected, Yucca Mountain is needed for the waste by-product. The industry’s major priority, however, is the immediate imperative to address the significant challenges facing construction of the

The nuclear energy renaissance depends on the industry’s success in working with the U.S. Congress, the executive branch and state governments to address the significant challenges described above. These challenges include timely completion of the joint government-industry NP 2010 program to develop detailed designs and firm cost estimates for advanced reactors; ensuring an efficient, stable licensing
next nuclear power plants in the United States. process, and demonstrating our ability to finance these capital-intensive projects, including workable implementation of the loan guarantee program created by the 2005 Energy Policy Act.

Addressing these near-term challenges to new nuclear plant construction is, and must remain, job one. If we do not succeed with this near-term task, discussions of longer-term reprocessing and recycle strategies are largely irrelevant. If the United States does not build new nuclear power plants, the policy basis and technological rationale for a reprocessing and recycle program quickly erodes, because a single repository at Yucca Mountain is clearly capable of handling all the used nuclear fuel that will be produced
by all existing U.S. nuclear reactors.

49 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

Climate Politics Page 50 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Nuclear Power Good—Reprocessing (2/2)

This is key to solve prolif and waste management. Spurgeon 2007 - Assistant Secretary of the Department of Energy (11/14, Dennis, Hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, "Global nuclear energy partnership", Federal News Service, Lexis Congressional, WEA) This

cooperation will be pursued with the following objectives: Expand nuclear power to help meet growing energy demand in a sustainable manner and in a way that provides for safe operations of nuclear power plants and management of wastes. In cooperation with the IAEA, continue to develop enhanced safeguards to effectively and efficiently monitor nuclear materials and facilities to ensure nuclear energy systems are used only for peaceful purposes. Establish international supply frameworks to enhance reliable, cost effective fuel services and supplies to the world market, providing options for generating nuclear
energy and fostering development while reducing the risk of nuclear proliferation by creating a viable alternative to acquisition of sensitive fuel cycle technologies. Develop, demonstrate, and in due course deploy

advanced reactors that consume trans-uranic elements from recycled, spent fuel. Promote the development of advanced, more proliferation resistant nuclear power reactors appropriate for the power grids of developing countries and regions.

Develop and demonstrate advanced technologies for recycling spent nuclear fuel for deployment in facilities that do not separate pure plutonium with a long-term goal of ceasing separation of plutonium and eventually eliminating stocks of separated civilian plutonium.

advanced fuel cycle technologies, when available, would help substantially reduce nuclear waste, simplify its disposition, and draw down inventories of civilian spent fuel in a safe, secure, and proliferation resistant manner. Finally, take advantage of the best available fuel cycle approaches for the efficient and
Such responsible use of energy and natural resources. Seventeen nations have now signed the Statement of Principles and have become GNEP partners. Eighteen other nations and three international organizations are participating as observers, and several of these nations are expected to join as partners. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, Technology, Research and Development Program outlined in my written statement is designed to provide the technology advancements needed in order to make the vision of GNEP and its objectives a reality.

The secretary of Energy often remarks that there is no silver bullet to our energy challenges or to climate change. However, he is quick to note nuclear power's potential of meeting the growing demand for energy without producing greenhouse gasses. GNEP comes at a crucial time in the burgeoning expansion of nuclear power and a crucial time for the nation's energy security. It is the only comprehensive proposal to close the nuclear fuel cycle in the United States and engage the international community to minimize proliferation risks, as well as provide and benefit from cooperation in policy formulation,
technical support, and technology and infrastructure development.

Extinction Utgoff 2 (Victor, Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for
Defense Analyses and former Senior Member of the National security Council Staff, Survival, “Proliferation, Missile Defense and American Ambitions”, Vol. 44, No. 2, Summer, p. 87-90)

Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the
participants beforehand.8 Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum,

widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear ‘six-shooters’ on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.

50 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

com/node/358) Easily usable energy is the currency of human progress. Moreover. These forms of energy differ. oil and natural gas. Mitchell. very The United States was once the world leader in the production of useful energy. our country and our world would be very different. large portions of the world's poor and underdeveloped people would have been able to lift themselves from poverty — provided they had a laboratory of liberty in which to do so — and to escape the horrible conditions in which they lead lives of desperation. Had that American leadership continued.thenewamerican. however. The New American. Its use improves the standard of living. and of hydroelectric power. They passively support things that improve human life. regression and untold human deaths will result. http://www. “Science. stagnation. constantly at the edge of death.*Professor of Chemistry and Founder of Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine AND ** executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (Arthur and Jane. there is no shortage of energy. wind power and other alternatives is less because those methods cannot yet generate large quantities of inexpensive useful energy. share the same values. Teddy & Megan . Politics and Death”. in how easily mankind can make use of them by means of current technology. the safest. Many people strongly desire to help humanity. cleanest and least expensive energy source available with current technology. Scientists define everything that man can perceive in the natural world as forms of "energy. The lamentations of the popular press notwithstanding. increases the quality and length of human life. Nuclear power plants convert mass into electrical energy. They are also in favor of hydrocarbon power derived from coal. Most other people. They spend their lives in efforts to increase the quantity and quality of human life. even though they do not work actively toward these goals.Climate Politics Page 51 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Nuclear Power Good—Poverty Nuclear power key to check poverty Robinson and Orient 04 . Those who understand energy production and its link to technological progress and who have positive humanitarian values support nuclear power. Technological miracles that are only dreams today would have already taken place. and maximizes technological progress. 6/14. biofuel power. Without it." including all physical objects. This converted "nuclear energy" is. by far. 51 Ellis. Their interest in solar power.

One such correlation that was done a few years ago showed that electric consumption first increases human well being. "energy star" appliances and homes. 270) If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb. Lexis. Note there is a threshold at about 4000 kWh per capita. exceptions to every rule). and educated. This suffering creates instability and the potential for widespread violence. One-third of the six billion people on Earth today lack access to electricity.. while those on the lower left side of this graph. The alternative to development. and international security. “The Next One Hundred Years”. 52 Ellis. even with substantial efficiency improvements and conservation efforts. Thus. Teddy & Megan . Estimates [*44] for future increases in energy and electricity use. then we may destroy ourselves with the C-bomb. South Africa. use of electricity increases rapidly as people become more healthy. billions of our global neighbors without sufficient electricity die decades before they should. n4 In addition. n5 which could [*43] be provided easily and inexpensively if energy were available to operate desalination and/or purification plants. Those who live in poverty live in the most dangerous of conditions. of course. Below this threshold. And in a world as interlinked as ours. WEA) Our global neighbors need much more energy to achieve the standards of living of the developed world. n6 Figure 1 illustrates this for almost every nation on Earth (the data includes more than 90 percent of the Earth's population). health. which is barely enough to keep a single 100-watt light bulb lit. such that national security requires developed nations to help increase energy production in their more populous developing counterparts. The relationship between energy use and human well being is demonstrated by correlating the United Nations' Human Development Index (HDI) with the annual per capita use of electricity. now calls "energy apartheid. massive government purchases of "renewables. wealthy. while total energy use increased just 27 percent. from North Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates. A climate shift in that single battle-scarred nexus might trigger international tensions that will unleash some of the 60. The UN compiles the HDI for almost every nation annually. Beller 2004 . will die decades earlier. & Environmental Law. then people who are well off increase their electric consumption. n10 Water wars go nuclear Weiner in ’90 (Jonathan.. n9 Even with conservation. Eric Loewen. Chair of the Public Information Committee of the American Nuclear Society (Denis E. p. n3 Another two billion use just 1000 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year." n7 People in the Western world. mandated fuel economy. our use of electrical energy has been growing faster than total energy usage. tensions over dwindling water supplies and rising populations are reaching what many experts describe as a flashpoint. who have and use large amounts of energy. Mitchell. one billion people have no sanitary water. one explosion may lead to the other. undeveloped nations where most people have no access to electricity. human development increases rapidly with increases in available electricity (there are. health and well being (average life expectancy). range between doubling and tripling in the next fifty years. prosperity. Journal of Land. disease. Without substantial increases in electricity generation.000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since Trinity.Climate Politics Page 52 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Nuclear Power Good—Water Wars Global energy demand is skyrocketing – radical expansion of nuclear energy is vital to desalination and preventing systemic death and global war. Pulitzer Prize winning author. Department of Mechanical Engineering at UNLV. 24 J. The product of increased population and increased per capita energy usage by people who today have access to nearly none is a great growth in global electricity usage. Already in the Middle East. is suffering in the form of poverty. and death. which is easily sustained with ample energy. It is a composite of average education level. n8 Preventing global conflict will require even more addition of electricity. A deeper investigation into the data underlying the HDI reveals the effects of what Dr.Dr. and per capita income or gross domestic product. 41. electricity use in the United States increased 57 percent between 1980 and 2000. have a life expectancy of about eighty years. a delegate to the United Nations 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. the Change Bomb. the proportion of the Earth's population without sufficient electricity will increase in the next fifty years as it grows by 50 percent to near 9 billion people." and energy saving and efficiency measures. Land Resources & Envtl. Above this threshold. Resources. L. Energy is needed for development. "Atomic time machines: back to the nuclear future".

53 Ellis. Nuclear power plants consume less water per unit of electricity produced than some forms of renewable energy. Nuclear Energy Institute.org/keyissues/protectingtheenvironment/factsheets/waterconsumptionatnuclearpowerplants. This water continuously is returned to its source and never is exposed to radioactive material. Of all the freshwater consumed in the United States. Teddy & Megan .nei. NEI 2008 (July. Nuclear power plants circulate water to cool equipment.7 percent). electricity generation accounts for 3. http://www. "Water consumption at nuclear power plants". WEA) Power plants circulate significant volumes of water in the process of generating electricity. according to the U. Geological Survey (USGS).3 percent—less than half of the freshwater consumed by residential use (6. Mitchell.Climate Politics Page 53 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Nuclear Power Overuses Water Nuclear power uses small amounts of water that can be safely returned to the water cycle.S. Nuclear power plants have a small environmental impact and produce reliable electricity in a wide range of weather conditions. but actually consume a small amount of water relative to other uses in the modern world.

the US Department of Energy and Climate Change ("Carbon trading vital to climate change success – PM Report". while the remaining heat is stored in the ground (31. They suggest that scientists must also take into account the total energy of the ground. http://www.egovmonitor.htm. Mark Lazarowicz MP said: “Climate change is an international threat that needs international action.5%). a new report commissioned by the Prime Minister Gordon Brown concluded today. according to energy calculations published in the July issue of the International Journal of Global Warming. 26%. sets out the domestic actions required to meet its carbon budgets. Their calculations suggest that most measures to combat global warming. These calculations are actually rather conservative.e. Experts Say". and the missing heat may be much less. during that period. is due to the greenhouse effect." Nordell explains. The UK Government is committed to meeting its required 34% cut in emissions by 2020 through domestic action alone. The UK’s Low Carbon Transition Plan. The evidence shows that global carbon trading can deliver substantial cuts in greenhouse gases rapidly and costeffectively. http://www. published on 15 July. looks at the role that cap and trade systems can play as part of the global response to preventing dangerous climate change – and the steps needed to expand and link trading systems over the next decade. Mitchell.com/node/26497/print. the researchers say. by the Prime Minister’s Special Representative on Carbon Trading. the ability of countries to avoid dangerous climate change will be limited and the costs of action increased. tackle deforestation and adapt to the climate change already being experienced. The researchers also point out a flaw in the nuclear energy argument. global warming.Climate Politics Page 54 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Cap And Trade Not Kt Warming Climate bill solves warming – reducing reliance on fossil fuels and switching to renewables is key – alternatives don’t account for net heat emissions ScienceDaily 7/13/2009 ("Trapping Carbon Dioxide Or Switching To Nuclear Power Not Enough To Solve Global Warming Problem. melting ice (33.5%). The report makes clear that without a global system for carbon trading. WEA) Attempting to tackle climate change by trapping carbon dioxide or switching to nuclear power will not solve the problem of global warming. Teddy & Megan ..4%) and sea water (28. Mark Lazarowicz MP. "The increasing carbon dioxide emissions merely show how most net heat is produced. The Global Carbon Trading report. will ultimately help in preventing catastrophic climate change in the long term. Nordell adds. i. The report follows the Prime Minister’s recent proposal on how developed and developing countries can agree new ways to pay for tackling climate change. ice masses and the seas if they are to model climate change accurately. taxation and public finance for comprehensive action. "Since net heat emissions accounts for most of the global warming there is no or little reason for carbon dioxide sequestration. Bo Nordell and Bruno Gervet of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Luleå University of Technology in Sweden have calculated the total energy emissions from the start of the industrial revolution in the 1880s to the modern day. natural variations in climate and/or an underestimation of net heat emissions. This report proposes action in 54 Ellis. They have worked out that using the increase in average global air temperature as a measure of global warming is an inadequate measure of climate change. apart from emissions covered under the EU Emissions Trading System where limits on offsetting are set at EU level. WEA) A global carbon trading network will be vital to preventing dangerous climate change. eGov Monitor 7/20/2009 . the researchers say. The "missing" heat.sciencedaily. But the same calculations also show that trapping carbon dioxide. He urged countries to work together on a global figure of $100 billion a year needed by 2020 to help developing countries reduce their emissions. Global carbon trading is our only hope at controlling emissions.com/releases/2009/07/090713085248. such as reducing our reliance on burning fossil fuels and switching to renewables like wind power and solar energy. “Cap and trade should be combined with targeted regulation. Although nuclear power does not produce carbon dioxide emissions in the same way as burning fossil fuels it does produce heat emissions equivalent to three times the energy of the electricity it generates and so contributes to global warming significantly. so-called carbon dioxide sequestration. The researchers have calculated that the heat energy accumulated in the atmosphere corresponds to a mere 6.6% of global warming. They point out that net heat emissions between the industrial revolution circa 1880 and the modern era at 2000 correspond to almost three quarters of the accumulated heat. Carbon markets themselves will not however be sufficient to successfully tackle climate change and are needed alongside strong domestic action to cut emissions. and storing it deep underground or on the sea floor will have very little effect on global warming. The carbon market could provide a significant proportion of that sum.

55 Ellis. Mitchell.Climate Politics Page 55 of 156 7WJ – HPSW developed countries at two levels .ambitious national targets and a network of linked cap and trade systems for emitters. Teddy & Megan .

WEA) First. Teddy & Megan . If one is going to rely on wind and the additional power-generating capacity that is needed when the wind is not blowing.cfm. Mitchell.Climate Politics Page 56 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Wind Solves Wind fails—it requires backup generators. **research assistance in the Thomas A. wind is intermittent. http://www.heritage. producing electricity only about a third of the time. "Critics of nuclear power's costs miss the point".org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1961. Spencer and Loris 2008 . those additional costs should be assigned to wind power as well.*research fellow in nuclear energy. Jack and Nicolas. This means that power plants are needed to provide electricity when the wind is not blowing. 56 Ellis. Heritage Foundation. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (6/19.

Jack and Nicolas. the world's largest solar company. Like wind. solar is intermittent: It produces electricity only when the sun is shining. The general economic problems of solar power were recently described in a study by Severin Borenstein.[7] To replace the cadmium model with a silicon-based model would quadruple the production costs.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1961. Given the low cost needed to operate a nuclear plant.522 photovoltaic solar panel installations. 57 Ellis. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (6/19. WEA) Solar energy projects are also running into trouble.000– $51.000). For example. He looked at the costs of 26. Heritage Foundation. a professor at the University of California.Climate Politics Page 57 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Solar Solves Solar is too intermittent and costly. Berkeley's Haas School of Business and director of the UC Energy Institute.heritage. The intermittent nature of wind and solar energy is important to the overall economics of energy and how these renewable sources relate to nuclear power. recently told investors that its largest market. equal to 103 megawatts of capacity. the European Union. "Critics of nuclear power's costs miss the point".. http://www.cfm.[6] Other problems have arisen as well.000–$91. [8] It is therefore difficult to conclude that wind or solar power should be built at all. Solar.*research fellow in nuclear energy. lifetime costs are very low once the plant has been constructed. that have received state support from California and found that their cost ($86. may ban its solar panels because they contain toxic cadmium telluride. Teddy & Megan . **research assistance in the Thomas A.000) far outweighed their value ($19. Mitchell. Inc. Spencer and Loris 2008 .

energy efficiency. we can't slow down and we can't stop there. Block 2009 (1/30.org/node/6000. and with a terrible global warming problem on our hands .S. Ben. "Although The House of Representatives approved a plan on Wednesday that would provide about $100 billion of support for renewable energy. WorldWatch Institute. Teddy & Megan ." Foster said. climate change bill". WEA) If climate change legislation fails to pass this year. with an enormous trade deficit. and climate change crises. said David Foster.that is the model that got us into this mess. in order to create a more sustainable solution to current economic. http://www. through a price on carbon. executive director of the Blue-Green Alliance. Mitchell." 58 Ellis. energy. and environmental restoration projects. "Growing optimism for U. "We really have created an unsustainable economic model. White House aides have said that the currently debated financial stimulus package would provide key first steps to reduce the country's greenhouse gas emissions. a collaboration of labor unions and environmental groups.worldwatch. To think we can somehow stabilize that and go back to doing business as we were in the summer of 2008 .with oil at $147 per barrel. passage of the stimulus bill would be extremely successful. transportation. But Congress needs to overhaul the entire economy.Climate Politics Page 58 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Stimulus Solves The stimulus wasn’t enough—it was just a starting point but is unsustainable on its own.

then some halfway plan is a good fallback – you can come back in a decade and make it stronger. for almost every other issue on earth." Tipping point is coming soon where climate change will be unstoppable.guardianweekly.org/AM/Template.uk/?page=editorial&id=1164&catID=17. otherwise we'll have a mass extinction and a global warming catastrophe.cfm&CONTENTID=13409.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print.lwv. "Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change. increase water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere. Governments must cooperate to cut industrial emissions while at the same time halting deforestation. The Guardian. or it will get beyond our control McKibben 7/15/2009 . So far we’ve raised the temperature less than one degree Celsius. http://www. Teddy & Megan . scientists say".Climate Politics Page 59 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Cap And Trade Inevitable/No Timeframe Climate bill is time sensitive – we must act now to solve warming.co. http://www. You really want to go for two? Timeframe = this year. Adam 2009 (3/11. release stores of carbon from soils and sea floors.cfm? Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay. "POSITIVE FEEDBACKS AND CLIMATE RUNAWAY THE NEED TO ACT WITHOUT DELAY".guardian. David. 59 Ellis. The grave danger we face and the need to take vigorous global action to reduce GHG emissions without delay are clear. If we don’t address it very dramatically and very soon. http://www.resident scholar at Middlebury (Bill. melt Arctic tundra. WEA) "People have known about the links between climate and forests for some time. an environmental campaigner and Green party candidate.4 We could reach a tipping point where we could have a runaway climate change—one over which we no longer have any control—when releases of carbon (especially methane) from natural reservoirs greatly exceed emissions from burning fossil fuels. and accelerate the melting of ice. WEA) That’s a smart answer. Climate change is happening more rapidly than anyone expected. LVW climate change taskforce. and that’s melted the Arctic. the Guardian. Tolman 2009 (4/30. WEA) If we allow GHG emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation to continue to grow at their present rates. Mitchell." said Tony Juniper. League of Women Voters. then we won’t ever fix it – each season that more ice melts and more carbon accumulates increases the chance that we’ll never get it under control. the first truly timed test we’ve ever faced. "Environment: race against time". "There really is no time for delay. because those feedback loops are taking the outcome out of our hands. If he can’t get national health care through the Congress. But global warming is different.co. but the alarming thing now is the level of certainty because real world observations are feeding into the computer models. the warming that will follow can be expected to decrease albedo3 (reflectivity) and increase the rate of absorption of solar energy near the poles.

that we have very little room to emit. The warming to date has been about 0. (This is actually a conser.cratic and Republican presidential candidates have committed them. The estimated carbon dioxide concentration that’s likely to pro. Scientists are talking about that kind of reduc. beyond that point we get into a world where the positive feedback s I’ve just discussed may develop great force. http://www. a number of U.’ In other words. is about 70 ppm. Mitchell. Homer-Dixon 2007 .) The current concentration of CO2 is about 380 ppm.6°C. "Positive Feedbacks. but in Canada it isn’t even on the policy radar screen at the moment (notably. for instance.6°C room to warm.vative estimate. the actual limit for CO2 itself would be much lower than 450 ppm. We have very little room to warm: the estimated maximum safe warm. Dynamic Ice Sheets.S.selves to such reductions). The incremental annual increase is currently about 2 ppm and rising. Teddy & Megan .Climate Politics Page 60 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Cap And Trade Inevitable/No Timeframe In order to have a shot at controlling temperatures we have a very narrow margin of error. If they did. transcript of an address to the conference for a Globally Integrated Climate Policy for Canada.homerdixon. Notice.com/articles/excerpt-new_urgency-thomas_homer-dixon. 60 Ellis. so we have about 30 years left until we reach 450 ppm. therefore. and the warming in the pipeline – even if all emissions cease right now – is about 0. we need to be heading towards an 80 to 90 per cent cut in car. so the room to emit.bon emissions by 2050. and the Recarbonization of the Global Fuel Supply: The New Sense of Urgency about Global Warming". Indeed. Demo.duce at least 2°C warming is about 450 ppm. that I am talking about atmo. these 450 ppm do not include chlorofluorocarbons.8°C.pdf.tion. WEA) I’ll give you an indication of what we’re up against. nitrous oxide. Professor in the Centre for Environment and Business in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo. as are environmental activists.ing from pre-industrial temperatures is around 2°C. PhD in IR from MIT (11/14. Limited room to warm implies.spheric carbon dioxide and not ‘carbon dioxide equivalent. and a number of other powerful greenhouse gases.Centre for International Governance Innovation Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of International Affairs. This leaves us with around 0. in turn. some people would put the threshold for carbon dioxide much lower. That doesn’t mean we have 30 years before we have to start worrying about this problem: it means that in 30 years we’d better be heading south on carbon emissions really fast. Very soon humankind must cap and then ramp down global carbon emissions.

National legislation is essential.Climate Politics Page 61 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: State Cap And Trade Solves State policies do not check—too small of a market force.co-chairs the Energy. however. "Global Warming: The Gathering Storm". 61 Ellis. will not create the necessary market forces to effectuate the large-scale reductions in CO2 necessary for the United States to achieve a significant reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions.16 Fourteen states have adopted renewable portfolio standards that require electricity suppliers to derive an increasing percentage of supply from renewable energy generation sources. Public Utilities Reports. WEA) In the vacuum created by the administration's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. State RPS legislation.com/pubs/4419. http://www. Fontaine 2004 .. and geothermal. such as wind. Environmental & Public Utility Practice Group of the Cozen O'Connor law firm (Peter J. a number of states have stepped forward with legislative and policy initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. solar. Teddy & Megan . biomass.cfm. Mitchell.pur.

Climate Politics Page 62 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Good—Extinction The impact is extinction. and regain control of our destiny. the committee "Our Gore. We must learn from the lessons of Kyoto. http://www. and it's rushing at us with a speed that is unprecedented." Although traditionally focused on foreign aid and national security. WorldWatch Institute. It was the first time the Nobel laureate appeared on Capitol Hill in nearly two years. country is the only country in the world that can really lead the global community." Kerry said.org/node/6000. "In order to repower our economy. a long-time advocate of climate change legislation." "This 62 Ellis. and we must make Copenhagen a success. is the one challenge that could ultimately end human civilization. WEA) Kerry. who is currently chair of the nonprofit group The Alliance for Climate Protection.S. "Growing optimism for U. now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Ben. "The solutions to the climate crisis are the very same solutions that will address our economic and national security crises as well. "The science is screaming at us. climate change bill". Block 2009 (1/30. highlighted the growing evidence of a dangerously warming planet during its first substantive hearing of the year. also urged Congress to place a price on carbon emissions before the Copenhagen negotiations begin." Former Vice President Al Gore testified at the hearing to support Kerry's calls for action." Gore said. cap and trade is key to solve our economic and environmental crises. Mitchell.worldwatch. restore American economic and moral leadership in the world. "There is no time to waste." Gore said. Teddy & Megan . we must take bold action now.

Electric power plants. Hannah Shaw. Companies will have two ways of meeting emissions targets: they can invest in clean energy and energy efficiency for themselves and sell their excess permits. WEA) cap-and-trade system puts a limit (or “cap”) on the overall amount of greenhouse gases — mainly carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels — that businesses are allowed to emit each year. and other firms responsible for emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are then required to purchase permits (called allowances) for each ton of greenhouse gas pollution they emit. The number of emissions permits will decrease over time. leading to steady emissions reductions. the number of emissions allowances would shrink in order to achieve the substantial emissions reductions that scientists say are necessary to curb global warming. oil refineries.php?story_id=31496. http://www. Stone et al 2009 . Permits will be bought and sold on a carefully regulated market. This would force the economy to gradually adapt by reducing emissions through energy conservation. Mitchell. **BA in economics and masters degree in social work from U Michigan (3/3. and greater use of alternative clean energy technologies.Massachusetts representative on the House Appropriations Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation. Teddy & Megan .Climate Politics Page 63 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext.. "Letter From Olver: House Passes Comprehensive Energy Legislation". When combined with vehicle efficiency and biofuel standards enacted in 2007.cbpp. Cap and trade is an adjustable mandate that we can target to the right level of emissions. this system.org/files/3-3-09climate.*Chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. improved energy efficiency. http://www. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Olver 7/6/2009 . and Sharon Parrott.pdf.com/story. would reduce total global warming emissions 83 percen below 2005 levels. or they can buy permits from other companies who have made these investments. The carbon cap will thus unleash a wave of investment. WEA) HR 2454 takes on global warming by capping the amount of carbon that power plants and other large sources can emit by issuing a limited number of tradable emissions permits. Chad Stone. This is equivalent to the amount of oil that we import from the Venezuela and the entire Middle East and will save consumers an estimated $135 billion in fuel costs. By 2050. HR 2454 will reduce America's dependence of foreign oil by 5 million barrels a day by 2030. 63 Ellis. A Over time. combined with the bill's other provisions.iberkshires. "CAP AND TRADE CAN FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING EFFECTIVELY WHILE ALSO PROTECTING CONSUMERS". Housing and Urban Development (John W. former executive director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. C&T Solves Warming Cap and trade solves warming. while the permit market ensures that cuts are made in the most economical way possible.

By combining an emissions cap with allowance trading. The former Bush administration broke the deadlock in 1989 by proposing an emissions reduction system that has since proven that a cleaner environment need not be inordinately expensive. Economy and Innovation at the Environmental Law Institute. http://www. citing cost concerns.500 per ton of SO2 removed. Ironically. WEA) acid rain loomed large on the nation’s agenda. This problem is largely caused by the SO2 emissions from the utility industry. "Getting more for four". many electric utilities and a growing number of members in Congress now view the price of not developing a comprehensive strategy to reduce power plant emissions as too high. ranging from $400 to $1. C&T Solves Warming Acid rain programs prove—cap and trade is the most effective free market mechanism Swift and Mazurek 2001 . The "Four-E" Approach The cap-and-trade system that has been so successful in controlling SO2 emissions holds the promise of reducing pollutant emissions further and of addressing a problem that looms even larger: climate change.pdf. Those who can control SO2 cheaply can sell emissions trading allowances to those who find reducing emissions more costly. 2000). The Acid Rain Program sets a single tonnage limit or "cap" on the emissions of SO2 from all utilities.org/documents/clean_energy_part2. the problem of estimates.*director of the Center for Energy. Initiatives to cap carbon here at home and for the United States to participate in efforts to Those opposed to regulating CO2 have employed the same argument used by those who resisted attempts to reduce acid rain: the cost of controlling greenhouse gas emissions is too high. Mitchell. to a current price of only $200 a ton—far less than estimated benefits (Carlson. Many scientists believe that the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the earth’s upper atmosphere will curb greenhouse gas emissions internationally stalled this past year. Byron and Jan.ndol. change the earth’s climate (IPCC. This combined approach is far less expensive than "first generation" laws that regulate emissions from each source separately.Climate Politics Page 64 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. 64 Ellis. Teddy & Megan . The expected costs of the Acid Rain Program have decreased since it was debated in Congress from early The Acid Rain Example During the late 1970s. a stringent environmental result was achieved at relatively low cost. Progressive Policy Institute. which. 2001). resisted congressional efforts to place a limit or "cap" on its emissions. **director of the Center for Innovation and the Environment at the Progressive Policy Institute (October 2001.

It would spark more clean-energy innovation and private investment in clean alternatives. which produce twice as much greenhouse gas pollution as regular oil. Mitchell.S..org/press/0906waxman. a non-profit research organization. Yes. the equivalent of taking 57 million cars off the road for a year. 2009] H. The bill would worsen global warming by lifting the prohibition against the federal government purchase of oil from Canadian tar sands. including energy efficiency and wind and solar power. It sets a hard cap on emissions—something the previous administration was dead set against—that will be lowered over time so we can achieve the emissions reductions climate science demands over the next few decades. http://www. C&T Solves Warming The climate bill is key to solve warming—it sets a hard cap on emissions. Cumulative energy bill savings will total more than $250 billion by 2030. these energy efficiency savings grow to 12. including substantial free allowances to electric utilities. 2454 could reduce U. Revised 6/23/09. Whining. reflecting the costs of dirty coal-fired electricity.S. lexis] 65 Ellis. staff writer. No. These range from 43. Senate passage of similar legislation will be more difficult. Increasing the energy efficiency component of the Combined were dedicated to efficiency. House passage of H.900 PER HOUSEHOLD BY 2030”. In the short term the cap would reduce emissions by the equivalent of removing 500 million cars from the road by 2020. the energy efficiency provisions in H. In total. 2454 also provides for a number of free emissions allowances to help companies mitigate the economic impact of climate change legislation. http://www.org/issues/2009/06/no_whining. Moreover. The cap would also set a price on carbon pollution. President and CEO of the Center for American Progress. and that new technologies could increase the available cost-effective savings. If one-third of these funds American consumers would save over 2. and it must be improved before it passes the Senate.R. Although these potential savings are dramatic. Undoubtedly. which accounts for about 5 percent of projected U. The bill is weak. Teddy & Megan .4 quadrillion Btu's.americanprogress.75 percent of allowances in 2012. 2454 is only the first arduous step toward energy transformation. energy use in 2020.htm.html. energy use that year. Combat Global Warming. 2454 WOULD SAVE $3. The Senate Energy Committee is off to an inauspicious beginning by passing an energy bill that would do little to boost investments in renewable electricity. and unacceptable. Efficiency and Renewable Energy Standard to 10% savings by 2020 and devoting one-third of electric utility allowances to efficiency would increase these 2030 energy savings by about 25 percent. there are many additional cost-effective efficiency opportunities available.aceee. Steve Nadel is the Executive Director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). 6/23/09] Despite these changes this bill is a giant leap forward in efforts to transition to a low-carbon economy. over and above the savings from the Combined Efficiency and Renewable Electricity Standard.R. “H. Critics assail futile 'offsets'.uses efficiency and renewable electricity standards Nadel and Watson 09 – [Steven Nadel and Suzanne Watson. ACEEE NEWS RELEASE. Podesta 09 – President of the Center for American Progress (John. It reflects the enormous shift in priorities between the Obama administration and the previous one.R. By 2030. PAGE ONE. ACEEE’s studies of energy efficiency’s potential indicate that current technologies can cost-effectively save 25-30 percent of total energy use. The bill would allow oil drilling in an area only 45 miles off the Florida Gulf Coast that had been protected as part of a 2006 compromise to allow drilling in 6 million acres nearby. sequestration and reforestation provisions solve existing emissions. such savings will avoid about 345 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2020. These energy efficiency savings are more than the annual energy use of 47 of the 50 states. including New York State.Climate Politics Page 65 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. Center for American Progress. The warming bill will reduce CO2 emissions. energy use by 5. decreasing incrementally to 7 percent in 2029. 6-25/09 [Amanda.8 quadrillion Btu’s. A01.R. And. hapless. “Climate bill gives billions to foreign foliage. accounting for about 12 percent of projected U.S. DeBard 09.” The Washington Times.5 quads of energy in 2030.

wherever those trees are located. Those companies could. Mitchell. in effect. Supporting ways to keep trees alive or plant new trees. called permits. The permits would be.and potentially very valuable. Under the program. licenses to pollute . sell the permits to other companies that emit greenhouse gases.in the United States and beyond. they say. 66 Ellis. the government would reward domestic and international companies that perform approved "green" actions with certificates. in turn. Teddy & Megan .Climate Politics Page 66 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Supporters of the legislation counter that the plan recognizes the need to reduce greenhousegas emissions to curb global warming . helps the effort.

Climate Politics Page 67 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Cap And Trade Modeled

Even if the signal fails, a US emissions scheme creates an economic incentive to get on board. Petsonk 2007 - JD from Harvard Law School, Adjunct professor at George Washington U Law School and U Maryland Law

School, Environmental law unit of the UNEP (3/27, Annie, Testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the US House of Representatives, "Climate Change - International Issues, Engaging Developing Countries", http://archives.energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.032707.Petsonk-testimony.pdf, WEA)

Congress can design the U.S. carbon market to provide carrots and sticks that encourage other countries – even recalcitrant ones - to join our efforts. Our carbon market is likely to be the largest in the world. Other nations will want access to our market – for carbon finance, and to sell us credits. Those nations' interest in gaining access to our carbon market gives Congress leverage, just as in any other market access negotiation. Below we
3. Include carrots and sticks as design elements in the carbon market. describe some "carrot and stick" options for Congress to consider, among the many potential options that could be envisioned.

China will cooperate if we act first Saiget 7/16/2009 (Robert J., Agence France Prese, "US officials confident of greater clean energy ties with China",
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hhlDMvsSsQ4WtzdW_Tpcmjb2lB-g, WEA) BEIJING —

Top US trade and energy officials said Thursday they were confident China and the United States would step up cooperation on climate change after meeting with Chinese leaders.
US Trade Secretary Gary Locke and Energy Secretary Steven Chu, both ethnic Chinese, came to China seeking to open the Asian giant's markets to US green technology while urging Beijing to set hard targets on gas emissions. "Secretary

Chu and I measured the success of this trip by answering the simple question of whether America and China can increase their cooperation in the development... of clean energy and energy efficient
technologies," Locke told reporters. "After three days of meeting,

the simple answer is yes." During the trip, China and the United States -- the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases -- announced the establishment of a joint clean energy research centre aimed at allowing scientists from both sides to work together.

The centre, with headquarters in both countries, is also intended to serve as a clearing-house for information, with key issues initially to be looked at including energy efficiency, clean coal technology and low-polluting cars. Locke and Chu met with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on Thursday afternoon, with the environment, as well as a host of trade and other issues, on the agenda. They also held talks individually with other top officials. Their visit to China comes as officials prepare for the first US-China strategic and economic dialogue, to be held in Washington next week.

67 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

Climate Politics Page 68 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Cap And Trade Modeled

Action now is key—countries like China have signaled willingness but we have to act first. Petsonk 2007 - JD from Harvard Law School, Adjunct professor at George Washington U Law School and U Maryland Law

School, Environmental law unit of the UNEP (3/27, Annie, Testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the US House of Representatives, "Climate Change - International Issues, Engaging Developing Countries", http://archives.energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.032707.Petsonk-testimony.pdf, WEA) Thank you for asking for our views on the extent to which Environmental Defense perceives developing countries as taking, or considering taking, steps to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and the effect of U.S. and other developed countries'

Engaging developing countries in cutting their total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is essential if the world is to curb climate change. The United States is the world's largest current and historical GHG emitter. Fast-growing developing countries, however, will soon emit more than we do. Global warming can't be solved unless both the U.S. and large developing countries cut total GHG emissions. The steps Congress takes will be crucial. A number of large-emitting developing countries have taken, or are considering, steps to slow the increase in their GHG emissions: The world's second-largest emitter, China, has adopted more stringent fuel economy standards for passenger cars than has the United States. China has also adopted a renewable energy goal, and committed significant funding for renewable energy. The world's fourth largest
actions on such considerations. emitter, Brazil, has converted most of its passenger car fleet to sugar-cane ethanol. And it has reduced deforestation over 50% in the last two years, in part through conservation measures and environmental law enforcement. That's important: 70% of Brazil's emissions come from deforestation in the Amazon.

But most developing countries are reluctant to take further climate protection steps unless and until the United States does. And most are certainly not likely to take more stringent or faster steps than the U.S. does. Consequently, if the world is to reduce total GHGs, Congress must lead with workable, enforceable, sufficiently stringent steps that engage developing countries to join us – quickly - in stabilizing the climate at safe levels.

Congress must also take tough, shrewd steps to ensure that if developing nations fail to engage, neither America's environment nor her competitiveness will be jeopardized.

Developing U.S. cap-and-trade legislation affords Congress three crucial opportunities to use the power of the carbon market to meet these challenges: 1. Lead By Example When Congress enacts a climate bill, the rest of the world will be watching closely. In effect, when Congress acts, America will lead by example. Such leadership is urgently needed. The international climate treaty talks have stalled because of the unwillingness of the Executive Branch to engage. Time is running out. America's trading partners are recognizing
that the only way the United States will act to cut emissions in the narrow time window for averting dangerous climate change, is if the Congress acts. Sensible Congressional action could yield great benefits for America's environment and economy, and provide a template for the world. As Congress moves to cap and cut America's GHG emissions, there are a number of steps Congress can take that can have a significant positive effect on developing countries' consideration of, and implementation of, steps to reduce their own emissions. Taking these in coordination with other developed countries will increase their effectiveness. But Congress

by taking the lead, Congress can show all nations how to break the climate logjam and correct the mis-steps that led to the logjam in the first place.
should not wait for other nations to act. Instead,

If Congress creates a clear, enforceable U.S. carbon market that taps American innovation in favor of stabilizing the climate at safe levels, it will set the bar for other nations' actions. If instead Congress litters the program with "intensity targets" that don't cut total emissions, and with "safety valves" that are really escape hatches, it will simply tempt America's trade competitors to put the same or bigger loopholes into their programs – and drive global emissions higher. 5

68 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

Climate Politics Page 69 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Cap And Trade Modeled

Countries like India will be too bitter too cooperate unless we send a clear signal. Foster 2007 (6/12, Peter, the Telegraph, "India snubs West on climate change",
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3297214/India-snubs-West-on-climate-change.html, WEA)

India will not curb its greenhouse gas emissions as long as the West continues to treat it as a 'second class global citizen' with less right to pollute than the developed world, a senior Indian
on climate change, warned that

environment official has said. Pradipto Ghosh, who retired last month as India's environment secretary and now sits on a committee advising India's prime minister

the West must "get serious" about cutting its own emissions if it wanted

progress on the issue.
His comments confirm the massive gulf between the West and the world's emerging economies a week after President Bush agreed to enter UNsponsored climate change negotiations on condition that India and China also agreed to play their part. Mr Ghosh reiterated India's position that it would not compromise its continued 8 per cent economic growth to arrest global warming, arguing that it was historical polluters in the industrialised West who must make the first move. "The fact is that India has a very, very large number of poor people who are living in conditions of which people in the West can have no conception unless they have visited India's villages and urban slums. "The goals of addressing climate change cannot supersede our goals of maintaining our current rates of GDP growth and poverty alleviation programs, as was agreed by everyone at Kyoto," he told The Telegraph in New Delhi.

At the heart of India's position on climate change is the notion that India - whose population is predicted to reach 1.5bn by 2050 - must be allowed to pollute on a per capita basis equally with the West. That would imply drastic cuts in emissions in developed countries if the world is meet the target of keeping global warming within the generally agreed 'safe limit' of two degrees, as set out by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"The prime minister [Dr Manmohan Singh] has said that while pursuing our policies of development and poverty alleviation, we will ensure that our per capita emissions will never exceed developing countries," Mr Ghosh added.

"This is our challenge to the West. 'You do the best you can, and we'll match it'. If the West thinks that
India will subscribe to any long-term solution that is not based on per capita emissions then it is very misguided." His remarks emphasise the divide which will face developed and developing nations when they meet in Bali, Indonesia in December to start negotiations on a new climate change agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012. Despite claims of a climate change 'deal' at the G8 summit last week, the meeting only served to increase Indian irritation at being treated as "petitioners not partners" at the global top table. India's prime minister let it be known the G8 decision to delivere their final communiqué before meeting with the G5 countries - India, China, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa - had made him question the worth of even attending the summit.

Empirically, the strongest international projects grew out of a strong domestic stance in the US. Bodansky 2001 - Woodruff chair in international law at the University of Georgia, former climate change coordinator and
attorney-advisor at the Department of State, JD from Yale, AB from Harvard, M. Phil from Cambridge University, (Daniel, National Interest, "Bonn voyage: Kyoto's uncertain revival", http://www.iddri.org/Activites/Conferences/bodansky.pdf, WEA) Lesson 3: "America first" It is almost a commonplace that successful

foreign policy must grow out of domestic political consensus. Certainly this is true in the United States with respect to environmental issues, where virtually every successful international regime has had its roots in U.S. domestic law. The most spectacular success —the Montreal ozone agreement— grew out of the U.S. regulation of chlorofluorocarbons, the chief culprit in the destruction of the ozone layer, beginning with a ban on aerosol spray cans ill the late 1970s.Other relatively successful international regimes —for example to limit oil pollution from tankers, to regulate trade in endangered species, and to control dangerous pesticides and chemicals— also built on U.S. domestic efforts, rather than attempting to force the United States to
change its ways through the pressure of an international regime.

69 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

WEA) - The head of the United Nations scientific climate panel spoke with U. adding that strong action would "undoubtedly reestablish confidence in U. China had been expected to surpass the United States as late as 2020.com/ens/feb2008/2008-02-01-10.S. "U. Pachauri told members of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Environmental News Service.S.S.R. U. President George W. has not been very active in this area. to take action. Last November. The IPCC chairman said that view is misplaced. China said Tuesday that wealthier countries must take the lead in curbing greenhouse gas emissions and refused to say whether it would agree to any mandatory emissions limits that might hamper its booming China was willing to contribute to an international effort to combat global warming but placed the primary responsibility on richer. Bush and his administration have rejected mandatory limits on greenhouse gases. said been polluting for much longer. Yardley 2007 (2/7. The massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions needed to avoid serious disruptions to Earth's climate system are impossible without U. Later this year. more expensive energy technology. lawmakers Wednesday. “It must be pointed out that climate change has been caused by the long-term historic emissions of developed countries and their high per capita emissions. Officials also argue that China remains a developing country without the financial resources or technological prowess to make a rapid shift to cleaner. leadership on critical global issues. 6 — economy. IPCC.asp. many of them equipped with substandard pollution controls. for leadership … [but] the perception round the world is that the U. it issued a report warning that climate change posed a serious threat to the country’s agricultural output and economy. China has not disputed the scientific rationale behind global warming or denied the potential harm it could cause. Chinese officials have long noted that China’s per capita emissions remain well below the averages in wealthier countries." said Rajendra Pachauri.nytimes.S. lawmakers remain reluctant to commit their nation to deep cuts without similar obligations from China." 70 Ellis. Dr.html?pagewanted=print. New York Times. including the United States.S. Jim. Despite broad criticism from across the world. Mitchell. China is expected to release broad policy goals on how it can reduce emissions and respond to global warming. but its soaring consumption of coal has rapidly increased the country’s emissions. China derives nearly 70 percent of its energy from coal-fired power plants. chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” she said. "China Says Rich Countries Should Take Lead on Global Warming".S. a spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry. And many U.ensnewswire. http://www. Feb. http://www.” Ms." said Pachauri. combined with another briefing on Tuesday by the country’s leading climate expert.. Lawmakers Urged to Lead Global Warming Battle". encouraging them lead the world in cooling the overheated planet. represented China’s first official response to a landmark report issued last week by a United Nations panel of scientists that declared global warming is “unequivocal” and warned that immediate action must be taken to prevent harmful consequences.S. Jiang’s comments. adding that developed countries have responsibilities for global warming “that cannot be shirked. emissions are four times greater than China's on a per capita basis.Climate Politics Page 70 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Cap And Trade Modeled US action key to getting countries like China on board. leadership. In December.S. Teddy & Megan . Action now key to get other nations on board—our current signal threatens overall leadership.com/2007/02/07/world/asia/07china.S. developed nations that have Jiang Yu. who also spoke at a public briefing Wednesday afternoon convened by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. India and other developing nations. "We really don't have a moment to lose." Pachauri said. The United States is responsible for some 22 percent of current greenhouse gas emissions. trailing only the United States. the International Energy Agency in Paris predicted that China would pass the United States in emissions of carbon dioxide in 2009. "It is essential for the U. J. "The rest of the world looks to the U. Pegg 2008 (2/1. Although China recently emerged as the leading emitter. China is the world’s second largest emitter of the greenhouse gases contributing to climate change. WEA) BEIJING.

By putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions. international implications. and other major polluting countries will never come to the table over carbon emissions unless the United States leads by example. Lexis Nexis. the United States has grappled with the unproductive consequences of its dependence on foreign-supplied energy. Mitchell. comprehensive energy policy. and that the American clean energy and security act (Acesa) would provide one. power sources. Acesa sends a vital message to businesses and investors that markets for low-carbon products and services are the future. household about $175 annually by 2020. The concrete greenhouse gas targets and additional carboncutting measures in this bill. some of the revenue would be Concerns about the cost of the legislation for consumers appear to be exaggerated. China. as well as its practical attempt to reduce pollutants. it will be years before Congress returns to the subject. and heavy industry. India. such as coal-fired electric plants. setting mandatory caps on sectors responsible for 87% of US greenhouse gas emissions including electric power. lexis] If the United States is going to be the world leader in fighting global warming. This legislation offers the promise of a new way forward. “National: Tackling climate change: Comment: This bill will change the face of US industry – and give the leadership the world awaits”. Pg. Almost as important are the bill's With the months to the UN Copenhagen summit counting down. If the house defeats the bill. The legislation aims to cap greenhouse-gas emissions at 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. it needs to walk the walk. There is symbolic value in this vote. The US is home to the most entrepreneurial and innovative private sector in the world. The Environmental Protection Agency projects it will cost the average household about $100 per year. For three decades. This plan envisions new industries and jobs devoted to cleaner domestic energy. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the measure would cost each U. the Copenhagen negotiations would collapse. This nation generates a disproportionate amount of the polluting greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. My institute's analysis shows that it is the strongest climate bill ever to come before Congress. the world urgently awaits US leadership. spent on clean-energy research.” CITY-C Edition. could also purchase capacity from low polluters. I have been involved in a dozen pieces of landmark US environmental legislation over the last 30 years.S. Inq Opinion & Editorial. But there is much more to President Obama's push for a new energy plan than the desired results for long-term global warming. The Guardian – Final Edition. send a strong signal that the US is serious about negotiating a new global deal in Denmark this December. With this signal we can develop the technology to keep global warming within manageable limits. Other nations would take Congress's failure to limit US emissions as a signal that the world economy will continue to pursue business-as-usual energy policies. buildings. And the planet continues to heat at an accelerating and dangerous rate.Climate Politics Page 71 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Cap and Trade Modeled Climate Legislation is a new start for policies and our global leadership The Philadelphia Inquirer. Let's start with the fact that the US has never had a coherent. A portion of the money collected by government auctions of permits would go to offset consumers' higher energy costs. The bill sets out a long-term road map to shift the world's biggest economy on to a low carbon path. Warming bill sends international signal of leadership Lash 09 – [Jonathan Lash. and increasing targets through 2050. and its provisions to help finance developing country adaptation to climate change. A18. Businesses would need to pay for permits for each ton of carbon emitted. The heart of the bill is its "cap-and-trade" provision for carbon emissions. Teddy & Megan . High polluters. oil and gas. EDITORIAL. landscapes and working patterns. Some environmentalists complain that this bill has been watered down to the point where it won't have any impact on carbon emissions. And business leaders insist that the legislation will simply impose a huge new energy tax without any social benefit. 6/26/09] The US House of Representatives will vote today on a bill that would change the face of America's factories. 6-26/09 [“Editorial: A big step against climate change. None has been more important than this. 71 Ellis. Meanwhile.

The objective of the planned joint clean energy research center. as best we can and as many things as we can. Both were visiting China for the first time as part of the Obama administration. he said. "The US and China have what it takes to meet the world's energy challenge. which both China and the US have in abundance.com. That was the message from a joint press conference held by US Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke and US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu Thursday. Teddy & Megan . http://www. "There's so much for our economies to gain by forging new ties in the clean energy sector and so much to lose if we fail.chinadaily." Locke said. China Daily 7/17/2009 ("China-US climate teamwork evolving". to share. the technology. The planned center was announced on Wednesday and will be established by China's Ministry of Science and Technology and National Energy Administration and the US Department of Energy. 72 Ellis. Mitchell. including improving technology to reduce carbon emissions and increasing energy efficiency.cn/china/200907/17/content_8439207. "One of the most important things is mutual cooperation." Chu said. WEA) Cooperation between China and the US is crucial in meeting the climate change challenge. was to allow the nations to work together on efficient buildings and better cars and find ways to capture carbon dioxide and look for clean ways to use coal." Chu said there is much the countries can do.htm.Climate Politics Page 72 of 156 7WJ – HPSW China Key To Solve Warming China cooperation is key to make emissions reductions effective. It'll be great if 100 years from now the history books say the US and China's collaboration saved the planet from the irreversible climate change.

the researchers were able to estimate the amounts of carbon dioxide and methane.sciencedaily. who heads the Climate Change and Carbon Management program for Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division. WEA) Studies have shown that global climate change can set-off positive feedback loops in nature which amplify warming and cooling trends. Adam 2009 (3/11. and the underestimation of future warming.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. Using as a source the Vostok ice core.Climate Politics Page 73 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Positive Feedbacks Continued warming causing feedbacks—this amplifies warming beyond control. She and John Harte. "Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century". which appears in the May.htm. further increasing carbon dioxide and methane emissions. “The results indicate a future that is going to be hotter than we think. and is an Associate Adjunct Professor in UC Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group. which are predicting a global temperature increase of as much as 5.” said Torn. which in turn brings about more global warming. David. and so on. "Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change. it will alter earth system processes. Also increases feedback mechanisms to cause runaway warming. which provides information about glacial-interglacial cycles over hundreds of thousands of years. Their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting. Science Daily 2006 . a UC Berkeley professor in the Energy and Resources Group and in the Ecosystem Sciences Division of the College of Natural Resources. also releases carbon into the atmosphere.co. Teddy & Megan .based on research by the DOE's Climate Change Resarch Division and the National Science Foundation (5/22.0 degrees Celsius because they only take into consideration the increased greenhouse gas concentrations that result from anthropogenic (human) activities. scientists say". researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley have been able to quantify the feedback implied by past increases in natural carbon dioxide and methane gas levels. they calculated how much these rising concentration levels caused global temperatures to climb. increased forest death. http://www. the Guardian. asymmetric uncertainties. resulting in additional atmospheric greenhouse gas loading and additional warming. 73 Ellis. Now.guardian.” said Margaret Torn. Combining their estimates with standard climate model assumptions. “If the past is any guide. Mitchell. These are typically runaway processes in which global temperature rises lead to further releases of CO². In their GRL paper. 2006 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters (GRL).com/releases/2006/05/060522151248. Torn and Harte make the case that the current climate change models. then when our anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming. WEA) Positive feedback Amazon dieback is one of the key positive feedbacks brought about by global warming. In the Amazon this happens on a more localised scale but the result. may be off by nearly 2. Harte has been a leading figure for the past two decades on climate-ecosystem interactions. that were released into the atmosphere in response to past global warming trends.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print. and on the impacts of anthropogenic activities on terrestrial ecosystem processes. Torn is an authority on carbon and nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems. two of the principal greenhouse gases. http://www. have co-authored a paper entitled: Missing feedbacks. including the highly praised Consider a Spherical Cow: A Course in Environmental Problem Solving. and has authored or co-authored numerous books on environmental sciences.

Teddy & Megan . Carbon can be reduced simply by reforesting or planting trees. Bianca.pdf.org/documents/clean_energy_part2. "What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated that the world must reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by 2015 to avert a global climate disaster. I am sure we all agree with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon when he says that climate change is "the defining challenge of our age". remains the great unanswered question. "Getting more for four". Jagger 2008 . In its final report. cap and trade leads to sequestration technologies. WEA) cap-and-trade program for carbon emissions will not only stimulate the development of abatement technologies but also create opportunities to remove carbon from the atmosphere in other ways. Many carbon sequestration efforts carry ancillary Carbon Sequestration A benefits—wildlife and biodiversity are promoted through reforestation. notwithstanding all this sobering information. Other methods are under development as well. Economy and Innovation at the Environmental Law Institute. Lexis Congressional. "If there's no action before 2012. It’s not too late but if we don’t act in the next couple years we’re screwed. Vice President Al Gore." said Rajendra Pachauri. Byron and Jan." 74 Ellis. And the time to answer it is running out. or by promoting soil-improving agricultural practices. However. who headed the panel. Testimony to the House Select Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee. Mitchell. Governments have previously been reluctant to accept this reality. Swift and Mazurek 2001 . The majority of scientists are in agreement. "Renewable energy". droughts and rising temperatures.*director of the Center for Energy. and soil erosion reduced with conservation agriculture practices. while dealing with the already devastating consequences of floods. CQ Congressional Testimony. **director of the Center for Innovation and the Environment at the Progressive Policy Institute (October 2001.ndol. These methods increase the storage of carbon in vegetation and soils (called sequestration). Progressive Policy Institute. which shared the Nobel Peace Prize in October with former U. WEA) The threat of a global climate disaster is no longer up for debate. How to meet that challenge.S. http://www. were extremely weak and inadequate.chair of the World Future Council (3/6. that's too late. the agreements reached in Bali.Climate Politics Page 74 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Current Emission Levels Too High Even if current emission levels are too high.

http://www.com/news/opinion/la-ed-summit102009jul10. 75 Ellis.Climate Politics Page 75 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: G8 Solves G8 agreements are worthless without Congressional follow-up. LA Times 7/10/2009 ("Global warming: The heat is on the U. WEA) Such international pacts are usually meaningless without the backing of Congress. Teddy & Megan . Mitchell. President Clinton.S.latimes.".4746209. signed the Kyoto Protocol to fight global warming in 1998. after all.0. but it was never ratified by the Senate. That chamber once again finds itself in a position to overrule the president as it considers a sweeping climate-change bill that was narrowly approved last month in the House.story. It would fulfill Obama's G-8 promise by meeting the 2050 goal.

and adverse health affects. allows the market and its price mechanism to allocate rights. Self-interest of Americans demands that we all breathe clean air because our life depends upon it. Private property rights can not be defined and enforced for public goods. Private markets for the goods will not emerge. for example.net/live. it implies that government has to be assigned the property rights.standard. Therefore. "Cap and trade a sound market principle". Also in a democracy. it can allow the use of that resource either by direct regulation of CO2 emissions (quantity control). Cap and trade policy is meant to create a market for CO2 emissions. http://www. Vijay K. and clothing. Mathur 2009 . it would also benefit those who do not pay for the goods. changing tax levels is time consuming if quantity goals are not met. For example.price. Teddy & Megan . or capping the quantity of emission rights and creating a market to regulate the allocation of rights (cap and trade). Therefore. 76 Ellis. and our taxes support its provision. or a tax-price per unit of CO2 emissions. public goods have to be provided collectively. Private goods benefit those who pay the price for those goods. markets will arise for those goods. If goods are provided. There are two types of goods which we consume: private goods and public goods. There is no leakage of consumption benefits to others who do not pay the price for private goods. Clean air is a public good and air pollution is a "public bad. all of us must be willing to pay the price to obtain clean air. WEA) Let me first discuss why government has to intervene by legislating CO2 emissions. or a combination of quantity control and a tax. food." Since government has the property right to the resource clean air on behalf of Americans. there is no incentive for individuals to buy the goods and hence there will not be any supply of the goods. and as Paul Krugman argues.. When property rights emerge and are enforced. where given emission rights are traded at a positive price. it is effective in achieving international cooperation. Standard-Examiner. Hence.Climate Politics Page 76 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Free Market Solves/Government Control Bad Government intervention is necessary in the context of warming because air quality is a public good that private markets can’t address. property damages. Mitchell.professor emeritus of economics at Cleveland State University and adjunct professor of economics at Weber State University (7/16. cars. Businesses that object to paying for emission rights want to be free riders. Therefore. It is better than outright quantity control and better in many ways than a tax. and it is the government that enforces and allocates those rights for all of us. since benefits of public goods can not be completely appropriated by persons who may be willing to pay the price. The public is paying for their use of the resource by tolerating depletion of air quality. people who pay the price have property rights to those goods and their benefits.php/news/178536?printable=story. because it removes uncertainty about the level of CO2 emissions. national defense is provided by the government because it is a public good.

”Such arguments failed to impress Ben Lieberman. Jeffrey A.edu/events/2008/~/media/Files/events/2008/0609_climate_trade/2008_frankel. not politicians. paper. which is heavily exposed to carbon prices. Mitchell. against countries that are not doing so. “Peacocks and Passions in Senate Climate Debate”. • Measures to address leakage to non-members can take the form of either tariffs or permit-requirements on carbon-intensive imports. 7/19/09.James W.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1) Addressing concerns about competitiveness and the relocation of investments to foreign markets. or by non-participants. Frankel 2008 .. There are precedents (the turtle case and the Montreal Protocol) that could justify such border measures so as to avoid undermining the Kyoto Protocol or its successors. "OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING THE LEAKAGE/COMPETITIVENESS ISSUE IN CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY PROPOSALS".. cement.” Government trade adjustments solve carbon leakage. Editor and writer for The New York Times covering alternative energy and green business. WEA) ABSTRACT: We are likely increasingly to see efforts to minimize leakage of carbon to non-participants and to address concerns on behalf of the competitiveness of carbon-intensive industry.aluminum. Mr. Teddy & Megan . they should not take the form of subsidies to domestic sectors that are considered to have been put at a competitive disadvantage. border measures should follow principles such as the following: • Measures should follow guidelines multilaterally-agreed by countries participating in the emission targets of the Kyoto Protocol and/or its successors. should be responsible for judgments as to findings of fact -. “and that will have adverse effects throughout the economy. July 19th 2009. http://www. or the nature of the response. what countries are entitled to respond with border measures. Environmentalists on one side and free traders on the other side fear that border measures such as tariffs or permit-requirements against imports of There need not necessarily be a conflict.nytimes. http://www. Lieberman said. Matthes suggested that the latter had not happened in Europe.com/2009/07/20/business/energy-environment/20iht-green20.Climate Politics Page 77 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Carbon Leakage No leakage or MNC shift. glass.intensive major industries -. steel. if the measures are designed sensibly.” he said. what industries are involved and what is their carbon content. “We can’t see any significant relocation of investment — even in industries like the iron and steel industry. Zeller. Brookings Institute. and perhaps iron and chemicals -. and deservedly so. Europe proves. a senior policy analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation and the sole American testifying at the July 8 hearing. But to avoid running afoul of the WTO.rather than penalizing industries that are further removed from the carbon-intensive activity. • Independent panels of experts. Import penalties should target fossil fuels and a half dozen or so of the most energy. Harpel Professor of Capital Formation and Growth at the Harvard Kennedy School (6/9.” Mr. “The whole point of cap-and-trade is to constrain the supply of energy and therefore drive up its price. 77 Ellis. such as firms that use inputs produced in an energy-intensive process.what countries are complying or not. rather than being applied unilaterally carbon-intensive products will conflict with the WTO.Editor at New York Times (Tom Jr.pdf. “We see ongoing investments there.brookings.

4 years to complete a NEPA review. would be a chilling shift to a command-and-control system in which EPA officials regulate just about every aspect of the market.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2407. before a shovel can break ground. history would greatly expand the EPA's power. **research assistant in the Thomas A. Along For instance. normally it takes a federal with the Clean Water Act's Section 404 requirements.[5] Granting the authority for one of the largest and unprecedented regulatory undertakings in U.*senior policy analyst in Energy and the Environment for the Heritage Foundation. Though the Administration recently enacted a stimulus bill and touted "shovel ready" construction projects to boost the economy.S.cfm. WEA) Having EPA bureaucrats micromanage the economy. "Five Reasons the EPA Should Not Attempt to Deal with Global Warming". Loris and Lieberman 2009 . http://www. it could take 5.6 years for a project to jump through all the normal environmental hoops. According to the Government Accountability Office. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (4/23. construction project an average of 4. the red tape and permitting delays are almost unfathomable. the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to file environmental impact statements for EPA review before moving forward with projects. Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2407. Teddy & Megan . Beyond the costs of such actions.heritage. EPA regulations would essentially assure that a great deal of such economic activity would be held up for months. Mitchell.Climate Politics Page 78 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: EPA Regulation Solves EPA management fails. if not years. all in the name of combating global warming. 78 Ellis.

and the United States. Teddy & Megan . A new study by meteorologists at the University of Utah shows that current climate models are quite accurate and can be valuable tools for those seeking solutions on reversing global warming trends. 79 Ellis. Of course. "Climate Models Look Good When Predicting Climate Change". Most of these models project a global warming trend that amounts to about 7 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years." The many hours of studying models and comparing them with actual climate changes fulfills the increasing wish to know how much one can trust climate models and their predictions. Given the significance of climate change research in public policy. the study's results also provide important response to critics of global warming. Germany. also included is the very latest model generation that was used for the very recent (2007) report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Canada. "We can now place a much higher level of confidence in model-based projections of climate change than in the past. "Coupled models are becoming increasingly reliable tools for understanding climate and climate change. Earlier this year. The University of Utah study results directly relate to this highly publicized report by showing that the models used for the IPCC paper have reached an unprecedented level of realism. co-authors Thomas Reichler and Junsu Kim from the Department of Meteorology at the University of Utah investigate how well climate models actually do their job in simulating climate. Australia. and the best models are now capable of simulating present-day climate with accuracy approaching conventional atmospheric observations." said Reichler. To this end. http://www.com/releases/2008/04/080402100001. Korea.sciencedaily. environmentalists and even scientists. Great Britain.Climate Politics Page 79 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Climate Models Good Climate models are pretty sweet even they’re not perfect – new study by meteorologists proves Science Daily 2008 (4/6. Mitchell. Russia. The authors apply this method to about 50 different national and international models that were developed over the past two decades at major climate research centers in China. France. WEA) The accuracy of computer models that predict climate change over the coming decades has been the subject of debate among politicians. working group one of the IPCC released its fourth global warming report.htm. they compare the output of the models against observations for present climate. Scientific opinion on climate change In the study.

and sulfates) and changing the surface of the land. and agricultural practices are changing the composition of the atmosphere (increasing the concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs.Climate Politics Page 80 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Warming Anthropogenic Climate change is anthropogenic Tolman 2009 (4/30.cfm? Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay. The large climate changes that have been observed in the past 30 years cannot be accounted for unless the effects of human activities are included.lwv. Mitchell. deforestation. Teddy & Megan . including melting large areas that have been covered by ice and snow.org/AM/Template. WEA) Burning fossil fuels (coal. "POSITIVE FEEDBACKS AND CLIMATE RUNAWAY THE NEED TO ACT WITHOUT DELAY". population growth. 80 Ellis.cfm&CONTENTID=13409. LVW climate change taskforce. League of Women Voters. and natural gas). http://www. oil. soot.

and much faster than expected.co. outstripping the climate models by decades. Oceanographers reported – incredulously – that we’d managed to make the oceans 30% more acidic.” They misinterpret short-term statistical blips—our overall climate theory is still intact. Surveys of high altitude glaciers showed they were uniformly melting. at least if we want a planet “similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted. Scientists have heard that message – in March they gathered by the thousands at an emergency conference to declare that the five-year-old findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were dangerously out of date. But politicians haven’t caught up. It’s easy to understand why: reaching a deal that would meet even that 2 degree target is incredibly hard. We need a fire extinguisher. "Environment: race against time". LA Times 7/10/2009 ("Global warming: The heat is on the U. Such statistical blips are properly ignored by most climatologists. The cyclical El Niño phenomenon and heavy greenhouse gas concentrations combined to make 1998 the hottest year in recorded history. the message was clear: we don’t need to buy an insurance policy to reduce the threat of future warming. scientists noticed that the Arctic was losing ice at an almost unbelievable pace. A Nasa team headed by James Hansen reported that the maximum amount of carbon the atmosphere can safely hold is 350ppm. Teddy & Megan .0. and we need it now. And the last decade was on average the hottest ever recorded. http://www. This hardly debunks the climate change theory. http://www.". and global warming had gone from future threat to present crisis. yet their comprehension of climate science hasn't improved.uk/?page=editorial&id=1164&catID=17.” Since we’re already at 390ppm. apparently as a result of thawing permafrost. Those observations changed everything – and they produced what is almost certainly the most important number in the world. Aiming even higher could undermine the entire process – asked about tougher targets Obama recently said that they risked making “the best the enemy of the good.Climate Politics Page 81 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Recent Events Disprove Climate Change Our arguments have gained credibility recently because of accelerated ice melting.4746209. 81 Ellis. WEA) But two years ago.guardianweekly. almost to the week. given the recalcitrance of everyone from China’s Central Committee to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.story. As we head toward the crucial Copenhagen talks slated for December. Mitchell. Obama and the rest of the world’s political class are still using the dated science and its now stale conclusions. who look at average temperatures over time rather than year-to-year data. McKibben 7/15/2009 . even as carbon emissions during the intervening 11 years have risen.resident scholar at Middlebury (Bill. The Guardian. A particularly common obfuscation from rightwing pundits is the "revelation" that global temperatures have been declining since 1998.com/news/opinion/la-ed-summit102009jul10. at about the same time methane levels in the atmosphere began to spike.latimes. WEA) The clamor from global-warming deniers has heated up as the nation gets closer to taking action. Clearly we’d passed a threshold.S. It wasn’t just Arctic ice.

a private research group in Santa Rosa.. http://www. 82 Ellis. Arctic sea ice returning with a vengeance after a record retreat last summer. WEA) The world has seen some extraordinary winter conditions in both hemispheres over the past year: snow in Johannesburg last June and in Baghdad in January. It is no wonder that some scientists.” read a blog post and news release on Wednesday from Marc Morano. Andrew C.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print. Teddy & Megan . “Earth’s ‘Fever’ Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way. Revkin 2008 (3/2.” he said. a scientist at Remote Sensing Systems. that has been using satellite data to track global temperature and whose findings have been held out as reliable by a variety of climate experts. Mitchell. less ice and rising seas should heat-trapping greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and forests continue to accumulate in the air. Calif. it is mostly good old-fashioned weather. 1991-92.” said Carl Mears. and a sharp drop in the globe’s average temperature. “Temperatures are very likely to recover after the La Niña event is over. but with a long-term warming trend clear nonetheless. If anything else is afoot — like some cooling related to sunspot cycles or slow shifts in ocean and atmospheric patterns that can influence temperatures — an array of scientists who have staked out differing positions on the overall threat from global warming agree that there is no way to pinpoint whether such a new force is at work.com/2008/03/02/science/02cold. Many scientists also say that the cool spell in no way undermines the enormous body of evidence pointing to a warming world with disrupted weather patterns. New York Times. the communications director for the Republican minority on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. a year after it was in the opposite warm El Niño pattern. “The current downturn is not very unusual. including some who question the extent and risks of global warming.. and 1998.Climate Politics Page 82 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Recent Events Disprove Climate Change Short-term cooling trends mean nothing—they are statistical blips due to regional ocean cycles. paralyzing blizzards in China. So what is happening? According to a host of climate experts. political operatives and other people who challenge warnings about dangerous human-caused global warming have jumped on this as a teachable moment.nytimes. "Skeptics on Human Climate Impact Seize on Cold Spell". opinion writers. He pointed to similar drops in 1988. which is in its La Niña phase for a few more months. along with a cold kick from the tropical Pacific Ocean.

Some people think this was a marketing move by the international forces of socialism to protect our Coke-like franchise. Moore 7/16/2009 (John. the terms are irrelevant.aspx. Teddy & Megan . we dispute the cause. WEA) A major talking point amongst the skeptics is a certain indignation over how “global warming” became “climate change”. Unfortunately the same can’t be said for the skeptics who made a very canny transition three or four years ago from the stance that the world isn’t warming up to “no-one denies the planet is warming up. http://network. Mitchell. National Post.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/07/16/john-moore-one-world-government-and-global-warmingclimate-change-whatever.Climate Politics Page 83 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Climate Change Theory Inconsistent Skeptics are the ones who are inconsistent—climate change theory has been the same for decades.nationalpost. The general theory has been roughly the same for 150 years. Actually.” 83 Ellis. "John Moore: One world government and global warming/climate change/whatever".

change. and those that operate on Earth’s carbon cycle.mate scientist at Stanford. because it’s the most vulnerable. If these larger populations cross the Rockies and get into the boreal forest that stretches from Alberta to Newfoundland.homerdixon. The Greenland ice sheet will probably be the first to melt. http://www. Also.Climate Politics Page 84 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Negative Feedbacks Feedbacks are NET positive.mote warming by an extra 15% to 78% on a century scale over and above the IPCC estimates. Both these changes mean that beetle populations become much larger overall. a change could reduce populations of molluscs and phytoplankton that absorb carbon into the calcium carbonate of their shells. Mitchell. as the climate has warmed. much of Greenland melted. We have a fairly good understanding of the former and not such a good understanding of the latter.est. we get seven metres of sea-level rise. bark-beetle populations reproduce through two generations during the summer. the Canadian boreal forest has gone from being a carbon sink to a slight carbon emitter. ‘[we] produce an independent estimate of the potential implications of the positive feedback between global tem. Teddy & Megan . If we melt the West Antarctic ice sheet. higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are acidifying the oceans. This is one of the punch lines of my presentation today.7 They wrote. During the last interglacial period 125.ment. Scheffer. They went on. and beetle mortality is lower during the winter.or-less directly on temperature.000 years ago.Centre for International Governance Innovation Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of International Affairs. we get an additional fifty or so metres. transcript of an address to the conference for a Globally Integrated Climate Policy for Canada. Brovkin. Our climate has both positive and negative feedbacks. and the saturation of ocean carbon sinks. Scientists are also concerned about the potential release of more carbon dioxide from forests: just yesterday researchers reported evidence that. I asked Stephen earlier that Schneider.’ Other potentially destabilizing carbon-cycle feedbacks include the drying of the Amazon and the possibility that if it dries it will burn. where warming produces a change in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. and if they kill that for. These winds have churned up the sea and brought to the surface deep carbon-rich water. He just shrugged and said.’ researchers focused specifically on carbon cycle feedbacks. such as the ice-albedo feedback.com/articles/excerpt-new_urgency-thomas_homer-dixon. In a paper published last year in Geophysical Research Letters. when temperatures were roughly what they’re going to be at the end of this century. PhD in IR from MIT (11/14. Homer-Dixon 2007 . and sea levels were four to six metres higher than they are right now. If we melt the rest of Antarctica. we’ve lost wide swaths of pine forest in British Columbia and Alaska – huge areas of trees – to bark-beetle infestation. The positive ones are self-reinforcing. Alaska.back situation. the drying of peat bogs in Indonesia. Warming has produced much more vigorous winds closer to Antarctica. these dynamic ice sheets. we’re talking about billions of tonnes of carbon. If we melt Greenland entirely. and the negative ones equilibrate the climate and counteract the tendency towards self-reinforcing climate The big question for climate scientists then is: What is the balance is between the positive and negative feedbacks? A consensus has emerged over the last two years – a consensus again not reflected in the recent IPCC reports – that the positive feedbacks in the climate system are much stronger and more numerous than the negative feedbacks. after that in Antarctica. WEA) Let me now say a little bit more about some other feedbacks. I mentioned there are two general kinds of feedback: those that operate more. ‘we sug. As the permafrost melts it releases large quantities of methane – a very powerful greenhouse gas that. and the Recarbonization of the Global Fuel Supply: The New Sense of Urgency about Global Warming". we get another five metres. the forest will be susceptible to fire that could release astounding quantities of carbon dioxide. The Southern Ocean around Antarctica is no longer absorbing carbon diox. a leading cli.’ Let’s turn to the issue of In other words.pdf.ide to the extent it did in the past.peratures and greenhouse gasses. One carbon feedback that worries scientists involves the melting of the permafrost in Siberia. causes more warming. and Cox carried out a comprehensive assessment of the feed. ‘well. 84 Ellis. Professor in the Centre for Environment and Business in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo. about the implications of such a develop. Dynamic Ice Sheets. which have already been susceptible to wide-spread burning. As you likely know. which absorbs less carbon from the atmosphere.gest that feedback of global temperature and atmosphere CO2 will pro. and Northern Canada. The Greenland ice sheet is the second largest mass of ice in the world. As the climate warms. And then there’s the matter of pine bark beetles. in turn. "Positive Feedbacks.

We can adapt as necessary. is what I call fatalistic denial: one basically accepts that the problem is real and that it’s going to hurt a lot.5 This research is pretty well definitive. large rises in temperatures are more the result of strong upsurges in atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane concentrations set-off by the initial warming. http://www. However.mon argument now put forward by climate sceptics is that the recent warming is a result of changes in the intensity of the sun’s radiation. Teddy & Megan . if we try to adapt.’ 85 Ellis.ing in what I call consequential denial.dence becomes overwhelming.6 The first is existential denial. Solar radiation theory is inaccurate. and invariably the evidence in these reports makes absolutely no difference to their point of view. too. This kind of psychological resistance points to something I think we need to confront directly: a process of denial of evidence that is quite powerful in some parts of our society and in some individuals. This is essentially the position taken by a lot of climate change sceptics now. of course. WEA) The most com. of denial. as is now the case with climate change.bonization of the fuel system. ‘there’s nothing we can do about it. and recar. "Positive Feedbacks. Let me go on to quickly give you a sense of the three issues that I talked about before: positive feedback. Instead. I think there are three stages The third argument concerns radiation from the sun.sequences of the problem are going to be particularly serious. people tend to move away from existential denial and start engag. as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures. once it becomes impossible to support even consequential denial. So. scientists have known that cyclic variations in the amount of sunlight reaching the earth trigger glacial-interglacial cycles. which I talk about in my latest book. where one denies the actual existence of the phenomenon.sively mitigate our output of carbon dioxide. Let’s talk first about what the recent IPCC Working Group I report said about global warming to date – that the ‘warming of the climate system is unequivocal. So. icesheet dynamics. Sometimes I engage in an amusing exercise just to see how detached from reality they can actually be. Mitchell. Professor in the Centre for Environment and Business in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo. there’s climate change. and rising global average sea level. transcript of an address to the conference for a Globally Integrated Climate Policy for Canada.pdf.’ In my future research I want to explore the larger social consequences of widespread fatalistic denial. these three arguments used by sceptics have been largely put to rest. But existential denial is hard to sustain when the evi. "Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century". Homer-Dixon 2007 . I think they could be astonishingly bad. in which they deny that the con. So the final position. widespread melting of snow and ice. I send them scientific papers and reports on the latest climate research.based on research by the DOE's Climate Change Resarch Division and the National Science Foundation (5/22. and the Recarbonization of the Global Fuel Supply: The New Sense of Urgency about Global Warming". ‘okay. Dynamic Ice Sheets.Climate Politics Page 85 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Solar Radiation Cuases Warming Sunlight variation doesn’t explain warming. PhD in IR from MIT (11/14. But a major review article last year in the journal Nature showed that it’s virtually impossible to explain the warming we’ve seen in the last 40 years through changes in solar radiation.sciencedaily.Centre for International Governance Innovation Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of International Affairs.homerdixon.com/articles/excerpt-new_urgency-thomas_homer-dixon. the magnitude of warming and cooling temperatures cannot be explained by variations in sunlight alone. Science Daily 2006 .’ The evidence is also increasing. their authors are just stuck in denial in the face of insurmountable evidence. http://www. WEA) In examining data recorded in the Vostok ice core. It’s basically a pollution problem that is not so serious. but then one simply says.com/releases/2006/05/060522151248. but we can deal with it. We are now down to a hard core of climate change deniers who are essentially impervious to any evidence – and they write me all the time. They’re saying.htm. that we won’t be able to adapt adequately to the magnitude of the climate change that’s likely even this century – or that the economic and social consequences of this change will be so great that. we’ll still need to aggres.

saying that. it has been covered in the pages of the Globe and Mail.nium. Bradley. Homer-Dixon 2007 .3 and Jones in 2003 to provide a temperature record from the years 200 to 2000 AD. methodology. In response to criticism of the statistical methodology used to cobble these records together. except for some – and I use this word deliberately – crazies out there. I think the National Academy of Sciences report dealt with the hockey stick issue. and it certainly made Earth hotter than anytime in the last 400 years. Teddy & Megan . transcript of an address to the conference for a Globally Integrated Climate Policy for Canada. it’s off the table now. It has been one of the most contentious pieces of evidence used to support the claim that we are experiencing an abnormally warm period. overall. which is why it was widely labelled the ‘hockey stick’ graph.Centre for International Governance Innovation Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of International Affairs. Dynamic Ice Sheets. The panel released its results last year. This work was subsequently updated by Mann researchers combined a number of different paleoclimatological records – like tree rings and coral growth rates – that are ‘proxy’ measures of atmospheric temperature during various historical epochs.emy of Sciences in the United States created a panel to examine the Mann et al.2 These 86 Ellis. Mann. "Positive Feedbacks. http://www. WEA) The first argument concerns the long-term trend of Earth’s average surface temperature.pdf.com/articles/excerpt-new_urgency-thomas_homer-dixon. Their graph famously showed a sharp uptick over the last half-century. and Hughes released a paper that estimated average global temperature for the last millen.Climate Politics Page 86 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Natural Temperature Cycles The last century’s warming was beyond the scope of normal temperature cycles—only our methodology has been externally reviewed. You are probably familiar with this debate. the original study’s conclusions were largely correct: the warming of the last 40 years very likely made Earth hotter than anytime in the last 1000 years. They cobbled these proxy measures together to get a long-term record of the planet’s temperature. In 1999. and the Recarbonization of the Global Fuel Supply: The New Sense of Urgency about Global Warming". Professor in the Centre for Environment and Business in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo. the National Acad. while some questions remained about the methodology. Mitchell.homerdixon. PhD in IR from MIT (11/14.

Teddy & Megan . WEA) The second argument concerns satellite data.Centre for International Governance Innovation Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of International Affairs.homerdixon.pdf. Dynamic Ice Sheets.mous debate about an apparent discrepancy between data from satel. 87 Ellis. http://www. Once these errors are corrected.Climate Politics Page 87 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Satellite Data Proves No Warming Recent reviews of satellite data discrepancies have discredited skeptics. and the Recarbonization of the Global Fuel Supply: The New Sense of Urgency about Global Warming". The argument was originally made by John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville.lites that show no warming in the troposphere and data from groundlevel instruments that show warming. the discrepancy disappears. transcript of an address to the conference for a Globally Integrated Climate Policy for Canada. PhD in IR from MIT (11/14. stratospheric cooling.com/articles/excerpt-new_urgency-thomas_homer-dixon.4 The satellite record actually shows tropospheric warming – in fact.bal warming theory. "Positive Feedbacks. There has been an enor. as we would expect from glo. Professor in the Centre for Environment and Business in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo. But recent studies have looked very carefully at this apparent discrepancy between satellite and ground-level data and have shown that Christy and his colleagues made a number of methodological and statistical errors. Mitchell. it shows both tropospheric warming and. Homer-Dixon 2007 .

32 As GHG concentrations and temperatures rise. League of Women Voters. The open point. this would raise sea levels by 15 m (50 ft). species extinction. 88 Ellis. labeled Projection for 2100.giss.org/AM/Template.Climate Politics Page 88 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Warming Bad—Sea Level Warming causes sea level rises – seawater expansion and glacial melting Tolman 2009 (4/30. about 7 million years ago. A rise in sea level. Earth and Env. rose one meter (1. the Maldives and the Marshall Islands). "POSITIVE FEEDBACKS AND CLIMATE RUNAWAY THE NEED TO ACT WITHOUT DELAY". Global mean temperature three million years ago was only 2-3ºC higher than it is today while sea level was 25±10 m (80±30 ft) higher. several small island states (e. and vegetation to fully respond. is shown in Figure 2. Bangladesh would produce 120 million refugees. The Earth’s history reveals cases in which sea level. submerging large parts of the Delmarva Peninsula. When the atmosphere last had a concentration of 560 ppm. New York Review of Books. most of them far larger than New Orleans. Earth Institute. Note that the solid points represent equilibrium conditions—with enough time for the oceans.1 yards) every twenty years for centuries. http://pubs. LVW climate change taskforce. there was no Greenland ice sheet and considerably less ice in Antarctica. the spread of diseases. It may require as much as a few centuries to produce most of the long-term response. our best information comes from the Earth’s history. Fifty million people in the US live below that sea level.36 and other low lying areas. A recent paper using data on land elevation and population in coastal areas reports that a sea level rise of just 6 m (20 ft) would inundate over The relationship between global average temperature and sea level.. Teddy & Megan . the United States would lose most East Coast cities: Boston.g. once ice sheets began to collapse. Mitchell. Sci. Massive ice sheets last time that the must be softened and weakened before rapid disintegration and melting occurs and the sea level rises. ice. India would lose the land of 150 million people. Washington. The Earth was five degrees warmer was three million years ago.35 Florida. which shows a projected temperature of about 18ºC and a sea level rise of 1 m in 2100. “THE THREAT TO THE PLANET”. WEA) Of all the threats posed by global warming—more severe droughts and floods. @ Columbia U. Devastation from a rising sea occurs as the result of local storms which can be expected to cause repeated retreats from transitory shorelines and rebuilding away from them. A 50-ft rise would drown many large coastal cities and can aptly be called “catastrophic”. is based on the fact that the ice will not have had nearly enough time by then to fully respond to the temperature change. Director @ NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Prof.nasa. But the inertia of ice sheets is not our ally against the effects of global warming. indeed.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen. with their major cities on coasts and their dependence on ports for international trade.cfm&CONTENTID=13409. Eighty feet! In that case. drawn through the solid That kills hundreds of millions Hansen 6 (James. necessarily.pdf) How much will sea level rise with five degrees of global warming? Here too. increased forest fires. when sea level was about eighty feet higher. and (2) water runs into the oceans from glaciers melting on land. sea levels also rise for two reasons: (1) Seawater expands as it warms. practically the entire nation. based on earth’s behavior for the past 40 million years. The best straight line points has a slope of 20 m/°C (37 ft/°F). and Miami. This means that we can expect an equilibrium sea level rise of 20 meters (67 ft) for each 1°C rise in global average temperature. Philadelphia. more intense hurricanes. crop yield losses. much of Bangladesh.lwv. China would have 250 million displaced persons. Other places would fare worse.cfm? Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay. begins slowly. New York. A critical question is: How rapidly will the ice melt? If we are lucky and the melting is slow enough. That would be a calamity for hundreds of cities around the world. practically the entire state of Florida would be under water. and sea level rise—the last poses perhaps the most obvious threat to modern industrial societies. twice what it was in 1750. we may be able to manage a staged retreat from the coasts. http://www.34 If just the Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets melt.

Mitchell. crop failures. we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North. New Perspectives Quarterly. destruction of energy. 9:3. health. They and their leaders have embraced market principles—and drawn closer to the west—because they believe that our system can work for them. India—these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the ‘30s. “Outer Limits to America’s Turn Inward”. 89 Ellis. Teddy & Megan . this new failure—the failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of worldwide depression—will open their eyes to their folly. Economic downturn causes global nuclear war Mead 92 (Walter Russell. Russia. and communications infrastructures.wattpad. and public health costs. The European insurers have also spent large amounts on public education.Climate Politics Page 89 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Warming Bad—Economy Climate change kills the insurance industry and the overall economy. insurers have been economically defensive and politically invisible. 30) If so. The concern of the European insurers is reflected in their estimates of coming economic losses. covered the Stockholm UN Conference on the Environment in 1973 and addressed the Davos World Economic forum in 1998 ("Boiling point". They are refusing to insure known storm corridors and selling the risk off to the public. The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) has projected that climate damages will amount to $150 billion a year within this decade. And two years ago.longtime editor and reporter for the Philadelphia Bulletin Washington Post and Bostong Globe. WEA) The responses of the insurance industry have been equally schizophrenic. Hundreds of millions—billions—of people around the world have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. China. they aligned themselves with a coalition calling for the largest initial cuts (20 percent below 1990 levels)--the Alliance of Small Island States. Britain's biggest insurer projected that. climate change could bankrupt the global economy by 2065--from property damage due to sea level rise and increasingly severe storms and floods.S. newspaper advertising. rich against poor. countries whose stability is threatened by rising sea levels and increasingly intense storm surges. unchecked. President’s Fellow @ World Policy Institute @ New School. losses in the travel and tourism industries. They are keeping silent By contrast. most U. In the early rounds of the climate talks. from Jamaica to the Philippines. Insurers in this country have withdrawn coverage further and further inland from coastlines. those losses will amount to $300 billion a year. The big European insurers have been politically proactive. politically.com/28668-Boiling-Point-by-Ross-Gelbspan-Excerpt. Summer. http://www. But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates—or even shrinks? In that case. p. The world's largest insurer-Munich Reinsurance-has said that within several decades. and political capital on the climate threat. Gelbspan 2004 .

. @ SUNY Buffalo. by 30 percent by 2050 in Asia and by 30 percent in Latin America before 2080. and biodiversity stress. To Wilson.5 billion people in the developing world are likely to be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change by 2020.asp. the worst thing that will happen to earth is not economic collapse. J. Mitchell.R. If scientists are correct in their assessments of current extinctions and reasonably confident about extinction rates in the near future. 14) when compared to all other environmental problems. extinction species can never be replaced. The chapters that follow evaluate that response in the United States. Complacency in the face of this terrible dilemma is inexcusable. the depletion of energy supplies. agricultural. climate change could wreck havoc with ecosystems. Wilson reasons that they can be repaired within a few generations. p. or even nuclear war.com/ens/feb2008/2008-02-01-10. Associate Prof. “From the standpoint of permanent despoliation of the planet. then a concentrated and effective response to human-caused extinctions is essential." Pachauri said. "This clearly has major implications for food security worldwide.S. “The Expendable Future: U. "U. Were he to write today he would likely add a note of dire urgency. noting that the IPCC estimates some 1. "Once this kind of damage takes place. no other form of environmental degradation “is anywhere so significant as the fallout of species. human-caused extinctions are likely to be of far greater concern.” Norman Myers observes. Biodiversity loss outweighs nuclear war Tobin 90 (Richard.Climate Politics Page 90 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Warming Bad—Environment Warming destroys ecological resilience—it increases water." said Pachauri. Pegg 2008 (2/1. The panel also estimates agricultural yields will drop by some 50 percent in some African countries.” Ehrenfeld wrote these words in the early 1970s. Environmental News Service. he added. As frightful as these events might be. Pachauri said.” David Ehrenfeld succinctly summarizes the problem and the need for a solution: “We are masters of extermination. Teddy & Megan . The one process ongoing … that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by destruction of natural habitats.” Harvard biologist Edward O. yet creation is beyond our powers…. http://www.ensnewswire. ecological change that humans can cause. WEA) It is the world's poor who are "most vulnerable" to the adverse impacts of climate change. and threatens 20 to 30 percent of the planet's plant and animal species. we really have no way of turning back. 90 Ellis. Lawmakers Urged to Lead Global Warming Battle". Politics and the Protection of Biological Diversity”. Extinction is the permanent destruction of unique life forms and the only irreversible In fact. Furthermore. Wilson is less modest in assessing the relative consequences of human-caused extinctions. No matter what the effort or sincerity of intentions. noting that humans will be impacted by the loss of biodiversity.S. Pol. Sci.

Those diseases are already passing from ecosystems to people--and the World Health Organization now projects that millions of people will die from climate-related diseases and other impacts in the next few decades.' 91 Ellis. Richard Ostfeld. Nonetheless. It accelerates the maturation of the pathogens they carry. The implication is a future of more widespread and devastating epidemics for humans.com/28668-Boiling-Point-by-Ross-Gelbspan-Excerpt. such as those that followed tree pathogen invasions in North America during the last century. As a result. 'It's a much more scary threat than bioterrorism. The greatest impacts of disease may result from a relatively small number of emergent pathogens. Factors other than climate change--such as changes in land use. the numerous mechanisms linking climate warming and disease spread support the hypothesis that climate warming is contributing to ongoing range expansions. and plants. birds and humans. species. The accumulation of evidence has us extremely worried. Teddy & Megan . Mitchell. dengue. pollution. a Cornell University biologist. oysters.wattpad.' said Andrew P. especially for generalist pathogens infecting multiple host species. vegetation. professor at Princeton University's department of ecology and evolutionary biology and one of the authors. terrestrial plants.' 'The most detectable effects of directional climate warming on disease relate to geographic range expansion of pathogens such as Rift Valley fever. Added Dobson: 'Climate change is disrupting natural ecosystems in a way that is making life better for infectious diseases. The risk for humans is going up. As the Boston Globe reported: 'Researchers have long accepted that global warming will affect a wide range of organisms. but we are alarmed. and parasites-as well as in such a wide range of hosts including corals.' The researchers reported that the climate-driven spread of diseases will 'contribute to population or species declines. a team of researchers reported that rising temperatures are increasing both the geographical range and the virulence of diseases.' 'What is most surprising is the fact that climate-sensitive outbreaks are happening with so many different types of pathogens-viruses. We share diseases with some of these species. It expands the range of insects. http://www. nor just a question of malaria for a few health officials--the number of similar increases in disease incidence is astonishing. WEA) There is one group of creatures for whom global warming is a boon. it’s comparatively a bigger threat than bioterror Gelbspan 2004 . Epidemics caused when these infect new hosts with little resistance or tolerance may lead to population declines. 'We are seeing lots of anecdotes and they are beginning to tell a story. one of the most responsive to temperature changes is insects. or increase in drug-resistant strains--may underlie these range expansions. and Eastern oyster disease. [this] report was the first to study dozens of diseases in both humans and nonhumans. bacteria. In 2002. covered the Stockholm UN Conference on the Environment in 1973 and addressed the Davos World Economic forum in 1998 ("Boiling point".longtime editor and reporter for the Philadelphia Bulletin Washington Post and Bostong Globe. While climate change scientists have studied a handful of human diseases. allowing them to live longer at higher altitudes and higher latitudes.Climate Politics Page 91 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Warming Bad—Disease (1/2) Global warming fuels disease spread through pathogens and insects.' added another member of the research team. Dobson. animals. Of all of the systems of nature. climate change is fueling the spread of a wide array of insect-borne diseases among populations.' wrote lead author Drew Harvell. but they are only now beginning to predict what those will be. Warming accelerates the breeding rates and the biting rate of insects. 'We don't want to be alarmist. and entire ecosystems all over the planet. fungi.' 'This isn't just a question of coral bleaching for a few marine ecologists.

it could happen tomorrow.which turns internal organs into liquid . "This raises the very real possibility that lethal. Dr Ben-Abraham said: 92 Ellis.Climate Politics Page 92 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Warming Bad—Disease (2/2) And diseases will cause extinction South China Morning Post. Teddy & Megan . University in New York. Imagine. complex and dangerous organism. If there is no cure. There is a much more pressing medical crisis at hand . for the first time. Mitchell." he said." He cites the 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreak as an example of how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence. Fifteen years ago. The shock of the AIDS epidemic has prompted virus experts to admit "that something new is indeed happening and that the threat of a deadly viral outbreak is imminent". lexis) Despite the importance of the discovery of the "facilitating" cell. He added that the problem was "very serious and is getting worse". If this makes Dr Ben-Abraham sound like a prophet of doom. Ebola has had sporadic outbreaks over the past 20 years and the only way the deadly virus .000 in the former Soviet Union . it affects one person and then there is a chain reaction and it is unstoppable.theoretically. then he makes no apology for it. the flu epidemic that has now affected 200. South China Morning Post." he said. 1/4. if it was closer to home: an outbreak of that scale in London. Two decades of intensive study and research in the field of virology have convinced him of one thing: in place of natural and man-made disasters or nuclear warfare. "An airborne virus is a lively. Abundant sources of genetic variation exist for viruses to learn how to mutate and evade the immune system. deadlier than HIV. mysterious viruses would. AIDS." That may sound like a far-fetched plot for a Hollywood film.they are all. And as new "mega-cities" are being developed in the Third World and rainforests are destroyed. the Ebola outbreak which killed more than 100 people in Africa last year. at a recent conference. he says. "It can come from a rare animal or from anywhere and can mutate constantly. The survival of the human species is not a preordained evolutionary programme. 96 (Kavita Daswani. New York or Hong Kong.could be contained was because it was killed before it had a chance to spread. but Dr Ben -Abraham said history has already proven his theory. it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about.one he believes the world must be alerted to: . the "tip of the iceberg". said Joshua Lederberg of the Rockefeller the possibility of a virus deadlier than HIV "Nature isn't benign. It could happen anytime in the next 20 years . few could have predicted the impact of AIDS on the world. infect humanity at a large scale and imperil the survival of the human race. according to Dr Ben-Abraham. humanity could face extinction because of a single virus. It is a tragedy waiting to happen. disease-carrying animals and insects are forced into areas of human habitation.

drought has spawned warlords and armies. dry periods. Water wars go nuclear Weiner in ’90 (Jonathan. Organization says. Where the atmosphere is configured to be wet. 270) If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb. irrigation and power. Pulitzer Prize winning author. and when. drier in others.D. 93 Ellis. a senior researcher at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. tensions over dwindling water supplies and rising populations are reaching what many experts describe as a flashpoint.Climate Politics Page 93 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Warming Bad—Water Wars Warming causes massive droughts ---. Even farther Soon. Richard Seager. At the edge of the Quelccaya Glacier. Patagonia and the U. then we may destroy ourselves with the C-bomb. from North Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates. another city built in a desert. These projections clearly come from a warming forced by rising greenhouse gases. the Southwest will be gripped in a dry spell akin to the Great Dust Bowl drought that lasted through most of the 1930s. "As the air gets warmer. "mechanistically. Lake Mead and Lake Powell. the runoff helps feed the giant capital. "There is an emerging situation of climate refugees. Farther south and east. “The Next One Hundred Years”. The climate will be wetter in some places. he said. gently feeding streams and rivers. Teddy & Megan . you will get more rain. initially increasing the runoff. leaving accusatory rings on the shorelines and imperiling river-rafting companies. this is different. Lima. South Australia. want to believe this is a passing dry spell. . But the atmosphere's temperature is rising fastest at high altitudes. These will not be small droughts. For example. Where the atmosphere is configured to have high pressure and droughts. Much of the world's fresh water is in glaciers atop mountains. In dry and hot seasons. “Warming Will Exacerbate Global Water Conflicts”. the Mideast. many will disappear "What do you think is going to happen when this stops?" Thompson mused of the water. Turkey. the largest ice cap in the Peruvian Andes. more gully washers. the once-mighty Colorado River is looking sickly." According to the IPCC. hydroelectric dams rely on the flow to generate power. The United Nations has said water scarcity is behind the bloody wars in Sudan's Darfur region. Sudan. it comes down is the big uncertainty." he said. But. Already. the models predicted. http://www." Farmers in the Central Valley.puts millions at risk and leads to water wars Washington Post 7 (Doug Struck. Seager predicts that drought will prompt dislocations similar to those of the Dust Bowl. In wet or cold seasons. looked at 19 computer models of the future under current global warming trends. Mitchell. Syria and Iraq bristle over the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. the water flowing through irrigation canals built by the Incas." Global warming threatens water supplies in other ways. Changing weather patterns will leave millions of people without dependable supplies of water for drinking." he said. It's crazy to think they won't go anywhere. Down the mountain. Farms below are dependent on that meltwater.. He has watched the Quelccaya Glacier shrink by 30 percent in 33 years. And what do you think will happen when they go to places where people already live?" The potential for conflict is more than theoretical.000 feet. He has spent more time in the oxygen-thin "death zone" atop mountains than any other scientist. global warming will mean long.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/19/AR2007081900967. They thought a wet 2006 ended a seven-year drought. the glaciers grow with snow. "You are going to intensify the hydrologic cycle." he says. 1 billion people lack access to potable water. Already in the Middle East.html) As global warming heats the planet. They act as mammoth storehouses. a multitude of rivulets seep from the edge of Quelccaya to irrigate crops of maize. In Somalia. editor of the journal Climatic Change and a lead author for the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). where a quilt of lush. the Change Bomb. that means a drying out of areas such as southern Europe. huge cities have grown up on the belief the mountains will always give them drinking water. 170 miles away. Ethiopia and Egypt trade threats over the Nile. He found remarkable consistency: Sometime before 2050. the edges slowly melt. green orchards on brown hills displays the alchemy of irrigation. p. the World Health downstream. there will be more desperate measures. At Stanford University. That's settled science. Ohio State University researcher Lonnie Thompson sat in a cold tent at a rarified 17. "And it will intensify floods. as Mexico dries out. there will be more water in the atmosphere. there will be migration from rural areas to cities and then the U. but this year is one of the driest on record. "It will certainly cause movements of people. And in a world as interlinked as ours. drilling ice cores and measuring glaciers. A climate shift in that single battle-scarred nexus might trigger international tensions that will unleash some of the 60. The spacing of tree rings suggests there have been numerous periods of drought going back to A.000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since Trinity. But where. 8-20. are drying. retreating glaciers and shrinking wetlands that feed the Yangtze River prompted researchers to warn that water supplies for hundreds of millions of people may be at risk. Its reservoirs. "Global warming will intensify drought.S. state water authorities shut off irrigation pumps to large parts of the valley. Southwest. The glaciers are melting. North Africa. For the first time. one explosion may lead to the other. pours himself a cup of tea and says the future is clear. "Do you think all the people below will just sit there? No. forcing farmers to dig wells. a growing stack of studies conclude.washingtonpost. In northern China. but gradually getting smaller and smaller. Stephen Schneider.S. siphoned by seven states before dribbling into Mexico. 800.

said Mack. Geological Survey research shows that increased demand for water and a warmer climate will likely decrease the amount of water available in the streams and aquifers of southeast New Hampshire’s Meanwhile. USGS hydrologist Thomas Mack estimates that summer stream flows. Seacoast region. http://www. more rain. Warming Causes Water Scarcity Climate change increases global water scarcity. in the Seacoast region A lot of the problem has to do with timing. Teddy & Megan . "Global warming's timing problem". allowing it to be plentiful to residents for summer lawn watering and other uses. Daley 7/14/2009 (Beth. Mitchell. warmer temperatures could increase evaporation and lengthen the growing season where water is sucked up by plants. But global warming is causing the snow to melt earlier by around two to four weeks. About half of the water that recharges the region’s aquifer is from spring snowmelt. 94 Ellis.html. That means the aquifer is filling up earlier in the spring. WEA) Evidence is growing that climate change is exacerbating water scarcity problems around the world. instead of snow. a study shows that parts of even drenched New England may be facing water shortages as the world warms and demand increases.Climate Politics Page 94 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext.boston.S. Similar worries are on the minds of Massachusetts and other New England water scientists. is expected to fall in the winter. Boston Globe. could be ten percent less by 2025 than they are today. At the same time. But now.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2009/07/global_warmings_timing_problem. New U. which helps feed groundwater aquifers.

a Senior Scientist at Woods Hole Research Center. Gelbspan 2004 . As of late 2002. noted. Teddy & Megan . the Boreal is the largest land reservoir of carbon on Earth. an explosion in the population of tree-killing bark beetles is spreading rapidly through the forests.org/news_room_detail.” 95 Ellis. Canada has the largest area of peatlands in the world. the deadly bark beetles had spread throughout an area of British Columbia nearly three-fourths the size of Sweden--about 9 million acres.longtime editor and reporter for the Philadelphia Bulletin Washington Post and Boston Globe. Russia and Scandinavia just below the Arctic.aspx?id=32032) “The Boreal Forest is to carbon what Fort Knox is to gold. Canada’s Boreal region is a life-support system for the planet because of its key role in carbon storage. storing at least six times as much carbon per hectare carbon storehouse is due to three key factors: as forested mineral soils. http://www.com/28668-Boiling-Point-by-Ross-Gelbspan-Excerpt. Officials attributed the spread of the insects to unusually warm winters. the colder temperatures reduce decomposition rates. http://www. occupies about 25 percent of the world’s and 50 percent of Canada’s total land area. is not confined to humans. built up over thousands of years. or permanently frozen ground. “The carbon frozen into Canada’s permafrost. Canada’s Boreal Region is LifeSupport for Planet “Clearly. Obviously. David Schindler. resulting in deep organic soils that are thousands of years old. WEA) The risk. This is largely because in boreal climates. 8-12. is one of North America’s largest stores of carbon. “It’s similar to a bank vault containing one of the world’s most valuable and most influential resources for impacting climate change. the growing tar sands destruction and associated carbon emissions in Alberta will seriously hamper Canada’s ability to meet its commitment under Kyoto. an initiative of the Pew Environment Group. the Boreal Forest houses 22 percent of the total carbon stored on the world’s land surface. The map released today illustrates the vast Boreal peatlands that stretch from Quebec and Labrador westward to the Mackenzie Valley.” Canada’s Boreal Forest stores an estimated 186 billion tons of carbon in its widespread forest and peatland ecosystems—the equivalent of 27 years’ worth of global carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. The maps released today document where and how these vital carbon reserves are distributed across Canada. Forests prevent extinction Pew Charitable Trusts 7 (Press Release. encompassing 12 percent of the nation’s land area.pewtrusts. Globally. Vast Permafrost Areas are Key to Carbon Storage Permafrost. “The mapping analysis released today provides vital information to inform modeling of the role of boreal and arctic ecosystems and their feedbacks to the global climate system. It is our hope that the Canadian government will reduce emissions from tar sands development. “The world recognizes that tackling global warming involves both reducing emissions and stopping deforestation and forest degradation. In Canada. Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Canada Program. This globally significant Canada’s Boreal Forest Includes the World’s Largest Peatlands Peatlands are recognized worldwide as highly important for carbon storage. the Senior Scientist at the International Boreal Conservation Campaign (IBCC). But the impact of the warming-driven population boom of insects on humans is likely to be at least--if not more--severe than the impact on the world's forests.wattpad. turning them into tinder for the fires that blanketed the area around Los Angeles. Global Forest Watch Canada compiled the detailed analysis for the International Boreal Conservation Campaign (IBCC) after reviewing extensive government and scientific data of the region. continue taking steps to protect the Boreal and recognize its tremendous value as a global carbon storehouse. Nearly 90 percent of the organic carbon found in Canadian soils occurs in Boreal and Tundra ecosystems. “It’s an internationally important repository for carbon.” Boreal Soils Rich in Carbon The third map of the analysis depicts the carbon stored in Canadian Boreal soils.Climate Politics Page 95 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Warming Bad—Forests Climate change kills global forests through bark beetle spread. Alaska.” With 50 percent of the world's remaining original forests stretching across Canada. The map shows several carbon hotspots distributed across Canada. a Professor of Biology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton.” said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz. The massive wildfires that devastated southern California in the summer of 2003 were also made more intense by a rapid increase in the population of bark beetles that had killed large numbers of trees. Scott Goetz.” said Dr. The permafrost map released today shows that the northern portions of Canada’s Boreal Forest—particularly the western Boreal region— are occupied by vast areas of carbon-rich permafrost. We should do everything we can to ensure that the carbon in this storehouse is conserved. covered the Stockholm UN Conference on the Environment in 1973 and addressed the Davos World Economic forum in 1998 ("Boiling point". “Boreal Forest is World’s Carbon Vault”.” said Jeff Wells. including roughly a third of the Boreal region. with significant concentrations in northern Ontario and Manitoba. of course. Mitchell.

And then there is the threat of disease and epidemics: according to Christian Aid. Jagger 2008 . covered the Stockholm UN Conference on the Environment in 1973 and addressed the Davos World Economic forum in 1998 ("Boiling point". Bianca.wattpad. Those who are most vulnerable are also the most at risk from this threat. 182 million people in sub-Saharan Africa alone could die of diseases and epidemics directly attributable to climate change. Lexis Congressional.Climate Politics Page 96 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Warming Bad—Systemic Death/Poverty Turns systemic death. Melting glaciers will trigger mountain floods and lead to water shortages in South Asia and South America.longtime editor and reporter for the Philadelphia Bulletin Washington Post and Boston Globe.chair of the World Future Council (3/6. Testimony to the House Select Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee." If current trends are allowed to continue.com/28668-Boiling-Point-by-Ross-Gelbspan-Excerpt. and the warming-driven proliferation of allergens. but the World Health Organization calculates that that figure will rise into the millions in the near future-from the spread of various infectious diseases. "Renewable energy". increased heat stress. hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries will lose their homes as well as the land on which they grow their crops. Teddy & Megan . WEA) When the floods have subsided. low-lying country like Bangladesh will find it much harder to cope with sea level rise than a rich region like Florida. by the end of the century. http://www. assistant director-general of the World Health Organization. CQ Congressional Testimony.' said Kerstin Leitner.000 people currently die each year from the impacts of warming. WEA) About 160. Gelbspan 2004 . 'There is growing evidence that changes in the global climate will have profound effects on the health and well-being of citizens in countries around the world. 96 Ellis. Reduced rainfall will aggravate water and food insecurity in Africa. Ban Ki-moon said: "Climate change will affect developing countries the most. Turns all systemic harms globally. unprecedented droughts will occur. A poor. Mitchell.

do exist some issues in our bilateral trade relations." Locke said. the United States would blunt any effort by the EU to impose trade sanctions on U. "Of course.co-chairs the Energy. "For all our areas of agreement. The reduction of global warming gas emissions called for under the Kyoto Protocol will increase electricity prices and therefore the cost of goods. http://www. Growth predicated on ever increasing Chinese exports being consumed by debt-laden Americans provided years of prosperity -. and avoid the risk of a damaging trade war with the EU.S. If the United States continues to resist global pressure to reduce its CO2 emissions. Teddy & Megan .S. America can develop new technologies." 97 Ellis. The risk of trade sanctions by America's largest trading partners due to the failure of the United States to control CO2 emissions should be a real concern to U. Locke said in remarks prepared for a speech to the American Chamber of Commerce. side on promoting trade balance and cooperation on high-tech products. WEA) BEIJING. "Chief trade relationship has to evolve. In this way. including cooperation on high-tech products.Climate Politics Page 97 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Trade Turn Cap and trade checks EU trade retaliation Fontaine 2004 . the United States and China's There are concerns and deep structural issues that must be addressed. Palmer 7/15/2009 (Doug.pur.cfm. goods. industry can find opportunities in China.com/pubs/4419. http://www. it's a separate issue as how to interpret the trade surplus.but it also sowed some of the seeds for our current economic problems. Trade tension non-unique. July 15 (Reuters) - The trade imbalance between the United States and China is not sustainable. much like the Acid Rain Trading Program. plans to promote clean energy technology as one area in which U. regain its credibility in the global deliberations over how to combat global warming. In a globalised world today. "China is trying to promote trade balance." "There The United States is China's second-largest trade partner after the European Union.S. WEA) By adopting some form of national legislation that begins to internalize the costs of global warming.reuters. among them is a bilateral trade imbalance that simply can't be sustained. it will largely cede control over how the rules implementing Kyoto are written and risk trade sanctions by trading partners seeking to reduce the disparity in production costs. increase its exchange rate flexibility.S.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said on Wednesday.S. Public Utilities Reports. and accounts for 18 percent of China's total exports and imports. who will visit Beijing and Shanghai. Lieberman Even under the relatively modest goals of the McCain bill." Chinese commerce ministry spokesman Yao Jian told a press conference on Wednesday. policy-makers.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSPEK303347. and the two countries have a joint responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. U." Yao said. trade surplus does not necessarily mean trade benefits. The EIA analysis points out one fundamental conclusion. pointing out that China mainly exports labour-intensive products. Environmental & Public Utility Practice Group of the Cozen O'Connor law firm (Peter J.-china trade imbalance not sustainable-Locke". Rueters. and open its markets more. To avoid this negative outcome. "U. Locke. the United States should pursue a more pragmatic middle path that confronts the problem of global warming by laying out the necessary domestic framework and economic incentives to create a domestic CO2 emissions market that produces efficient CO2 reductions. China should shift from export-led growth. We have special working groups that are in talks with the U. electricity prices will increase due to the internalization of the costs of the cap and trade system. he said. "Global Warming: The Gathering Storm". China's big surplus in its trade with the United States has become a global concern.. Mitchell.

British policymakers have come under fire (The Times) from the head of the World Trade Organization for a bailout package aimed at stabilizing British automakers. particularly following recent strikes (Bloomberg) calling for President Nicolas Sarkozy to alter his stance toward the economic crisis in order to prevent French job losses. compared to an expansion of 4. ChinaStakes 7/16/2009 (Chinese business news. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned against reliance upon intervention and protectionism to cure economic ills.com/2009/7/china-warns-us-carbon-tariff-will-invite-retaliation. President Barack Obama's pronouncements on trade. and several big banks cancelled the glitzy parties they have traditionally hosted at the summit. in an article published on the OECD's website. prototypal "Davos Man"--the international captain of finance whose prominence and significance has risen meteorically in recent decades--seemed humbled. CFR. trade competitors all impose new and similar climate costs on their energy-intensive industries. Mitchell. "China Warns US: Carbon Tariff Will Invite Retaliation". rebates will vanish.S. the World Economic Forum's annual mega-summit in the Swiss Alps found itself at a crossroads. WEA) Amidst the worst economic crisis in decades. Many of the financial sector's major players skipped the summit altogether (Bloomberg). "We will only make the crisis worse if we succumb to the lure of protectionism and petty nationalism. Teslik 2009 . U. most of the rationale for the U." added Angel Gurria. its trade measures don't unnecessarily aggravate the external relationships that will be needed to get that done. the secretary-general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment at Council on Foreign Relations and Director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change (last updated 6/27. Trade policy could emerge as a flashpoint in the weeks and months to come. trade minister echoed concerns (Reuters) about protectionism. however. Obama aside . isn't the subdued economists fear this year's Davos gloom could foreshadow a broader shift away from the interconnected economic model the World Economic Forum has traditionally embraced. climate legislation. the problem for heavy industry--and the associated trade issues--could become worse as the United States tightens its own rules and regulated companies face steadily higher costs. WEA) In the long term. The concern for policymakers. saying Obama has ignored lessons from the Depression era.David M.html. valued around $3. The International Monetary Fund estimates global trade will contract 2. Rather. saying such policies could backfire (Guardian). Since the United States has few sticks to bring to the climate negotiating table. If we win our modeling claims then you do not have a protectionism turn. Michael A. particularly as major developed economies seek to implement stimulus packages to boost their domestic economies. degree from Harvard (1/30. Protectionism up now—World Economic Forum meeting proves. http://www. Mr. French leaders. for keeping a fair and open market was the consensus reached between leaders of the two countries at the G20 meeting in London. particularly among the leaders of emerging economies. But if major U.cfr. 98 Ellis.chinastakes. As a result. Pleas for economic openness rang out at this year's summit.org/publication/19674/. no one country's industries will be unfairly disadvantaged.. Locke said that China could not close its markets. "Gloomy Portents for Global Trade". face strong protectionist pressures.org/publication/18429/.assistant editor and economics writer for CFR. Teddy & Megan .S. "Trade and Climate Change".Climate Politics Page 98 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Trade Turn China is already acting protectionist in the energy sector. though. saying world leaders must remain vigilant (Xinhua) in their efforts to curb trade protectionism. The Financial Times' John Gapper says the Davos was different this year.S. WEA) China has also come under criticism for protectionism. Lee Hudson. then.S. Levi 2009 . the short-term trade outlook isn't particularly rosy. the United States can't cut through this thicket by itself. too. Ultimately. Egypt's party scene. Democrats are pushing for "Buy American" provisions to be included in President Barack Obama's proposed stimulus package. American enterprises say that China encourages the development of local enterprises by restraining foreign energy companies from entry into the Chinese market.3 billion. as did India's (Reuters). http://www. Congress should make sure that in crafting U. Over time.S. Significant threats loomed for free-trade hawks well before Davos. In a recent op-ed. http://www. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao backed Putin. progress on the international front will depend mainly on cooperative action.1 percent in 2008. Council on Foreign Relations. CFR's Jagdish Bhagwati questioned U. the only solution to the competitiveness problem is global climate action.cfr. The World Bank also projects a contraction--the first decline in global trade since 1982.8 percent in 2009 (WSJ). such as excluding foreign companies from bidding on a recent wind power project.

Mitchell. Teddy & Megan .Climate Politics Page 99 of 156 7WJ – HPSW 99 Ellis.

” The tragic losers of “Buy America” are free trade agreements and potential job growth in the American economy.com/great-debate/2009/06/19/starting-a-trade-war-with/) When Congress inserted “Buy America” protectionist provisions that required some goods (such as steel. magnesium and manganese. Seductively.Jun 25th 2009 (“Duties call. which complained to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) about China’s restrictions on the exports of nine minerals. though less obvious. tempers are fraying as governments struggle and the European Union. including environmental projects such as water and wastewater treatment projects. And on June 6 the delegates at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities passed a resolution calling on “local infrastructure projects. a professor at Dartmouth College. Trade creates jobs not just through investments of foreign companies at home. believes the case against China is a strong one. by which time trade will. America sits at the center of global markets for technology. In reality. is far more significant. Mitchell. potentially destroying well-paid American jobs in the export sector. cement. have recovered from its current moribund state. America and the EU are not resorting to imposing fresh barriers of their own in this dispute. “Buy America” promises workers they can have it all — cheap goods from China. In practice. “Buy America” is shorthand for fewer jobs as other countries retaliate. equipment manufacturing. If Ron Kirk. Teddy & Megan .2% for China this year. will shrink by nearly 10% this year. a think-tank. Unsurprisingly. They conclude that approximately 57 million American workers are employed by firms that engage in international trade. These require recipients of money But trade experts warn that protectionism remains a serious worry. it could drag on for several years. jobs — and also wages —shrink. This effect. fashion.Climate Politics Page 100 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Trade Turn Trade wars inevitable because of the Buy America provision. The latest salvo was fired on June 23rd by America Depression. Furchgott-Roth 6/19 Diana Furchtgott-Roth. America’s new trade representative. reeling from a drastic collapse in global demand (see chart). Andrew Bernard. finance.” Rueters. far above other industrialized countries.” http://www. Protectionism now—World Bank statistic prove Economist 09. says that the case against China may also help the cause of open trade in other ways.com/businessfinance/displaystory. But real life just doesn’t work that way. But America and the EU argue that by hindering their export. 2009 (“Starting a trade war with “Buy America”. as well as protection from global competition. a trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. If the case proceeds to the stage where a formal WTO panel is formed to decide on its merits. for that matter. it is unlikely to have that effect. China’s export restrictions are not new either. When barriers are erected to trade. including bauxite. The Chinese $585 billion stimulus package has resulted in a World Bank growth forecast of 7. but also by increasing employment at exporting firms. oil from Canada. [to] procure goods and materials required for the projects only from companies whose countries of origin do not impose trade restrictions against goods and materials manufactured in Canada.cfm?story_id=13903045) DESPITE the periodic sighting of green shoots elsewhere in the economy. These are important raw materials for the steel industry. Now China and Canada are imposing their own protectionist regulations. When international markets expand. That’s why “Buy America” hurts employment. demonstrates that he is actively enforcing the agreements already in place. he may get “the authority to negotiate Doha and other accords”. and the first decline in trade since a small dip in 1982. John Veroneau.economist. True. with luck. That would be the sharpest fall since the to find ways to protect their own. Jeffrey Schott. Of particular concern are the so-called “Buy China” requirements added to China’s stimulus package this month. even though in February it promised to treat foreign companies equally.June 19th. http://blogs. Other countries may follow suit. Many markets no longer have national boundaries but global reaches. The World Bank said on June 22nd that world-trade volumes. He also argues that this week’s move can be seen as an effort to foster more trade (as there surely would be if China were to ease its export restrictions) at a time when trade is in a great deal of trouble. This week China reported that the government now requires stimulus projects to use domestic suppliers when possible. coke. and China restricts their exports on the grounds that they are exhaustible resources. our government invited a trade war with important economic partners. China is unfairly favouring domestic industries. a former American deputy trade representative. and advertising — to name but a few. the landscape of global trade remains resolutely bare. find that firms that trade goods employ over 40% of the American workforce.reuters. banking. from China’s mammoth fiscal expansion to choose domestic suppliers “unless products or services cannot be obtained in reasonable commercial conditions in China” 100 Ellis. among others. That may be too sanguine. and textiles) financed by the stimulus bill to be made in America. America grows. together with economists Bradford Jensen and Peter Schott.a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

.brookings. at roughly the same time as the Kyoto Protocol.. not only exported products (Article XX).” and the 2001 Doha Communiqué that sought to start a new round of negotiations declares: “the aims of . to non-discrimination (Articles I & III). be acceptable under international law? Under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Harpel Professor of Capital Formation and Growth at the Harvard Kennedy School (6/9. they could not use import barriers in efforts to affect how goods are produced in foreign countries. but also partners’ Processes & Production Methods (PPMs) -. Article XX allows exceptions to Articles I and III for purposes of health and conservation. Teddy & Megan . It says that the Parties should “strive to implement policies and measures. open and non-discriminatory trading system. The drafters of each treaty showed more consideration for the other than do the rank and file among environmentalists and free traders. the controls would have minimized leakage.to minimize adverse effects…on international trade. Jeffrey A. which contained trade controls. Is this an obstacle to the application measures against them at the border? I don’t see why it has to be.12 and (2) if major countries had remained outside. and acting for the protection of the environment . as embodied in electricity or in goods produced with it.James W. so-called Processes and Production Methods (PPMs). must be mutually supportive. the migration of production of banne 101 Ellis.. The WTO regime is more respectful of the environment than was its predecessor. would necessarily violate international agreements. Two precedents can be cited: sea turtles and stratospheric ozone.” Kyoto Protocol text is equally solicitous of the trade regime. Environmentalists failed to notice or consolidate the PPM precedent.edu/events/2008/~/media/Files/events/2008/0609_climate_trade/2008_frankel. as always. arms over this case.subject..WOULD TRADE CONTROLS OR SANCTIONS BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE WTO? Would measures that are directed against CO2 Not many years ago. WEA) V . But things have changed.. respectively.. The true import of a 1998 WTO panel decision on the shrimp-turtle case was missed by almost The everyone. emissions in other countries. "OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING THE LEAKAGE/COMPETITIVENESS ISSUE IN CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY PROPOSALS".Climate Politics Page 101 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: WTO Checks Trade Wars WTO is down with trade restrictions in the environmental context. Mitchell. most international experts would have said that import barriers against carbonintensive goods. provided it did so without discrimination against Asian fishermen. GHG emissions are PPMs. A notorious example was the GATT ruling against US barriers to imports of tuna from dolphin-unfriendly Mexican fishermen.pdf. The WTO (World Trade Organization) came into existence. The big significance was a path-breaking ruling that environmental measures can target. although countries could use import barriers to protect themselves against environmental damage that would otherwise occur within their own borders..” The UNFCC features similar language. Frankel 2008 . The Preamble to the 1995 Marrakech Agreement establishing the WTO seeks “to protect and preserve the environment. and to the contrary were misguidedly up in Another important precedent was the Montreal Protocol on stratospheric ozone depletion. The United States was in the end able to seek to protect turtles in the Indian Ocean.. succeeding the GATT. whether tariffs or quantitative restrictions. http://www. The controls had two motivations13: (1) to encourage countries to join. Brookings Institute..

2454. Teddy & Megan .050 per household by 2020 and $4. Changes to the efficiency provisions bill include the addition of Smart Grid appliances in the BestIn-Class Appliance Deployment Program and a new program operated by small rural electric cooperatives to reduce customer bills and promote energy efficiency and renewable energy.R. 10 percent of the SEED (State Energy and Environmental Development) program is set aside for transportation programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.com/story. which are estimated at over $4. This is a welcome change from the Bush administration energy plan. Efficiency mandates in the cap and trade bill solve any cost concerns.a. Olver 7/6/2009 . http://www. buildings. And according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. In addition.100 between 2001 and 2007.k. and in many ways. the improved efficiency standards the bill creates for appliances.000 jobs by 2030.7 million American jobs over the next two years alone. The bill also changed the distribution of R&D funds. Waxman-Markey). this is the perfect opportunity to make significant investments in industries that will become the base of a new American economy. WEA) The federal energy efficiency provisions included in H.. factories. These estimates do not take into account savings from energy efficient appliances. As our nation faces high unemployment and an ailing auto industry. ACES represents the next step. and power plants will create 770. which raised the average American household's energy costs by $1. 2454. 70 percent of which will go to Advanced Energy Research and 30 percent of which will go to "Energy Innovation Hubs" at universities. The EPA has found that these far-reaching benefits will cost the average American household less than the cost of a postage stamp a day and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 40 percent of households will have no increase at all.iberkshires. the American Clean Energy and Security Act".com/article/gwmCarbonEmissions/idUS363785493920090624. investments in a clean energy economy create four times as many jobs as investments in the oil and gas industry. laborers. could save approximately $1. Less than two months later we approved a budget containing unprecedented support for mass transit and energy innovation. And unlike other jobs. Dollar for dollar. We have passed legislation to green our schools and preserve 2 million acres of wilderness.000 per household per year by 2030. WEA) *NOTE: ACES = the cap and trade bill/the American Clean Energy and Security Act The 111th Congress has addressed this issue with the moral urgency this moment demands. Housing and Urban Development (John W. according to an updated analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). Six months ago we passed an economic recovery act with investments in smart infrastructure and sustainable job creation. as well as changes to the bill made in a Rule's Committee version of the bill released yesterday.reuters. the American Clean Energy and Security Act (a. Rueters 6/24/2009 ("Updated Energy Savings Analysis of H. will create 1. "Letter From Olver: House Passes Comprehensive Energy Legislation". Mitchell. 102 Ellis. and engineers.Massachusetts representative on the House Appropriations Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation.Climate Politics Page 102 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: C&T Kills Economy Cap and trade is the best stimulus—it will create millions of jobs and improve overall efficiency. The Center for American Progress estimates that the transition from foreign oil to clean American energy. the most important one yet. http://www. Changes to ACEEE's analysis come from an updated assessment of savings from a number of provisions. Retrofits will employ building specialists and construction workers while burgeoning solar and wind industries will need machinists. jobs based on clean energy and energy efficiency depend on American resources and cannot be shipped overseas.R. as outlined in this bill.php?story_id=31496.400 per household by 2030.

"House Passes Landmark Climate Change Bill. Mitchell.S. Hannah Shaw. the reductions in carbon pollution required by the legislation will cost American families less than a postage stamp per day. which equals 22 cents to 30 cents per day. **BA in economics and masters degree in social work from U Michigan (3/3. Now Heads to Senate". Bishu 7/17/2009 (Deswta. in addition to raising the cost of using “dirty” energy.cbpp.” said Phil Angelides. That is what the President’s proposal would do. chairman of the Apollo Alliance. reduce harmful carbon emissions. “The American Clean Energy And Security Act is a giant leap forward to establish energy security.org/files/3-3-09climate. Calif. WEA) Some critics of President Obama’s budget have argued that the proposal to place a cap on greenhouse gas emissions to combat global warming represents a tax increase for virtually all Americans. The U. Economists agree that the most efficient way to reduce carbon emissions is either to tax them directly or to put in place a “cap-and-trade system. Stone et al 2009 . called the bill a significant step forward in creating a more equitable and secure country. green jobs here at home and help revive America’s long suffering manufacturing sector. Teddy & Megan . "House Passes Landmark Climate Change Bill. households up to $1. households between $80 and $111 per year. Coalitions of labor and environmental groups praised the House of Representatives for approving key investments in domestic clean energy manufacturing to be part of the Waxman-Markey legislation. That claim is misleading because it focuses on just one aspect of the Administration’s cap-and-trade proposal. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. A separate analysis from the Congressional Prefer our evidence—indicts of the proposal ignores offset mechanisms that blunt any economic impact. "CAP AND TRADE CAN FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING EFFECTIVELY WHILE ALSO PROTECTING CONSUMERS". a well-designed cap-andtrade program also raises substantial revenue that can be returned to consumers to offset the effect of higher energy costs on their budgets.ethiopianreview. will not only position America at the forefront of the clean-energy economy but will also create jobs and opportunities for communities that are too often at the margins – and the smokestack end – of our current economy. http://www.” Green For All CEO Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins said in a statement. WEA) • Protect consumers from energy price increases.-based nonprofit Green For All. with the result that no significant “tax increase” occurs. former executive director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress.ethiopianreview. He called the inclusion of investments to help the country’s manufacturers retool plants and retrain workers for the clean energy economy “a major victory that will keep millions of new. http://www. Ethiopian Review. which was a driving force in securing green job training funds in the The bill includes a $860 million allocation to the Green Jobs Act.pdf. http://www. Budget Office projected an annual cost of $175 for U.com/articles/14962. Chad Stone. the 27 nations of the European Union have operated a cap-and-trade system since 103 Ellis. Environmental Protection Agency estimates the bill in its current form would cost American The American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy concluded the bill's energy provisions would save U.Climate Politics Page 103 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Climate Bill Kills Economy Climate bill key to the economy – creates green jobs and revitalizes the manufacturing sector Bishu 7/17/2009 (Deswta.com/articles/14962. Now Heads to Senate". and Sharon Parrott.*Chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.000 jobs by 2020. In addition. CBO calculates that the legislation will cost the average household less than 50 cents per day. WEA) Oakland.050 cumulatively and produce more than 300.” Let’s quantify it—the most official studies cite the cost to consumers at 30 cents a day.S.”1 Several northeastern states have already implemented a cap-and-trade system on a regional basis as part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. “This legislation American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. According to estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency. It ignores the fact that. households by 2020.and create millions of green jobs that will put our citizens back to work and get our economy back on track.S. Ethiopian Review.

104 Ellis.Climate Politics Page 104 of 156 7WJ – HPSW 2005. Teddy & Megan . Mitchell.

” If anything. Republicans claim it would kill the economy”) The current draft of the bill doesn’t address the question of what proportion of credits to auction off versus hand out to polluters. believe the principles laid out in the bill are very strong and are principles the president and his team can work with. 105 Ellis. Grist News. “Three important players in this issue. NRG’s Crane said his company would not support the bill if it was all auction. Jackson said the administration is willing to collaborate with Congress to develop an allocation and auction scheme..” During another panel session. he looks forward to working with this committee . “As biz leaders call for a climate bill. Jackson was asked the EPA had been able to estimate the costs of the bill to American households—$98 to $140 a year. “Nothing is free. “The EPA’s economic analysis shows that there are no harbingers of huge job loss in this bill. while the committee’s Democratic leadership has indicated that the final product is likely to be a balance between auctions and allocations.) has said this aspect of the bill was left openended so committee members and interested parties like USCAP could weigh in. which will be a highly contentious issue going forward. The Obama administration has said it wants 100 percent auction. 4/23/2009 (Kate Sheppard. But this approach has rankled Republicans on the committee. Jackson said.” she said. “Though [President Obama] has how called for 100 percent auction. that represent the president. and believes that these allowance questions can be addressed. She said the agency based its figures on the assumption that approximately 40 percent of auction revenues would be returned to consumers through rebates.. Bill coauthor Ed Markey (D-Mass.Climate Politics Page 105 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Climate Bill Kills Economy Final bill will be both auctions and allocations – it will cost consumers 38 cents a day – not enough to collapse consumer spending.” LaHood told reporters following their testimony. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Ranking member Joe Barton (Texas) accused the majority of “trying to buy votes” in the process of determining how to give away allowances.) alleged that the lack of specifics is an “intentional move to deceive us so we can’t do the cost-benefit analysis. but the administration believes there will be only “modest impacts. Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Mitchell. Cavaney of ConocoPhillips called for the entirety of the credits to be distributed free of cost in at least the first year of the program. Teddy & Megan . EPA modeling tends to err on the conservative side and overestimate costs.” she continued. and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood offered the Obama administration’s support for the legislation. John Shimkus (R-Ill. or 27 cents to 38 cents a day—even though the measure is incomplete.” said Jackson.

but beyond that I don’t think there’s any specifics agreed upon. CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. who leads the District of Columbia's Public Service Commission.Climate Politics Page 106 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: C&T Kills Economy – Auctions Current bill leads to auctions CNS News. ." If the allowances are sold. "We would discourage the committee from going down that road. The alliance further said that cap and trade is like a distribution of wealth program." said Glenn English. Representatives for rural cooperatives. they could protect consumers from higher energy prices. When asked if he had an idea about how the revenue should be distributed. ranging from the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). Mitchell. it Edison Electric Institute. They said that if Congress decided to give them to the producers of electricity. Says Senate Energy Chairman”) The Climate Equity Alliance. which is comprised of more than a dozen organizations.. The president's budget assumes that allowances will be sold and uses the projected $650 billion in revenue to help people pay for higher energy costs and to develop new. however. “Electricity providers say plan would raise prices”) Consumers will face higher electricity prices if Congress passes a global warming bill without giving utilities some allowances to emit greenhouse gases. "Revenues associated with pricing greenhouse gases would be returned to the very consumers who would be at risk for paying higher energy prices.” Auctions increase consumer spending AP.” he said. Bingaman said. "It should not be legislation that is designed to raise revenue. 4/23/2009 (Dina Cappiello. 4/30/2009 (Nicholas Ballasy. “Obama’s ‘Cap and Trade’ Plan Likely Will Raise Energy Prices. as proposed by President Barack Obama.. The providers say the best way to keep the electricity sector from passing on the cost of reducing greenhouse gases is to initially give away allowances to emit pollution. "Auction is not a good idea. electricity customers will face what Jeffry Sterba." said Richard Morgan. These higher prices would be the result of legislation that would put a price on the gases linked to global warming. told CNSNews. which would take the revenue earned by the federal government through the auctioning of carbon emission permits – cap and trade – and give it to lower-income families to offset the higher energy costs. “Well. electricity providers warned Thursday. Bingaman. 106 Ellis. I don’t think it’s clear what – I think that’s one of the parts of the debate that we need to have – is what happens to any revenue that is generated from the auctioning off of allowances – and I think there are various proposals that call for different ways to distribute that wealth. called would be a windfall for shareholders. I think there’s a general consensus we ought to return as much of it as possible to rate payers. who spoke on behalf of the a "double whammy" — paying for both the price of the allowance and the cost of technologies to reduce emissions. It should be something that is trying to achieve its objective of reducing carbon emissions in the country and that alone." he said. and electric utilities told lawmakers that if they were given the allowances. Teddy & Megan . not sell them. said it is not yet “clear” what the government is going to do with the revenue made from auctioning carbon permits. which represents 42 million consumers in 47 states. utility commissions. more climate friendly energy sources.com that cap and trade is designed to increase energy costs so that consumers invest in alternative (or green) energy sources. “Well.

That is the energy and economic policy America and the world need now. the Climate Security Act. "Save the planet. The countries that lead in inventing and deploying clean-energy technologies will be the great powers of the 21st century. Nine of the world's 10 largest photovoltaic manufacturers are in Europe or Asia. First.President of the Environmental Defense Fund (1/31. RAND Corporation. but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. including a global nuclear exchange. Only with a comprehensive national cap on carbon will the extraordinary clean-energy technologies now being invented be brought to scale at a pace sufficient to save the U. a majority of senators voted to continue the debate. enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers. In 2008. Teddy & Megan . 107 Ellis. Newsweek. And the sun will set on those that fall behind. The decisions the president makes in his first crucial months will determine the course of U.S. On balance. WEA) A switch to a low-carbon energy economy would create 5 million new jobs—from the boardroom to the factory floor—that cannot be outsourced. Spring. Senate. save the country". this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Germany and. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. China.democracy. Presidential leadership can now ensure passage of the strongest possible law. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival. The United States has already dropped in solar-cell manufacturing behind Japan.com/id/177439/output/print. “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold Water”. free markets. most recently. reached the floor of the U.S. Washington Quarterly. technological leadership for decades to come. Nuclear wars Khalilzad 95 (Zalmay. Fred. the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -. 18:2.newsweek. such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems. Mitchell. restoring strength and confidence to the American economy. which tripled production in 2007.Climate Politics Page 107 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Good—Hegemony Cap and trade is vital to overall supremacy—we’re falling behind in the most important sector. and the rule of law. Though it fell victim to Washington gridlock in the end. U.S. Much of the groundwork has been laid. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself. economy—and the planet.S. But quick action is needed.S. U. Krupp 2009 . such as nuclear proliferation. Second. and House lawmakers are readying similar bills for action in 2009. threats of regional hegemony by renegade states. the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. and low-level conflicts. a bipartisan cap-and-trade bill. L/N) Under the third option. Finally. http://www.

Noting Bush's promise to provide an alternative plan to the Kyoto mechanism. the European Union environmental commissioner. had warned him in a memo that he must demonstrate his commitment to cutting greenhouse gases or risk undermining the standing of the United States among its allies. The letter made it clear that to the EU. and other forms of vegetation that absorb carbon—for countries to meet emissions reduction targets. he also saw to it that the plans of other nations to launch a major clean-energy initiative were thwarted by the United States and some of its oil-producing allies. but not to scrap the whole protocol. because it would have sent an extremely strong signal if the U. a Vermont Republican turned In-dependent who chaired the Senate's environmental panel. unilateralist and may appear in some areas isolationist. 2001. Mathews. In 2002." That prediction was realized in September." Margot Wallstrom." EU spokeswoman Annika Ostergren told Reuters News Service. bemoaned the fact that the administration would send a small. the delegates finally agreed on the role of energy in future development. in the international community. Christine Todd Whitman. 2001. a strong proponent of aggressive climate policies. oil. lower-level delegation to Johannesburg in an effort to "narrow the scope of the discussions. a European affairs specialist at the Brookings Institution. Chretien vowed that Canada would proceed to ratify the protocol. That relatively uncompromising position set the tone for a major conference in Johannesburg two years later." she said. but it's also about international relations and economic cooperation.S. who is president of the Carnegie Bush administration's behavior—on this and other fronts—may well have far-reaching diplomatic. The ratification by the European Union followed a declaration. prime minister of Canada. this doesn't do it. acting through the Saudi Arabian and Venezuelan delegations. President George H. pushed through a resolution that would maintain coal and oil as the world's primary fuels. The global and long-term importance of climate change and the need for a joint effort by all industrialized countries in this field makes it an integral part of relations between the USA and the EU. Bush opened a gaping rupture between the United States and Europe on an issue of paramount importance to the Europeans—global climate change." After a week of deadlocks and multiple drafts. and within the business world as well. It is also an issue that is resonating here at home. however. an agreement "leading to real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is of the utmost importance .Climate Politics Page 108 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. the EU voted to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Six days after receiving the letter from the EU. The letter. as well as from conservative members of the Republican Party. the World Summit on Sustainable a global switch to clean energy needs to be at the heart of any major reversal of the growing—and perhaps irreversible—environmental degradation of the planet. exposing deep differences within the auto. The European diplomats were particularly stunned by the fact that the administration had . Mitchell. Not only did George W." Regardless of the substance of any proposal by the Bush administration. [The Kyoto treaty] is very serious and important.S. the United States was ignoring the accelerating integration of Europe. Added French president Jacques Chirac: "The elected leaders of our countries have to consider the problems that have brought tens of thousands of our compatriots. In refusing to support these compacts. Mathews." Kazuo Asakai. "Mr. In the run-up to Johannesburg. grasslands. the EU is no longer a junior partner. just weeks earlier. in the words of the president's press secretary. signed by European Commission president Romano Prodi and Swedish prime minister Goeran Persson. it required no deadlines or timetables for action. to demonstrate their concern. Bush received a stern letter from the fifteen-nation European Union condemning his action. that he would no longer seek to regulate such power plant emissions. Teddy & Megan . led by the EU. this is a credibility issue for the U. decision on Kyoto could become a turning point in trans-Atlantic relations.com/28668-Boiling-Point-by-Ross-Gelbspan-Excerpt) Although the battle over the climate issue is most vividly illustrated by the relentless resistance of big coal and big oil within the United States. Bush's EPA administrator.. Within a month of taking office. "It will have a tremendous impact . telling reporters that Bush's position was a heavy blow to the international effort to curb global warming.. Bush refrain from attending. The Bush reach of international governance institutions. Bush." wrote Jessica. a number of countries. and European commissioner Margot Wallstrom warned that the pressure was now on the United States. In preparing for the summit. administration's diplomatic posture mirrored one of its central ideological goals: the drastic reduction of the power and influence of government domestically—and the concurrent reduction of the influence and Bush aroused the suspicions of many U. including a skeptical Jean Chretien. the world's biggest single emitter of greenhouse gases." she wrote in a March 6. a month after his inauguration. and the Biological Weapons Control Treaty. covered the Stockholm UN Conference on the Environment in 1973 and addressed the Davos World Economic forum in 1998 ("Boiling point". told the Washington Post.. that the EU would get most of its reductions from new renewable energy installations rather than from the dubious and less reliable mechanism of international emissions trading." Swedish prime minister Goeran Persson was sharply critical of Bush. "Sometimes people think this is only about the environment. Most tellingly. "Japan will be dismayed and deeply disappointed. "Economically. consequences. a top official in the Japanese embassy in Washing-ton. called Bush's decision "very worrying. to demonstrate their wish to change. The statement dismayed many Democrats—and a number the strongest negative response came from across the ocean. Endowment for International Peace. the United States. Jeffords. he reversed his campaign promise to cap emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants. allies when. The demonstrators' anger at the United States was noted by several foreign leaders. and insurance industries. eighteen months earlier. It has a larger population than the 108 Ellis. The consequences of the "The U. noted that the Bush administration turned its back not only on Kyoto but also on four other major international compacts: the International Criminal Court. leaders of countries in Europe and elsewhere declared that made clear a month before the summit what its position would be. President. between Washington and many U." The president's response to the EU of Republicans. put the issue of renewable energy near the top of the world's sustain-ability agenda.S. But near the end of the meeting. That split over the climate crisis would be reflected in growing divisions between the United States and the rest of the world. challenged Bush to find the "political courage" to tackle the climate crisis. She demanded a tight limit on the use of so-called carbon sinks—forests.S. "The EU is willing to discuss details and problems. "We need to appear engaged." Despite U.wattpad. In an article in Foreign Policy.W. including then treasury secretary Paul O'Neill. Chretien said he would listen to an American proposal but "was not waiting for it. Ironically. the ban on antipersonnel land mines. "We have lost an opportunity to move forward substantially on renewable technologies internationally. http://www. to step up to the challenge. Bush's withdrawal from the Kyoto process created the impression that Bush "[is] hawkish. That perception moved from the diplomatic corridors to the streets a few months later when tens of thousands of demonstrators mounted a massive protest in Genoa against the Bush withdrawal from the Kyoto process. memo. Business Council for Sustainable Energy. Gelbspan 4 . "It is not in the United States' economic best interest.. intransigence. the Europeans continued to pursue a policy to slow global warming. when Bush refused to attend the 191-nation summit—despite the presence of an array of world leaders. it has rippled throughout the political." Her fears were well founded. she asserted . President George W.S. mainly from European countries." said Michael Marvin. "The European Union urges the United States to reconsider its position. had stuck with the Kyoto protocol. But failed to inform them of its plan before announcing it to the media was unequivocally dismissive. As Senator James Jeffords (I–VT) made clear.S.editor and reporter for the Philadelphia Bulletin Washington Post and Boston Globe. T. state and city governments. the biodiversity treaty." according to Helmut Sonnenfeldt. French environment minister Dominique Voynet declared that the core position of the EU was to ensure that countries made most of their emissions cuts through domestic action rather than through trading emissions credits. But the final resolution endorsed such unsustainable technologies as clean coal and large-scale hydropower. Bush withdrew the United States from the Kyoto Protocol because. Under pressure from lobbyists in the coal industry. Nine days after his announcement." Persson said. Bush announced on March 13. Climate Kt Leadership Inaction on climate threatens overall leadership. But the United States Development (WSSD). as the WSSD approached. and business arenas—pitting nations and industries against each other and even setting the federal government against many states. as well as climatic. Their agenda. the White House would try to "keep global climate change off of the agenda" at the Johannesburg meeting. executive director of the U. "If we're truly looking to change patterns of investment. diplomatic. In November 2000.S. and despite the fact that a predecessor summit in 1992 in Rio had been attended by his father. centered on plans both to boost renewables and to revive what was al-ready quickly becoming a moribund Kyoto process.

.S. And these issues create a need for new rules that "nibble away at the edges of national sovereignty"—a trend that runs directly counter to the neo-nationalism of the Bush administration. a larger percentage of world trade. Her conclusion: The current U.S. are better served by [participating] in shaping rules and procedures rather than in sulking outside the tent. position on climate change. .Climate Politics Page 109 of 156 7WJ – HPSW United States. which is epitomized by the U. not to mention its legitimacy and capability as a world leader. leadership. Mathews wrote.S. Teddy & Megan .' 109 Ellis. Mitchell. This "a la carte multilateralism"—in which the United States decides which issues it is willing to cooperate on—"is not an approach that goes down easily" in the rest of the world. the world's single superpower must acknowledge that its power no longer translates . Though Europe cannot challenge U. posture. and approximately equal gross domestic product. 'America's interests.S. could well result in the loss of Americas position as global political leader. into a community of Western democracies and Third World dependents ready to fall into line behind U. political or military supremacy. Climate change is the leading edge of an increasing number of problems that are truly global in scope." she wrote at the end of 2001.

Michael A. The macroeconomic impact of smart climate policy will likely be small. 110 Ellis.. WEA) Concerns about the possible competitive impact of climate regulations have been grossly exaggerated. "Trade and Climate Change".S. Mitchell.David M. reasonable. economic growth will still be able to power a vibrant and internationally competitive economy. Most companies will see at most limited changes in how they function day to day. meaning that robust U. addresses that by providing rebates to firms in those sectors to blunt the cost. CFR.S. cement. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment at Council on Foreign Relations and Director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change (last updated 6/27. Nonetheless. That approach is. Teddy & Megan . in principle. It would cushion the blow for trade-exposed heavy industry while maintaining the integrity of a U.org/publication/19674/. But the devil is in the details--and the current bill gets the details wrong. http://www. and chemicals toward unregulated (or less regulated) competitors abroad.Climate Politics Page 110 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Competitiveness Turn Climate bill doesn’t destroy competitiveness – actual effect on companies is minimal and rebates solve Levi 2009 . The climate bill. High carbon prices could tilt the competitive playing field in areas like steel. industries that use lots of energy and whose goods are traded globally have some reason to be nervous about a cap-and-trade system. emissions cap.cfr. aluminum. known as Waxman-Markey.

The winners won't be only the obvious players—solar-cell companies and wind-turbine manufacturers. and unlock the immense amounts of capital needed for America's innovators and entrepreneurs to remake this $6 trillion industry. waiting for Congress to provide certainty that this new commodity—carbon reductions—will have enduring value.Climate Politics Page 111 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Cap And Trade Fails/Economy Turns Cap and trade solves—it will unleash innovation for new energy sources and boost the manufacturing industry. With seven words. he must ensure that the U. The right policy to confront climate change is also the best policy to achieve energy independence and enduring national security.S. global—manufacturing. its entrepreneurial spirit and the immense power of its markets and workforce. The supply chain behind each of these renewable technologies winds its way through the heart of U. economy—the real economy. not the paper one that went up in flames this past fall. to meet all these challenges. contains 8.President of the Environmental Defense Fund (1/31. A carbon cap would unleash America's greatest strengths—its spectacular capacity for innovation.000 pieces. for instance. wind. http://www.S. Mitchell. but the three are best dealt with together. indeed.newsweek. Newsweek. and for making more efficient use of energy. Companies and workers a comprehensive cap-and-trade bill would deliver immediate benefits in new demand. A cap heat and biofuels. In other words.S. Those companies are just the tip of a giant iceberg. Fred. The right policy to protect our planet is also the best policy to revitalize the U. and 111 Ellis. world-changing climate legislation that establishes a declining cap on carbondioxide emissions and creates a market for U. That might seem too much to manage all at once. he could strike a definitive blow for the forces of change: "America will cap its global-warming pollution. concrete foundations and steel towers. a dependence on imported oil and a rapidly deteriorating environment. Krupp 2009 . Obama must attack them together. make those 8.000 parts—including bolts. the biggest business in the world. save the country"." To make good on this promise. would allow American business to make the transition gradually. WEA) The new administration will face three closely linked problems—a badly damaged economy.com/id/177439/output/print. Hundreds of millions of dollars of venture capital have already flowed into the emerging technologies for capturing energy from the sun.—and. assuming oil averages roughly $50 a barrel. A comprehensive cap and-trade plan would begin to free America from the debilitating grip of imported oil: a recent MIT study concluded that a carbon cap would stem the outflow of nearly $500 billion in petrodollars by 2030. "Save the planet. copper wiring. geothermal Hundreds of billions more are poised on the sidelines. A carbon cap would also create vast new demand for low-carbon energy solutions. Teddy & Megan . customers and jobs. Congress passes comprehensive. ball bearings. striving to do no less than transform the world's energy economy. mobilize the market to find the quickest and cheapest way to reduce emissions. companies to profit from reducing that pollution.S. Each wind turbine.

and no continued federal and state emission reduction programs. EIA assumed.. Environmental & Public Utility Practice Group of the Cozen O'Connor law firm (Peter J.4 cents per kilowatt-hour to 6. EIA predicts average electricity prices will increase under the bill from 6.co-chairs the Energy. WEA) *NOTE: EIA = Energy Information Administration EIA's May 2004 analysis of the bill found that allowance costs will fall largely on the electricity sector and would be passed on to consumers. such programs are likely to continue. Also.cfm.Climate Politics Page 112 of 156 7WJ – HPSW EIA Indict (Electricity Prices) The EIA analysis is flawed—more realistic studies prove the consumer costs would be miniscule.8 in 2010 (about $33 per household per month).7 Program-that emissions to year 2000 levels by 2015.com/pubs/4419. Fontaine 2004 .0 in 2020 (about $108). Mitchell. By changing this single assumption from EIA's analysis MIT found that monthly costs to the average household would be only $15 to $20. Teddy & Megan . "Global Warming: The Gathering Storm". MIT also studied the bill but assumed-based on experience from the Acid Rain sources would make substantial early reductions in non-CO2 emissions that would be banked for later sale. and from to 9. unrealistically. no market penetration of new low-emission technologies (despite billions of federal R&D spending). no significant fuel-shift to natural gas (despite this market's historic unpredictability).1 in 2025 (about $200). Public Utilities Reports. and will further reduce the bill's costs by independently contributing toward the bill's modest goal of reducing CO2 6. from 6.pur. 112 Ellis. Obviously.7 to 8. http://www.

Mitchell. Teddy & Megan .Climate Politics Page 113 of 156 7WJ – HPSW ***Climate Bad*** 113 Ellis.

but its growth rate is lower than any other energy source. Global nuclear capacity stands at 372. The Star Pheonix (Saskatoon.000 megawatts. In total. given that only 14 are now under construction. Vol. July/august. attracted $71 billion in private investment last year. Proquest) Globally. Twelve have been under construction for 20 years or more. global nuclear power capacity grew by less than 2. 34 nuclear reactors were being built worldwide. because more than half the world's nuclear power plants are over 20 years old. 19. Mitchell. lexis) A second myth is that nuclear is now gaining worldwide acceptance. reports the Worldwatch Institute. that it is experiencing a kind of renaissance. Meanwhile. By the end of 2007.000 megawatts in 2007. the nuclear industry attracted nothing. more than 124 reactors have been retired by the commercial nuclear industry since 1964. 08 (Paul. 12. world electricity demand is projected to grow by more than 30 percent (the equivalent of more than 500 nuclear power plants) during this same period. Global nuclear power decreasing now Flavin. This is virtually inconceivable. reducing capacity by 36. While the red-hot renewable industry. At least 70 nuclear plants would have to be built in the next decade just to replace those that are projected to be closed. The reality is quite different. Growth was just 0. Teddy & Megan . “Nuclear industry spins new mythology”. Is Nuclear Viable?. nuclear power is more likely to decline than to increase in the coming years.800 megawatts. including wind and solar.Climate Politics Page 114 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Nuclear Power Decreasing Nuclear power is dead – growth is slow and leveling off Hanley. Saskatchewan). 6 –Christopher. A recent Time magazine article. a figure equivalent to just one-tenth of the new wind power installed globally that year. reports that the American nuclear industry is so unattractive that it is unable to attract private investment.5 per cent in 2007. President of World Watch Institute (“Brave Nuclear World?/Commentary: Nuclear revival? Don’t bet on it!”. 6/24. pg. 114 Ellis. Meanwhile. compared to 27 per cent for wind energy.

C. an element whose nucleus can be split. D.products and released tremendous power. We face the extinction of our species. just as King Midas inadvertently sacrificed his daughter to his greed. nuclear energy came to the world. as well as founder of the organization Plutonium Free Future (Mayumi. the scientists felt there had to be some peaceful use. Splitting the atom created extremely toxic by." It is a dream of unending wealth and power. Decades of research led finally to fuel reprocessing and prototype fast-breeder reactors that forever produce more fuel than they use. Thus. No civilized nation would use them on the cities of an adversary. Gaining the power of gods. an alchemy transmuting common lead into unlimited quantities of gold. This lethal legacy is about to become out of control. ed. some way to redeem the horror they had created. In 1941. A thorn of violence stuck in the flesh of our Earth and started to infect us. Out of guilt.Climate Politics Page 115 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Nuclear Power Bad – Extincion Nuclear power risks extinction Oda. has admitted to the world at large that nuclear weapons are obsolete. But we all know that small bands of fanatics or terrorists might. At that moment something happened to us. 2000 – Lecturer at the United Nations NGO Forum and Women of Vision Conference in Washington. that wound of violence will fester and never heal. Aerospace Defense Command. 292-293) General Charles Horner. Children have been living under the fear of the possibility of not being survived by anybody. Until we remove the thorn of plutonium from the world. the myth of Midas and of Faust. we left a lethal legacy to our children and future generations. we are truly facing nuclear terror. the oldest dream of mankind. In Japan this is called "the dream energy. and now that the Cold War is over. Teddy & Megan . American scientist Glenn Seaborg succeeded in isolating plutonium.S. Fear of total nuclear death is the source of the violence of our time. John Bradley. pg. 115 Ellis. After more than fifty years of the Nuclear Age. “From Nuclear Patriarchy to Solar Community” from “Learning to Glow”. head of the U. Mitchell.

not totally analogous but should carefully examine what we do in introducing -. with the world awash in plutonium and highly enriched uranium.former deputy director of the U. I think we should -.not necessarily stay under our control because I think -. And I think that with based on a misunderstanding status for nuclear power at that time that led to a different -. Turn . and others are free to develop weapons without the admonitions that the United States and the United Nations are imposing upon Iran and North Korea.S Arms Control and Disarmament agency (Spurgeon. 116 Ellis. In the context of promoting nuclear energy. While the Bush proposal includes taking the spent fuel back to the United not clear that that process can be undertaken with no cheating. SUBJECT: CAN NUCLEAR ENERGY GO BEYOND THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005? June 18. and by encouraging it on our terms we would have a better role.(off mike) -because we're going to have to subsidize it. China.S. KEENY: I'd just like to add one point. Mitchell. 134135) In light of terrorist attacks using conventional weapons.(inaudible) -. PANEL II OF A COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS SYMPOSIUM. stating that it will use them preemptively even against non-nuclear nations. 07 . Then we proceed into the age of nuclear terrorism. Israel. eight nation-states-Russia. France. This strange juxtaposition of opposing attitudes needs to be examined in the context of the sixty-five-year history of nuclear fission and related weapons development. nuclear leadership fails – overall nuclear hypocrisy makes prolif and terrorism inevitable Caldicott. We should be very careful in thinking it through as to whether we can control the inevitable by doing things at our initiative that will soon get out of -(inaudible) -. L/n. it is only a matter of time before someone steals enough plutonium to make an adequate nuclear weapon. which can then be separated by reprocessing and converted to fuel for nuclear weapons. And -. President Eisenhower had a well-intentioned unfortunate initiative and that his "Atoms for Peace" proposal and it was well. the Bush administration pursues its own nuclear armament development policy that makes it increasingly likely that a rogue nation will procure and possibly use nuclear weapons. It is instrumental in denying the right to build nuclear weapons to all but a handful of countries.I sort of see that theme emerging again and themes that are strangely reminiscent of that -. it is Thus. and Pakistan-possess their own nuclear arsenals. These really poor undeveloping countries can't afford the capital costs of any kind of nuclear program. The United States has adopted three contradictory stances at the same time: It is aggressively forging ahead to build more nuclear weapons. The fission process makes plutonium.(off mike) -.expanding nuclear leadership increases tech transfer – this increases prolif Keeny.Climate Politics Page 116 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Nuclear Power Leadership U. India.a very foolish program of spreading nuclear reactors all over the world to people who hadn't the remotest idea what to do with them -.(inaudible).how to use them. even as there is much hand-wringing at the United Nations about the possibility that Iran and North Korea may be developing nuclear weapons. Meanwhile. 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen. Teddy & Megan . rday) MR.last couple of decades trying to retrieve the remnants of that program. Britain. Going back half a century. Nuclear Power is not the answer.intentioned and was based on a thesis that nuclear power would be so commonplace that it had to be accepted as a worldwide phenomenon.fast -. pg. it has offered dozens of countries nuclear technology and access to nuclear power fuel. the United States. States.

A crude atomic bomb sufficient to devastate a city could certainly be crafted from reactor grade plutonium. We are not the ones developing atomic bombs. 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen. 141142) As for those nations currently vying to add nuclear capability to their arsenals. suitable for bomb fuel. as well as the risk of materials and technology getting into the hands of terrorists.. or even to reprocessed plutonium from spent fuel. a situation that will further destabilize an already unstable world. http://www. nuclear power plants are essentially atomic bomb factories. and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons largely from uranium enrichment facilities. In addition to Iran and North Korea. As the global nuclear industry pushes its nefarious wares upon developing countries with the patent lie about "preventing global warming. nuclear power plants offer the perfect cover. A 1. high oil and gas prices and the actions that must be taken to address climate change – namely. Nuke power causes terrorism and prolif Pascual. Most nuclear technology associated with nuclear power can be diverted for use in weapons production: North Korea has almost certainly built at least two nuclear weapons using plutonium obtained from its research nuclear reactors. Higher energy and carbon prices will make nuclear power a more attractive option in national energy strategies. 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen. Mitchell. Nuclear energy provides the perfect cover for nuclear weapons development by militarizing states. India created a nuclear arsenal from heavy water nuclear power plants. Nuclear Power is not the answer. new technology and conservation to control its emission – will drive another existential threat: the risk of nuclear proliferation.. normally ten pounds of plutonium is fuel for an atomic bomb. said recently when referring to the United States. "Who do you think you are in the world to say you What kind of right do you think you have to say Iran cannot have nuclear technology? It is you who must be held accountable.brookings. As the new president MahmoudAhmadinejad of Iran. Caldicott. Israel developed a very large nuclear arsenal from plutonium created in a reactor specifically designated for that purpose. this chapter will look at three of the nuclear-haves who built their nuclear weapons arsenals using various components of the nuclear fuel cycle. 2008 . which is now actively developing uranium enrichment facilities. the more they will want to control the fuel cycle. Therefore any non-nuclear weapons country that acquires a nuclear power plant will be provided with the ability to make atomic bombs (precisely the issue the world confronts with Iran today). pg. displayed over the years by the nuclear-haves. 117 Ellis. it's others who do that. Nuclear Power is not the answer) Adding to the danger." collateral consequences will include the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Ironically.Vice President and Director for Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution (Carlos. “The Geopolitics of Energy: From Security to Survival”. and the more reliant that countries become on nuclear power. It is only a short step from uranium enrichment for energy to the production of highly enriched uranium suitable for atomic bomb fuel.000 megawatt nuclear reactor manufactures 500 pounds of plutonium a year. "It cannot be that some countries that have developed nuclear energy prohibit those of the third world from developing it.Climate Politics Page 117 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Nuclear Power Bad – Prolif Nuclear power plants are bomb factories risking prolif Caldicott.aspx) pricing carbon at a cost that will drive investment. Teddy & Megan . The risk of breakout from civilian power to weaponization would increase dramatically. January.edu/papers/2008/01_energy_pascual. Many countries are angry about the paternalism and arrogance are suspicious of our nuclear activities? ."! Hugo Chavez of Venezuela displayed similar feelings when he said recently.

118 Ellis. producing more energy than they consume. it is argued.Climate Politics Page 118 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Reprocessing Solves Prolif Reprocessing makes prolif and terrorism more likely Sweet. partly to create an impression that the disposal problem is solved. Kicking the Carbon Habit: Global Warming and the Case for Renewable and Nuclear Energy. and it would open the door to a so-called "plutonium economy" in which breeder reactors would run on the recycled fuel. Spent fuel from reactors. left alone. pg. however. This is why President Jimmy Carter was right to terminate all US work on reprocessing and breeder reactors in 1977 a policy that should be rigorously upheld. while in some ways complicating the whole situation by creating more streams of different radioactive materials that all have to be specially handled. Extraction of re-burnable uranium and plutonium from spent fuels. But recycling does not really solve the disposal problem: it merely reduces the volume of waste that has to be permanently stored (and that volume is relatively small to begin with). Mitchell. Teddy & Megan . partly to stretch fuel resources. it can be handled quite easily and could be used directly by a terrorist group or be stolen and sold to a government seeking to obtain nuclear weapons quickly and surreptitiously. 6 – Senior news editor for the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (William. is too radioactive to be readily handled by a criminal gang. 191-192) What certainly is not desirable as a supposed solution to the waste problem is reprocessing and recycling of nuclear fuels-an approach the nuclear industry has promoted in many countries. and extracting weapons-usable material from it would be beyond the capabilities of even an organization like AI Qaeda in the days before its large training camps were broken up. As for the stretching of nuclear fuels. greatly reduces the physical quantity of waste that must be permanently stored. When plutonium is extracted from spent fuel commercially. that benefit comes at the cost of having to widely transport fuels consisting of pure fissile material that could be ripe targets for terrorists seeking to build bombs.

ieer. but actually “consumes” (primarily as lost water vapor) 33 million gallons per day from the local supply. http://www. In Georgia.html) Nuclear power brings its own severe vulnerabilities that are not related to climate change or the severe routine pollution often associated with coal mining and oil production. Teddy & Megan . America will soon be withdrawing more water for electricity production than for farming. 247 Data from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) also confirms that every type of traditional power plant consumes and withdraws vast amounts of water. Because much of the water is turned to steam. continuing to rely on fossil fuelfired and nuclear generators could spark a water scarcity crisis. they accounted for almost 40 percent of all freshwater withdrawals (water diverted or withdrawn from a surface. Conventional power plants use thousands of gallons of water for the condensing portion of their thermodynamic cycle. Coal plants also use water to clean and process fuel. Newer technologies. Severe accidents: Severe accidents on the scale of Chernobyl can occur with nuclear power plants.249 With electricity demand expected to grow by approximately 50 percent in the next 25 years. in engineering (specialization: nuclear fusion) from the University of California at Berkeley (Arjun. roughly equivalent to all the water withdrawals for irrigated agriculture in the entire United States. are very long-lived and threaten essential resources.S. These vulnerabilities relate to: Nuclear weapons proliferation: Nuclear power technology has a large overlap with nuclear weapons technology. if new power plants continue to be built with evaporative cooling. Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). natural gas.250 Waste from nuclear power contaminates water resources. care of construction. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.” 2004. 4 . The nation’s oil.*Senior Research Fellow for the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research and professor of Government and International Affairs at Virginia Tech AND ** founded the Network for New Energy Choices (NNEC). the 3.3 billion gallons of water each day. the Department of Energy warned that consumption of water for electricity production could more than double by 2030. closed-loop cooling technology convert more water to steam that is vented to the atmosphere. substantial amounts are lost to the local water table entirely. Thus. http://www.400 MW Sherer coal facility consumes as much as 9.pdf) If projected electricity demand is met using water-intensive fossil fuel and nuclear reactors. 07 .or ground-water source).org/dev/uploads/Renewing%20America_NNEC_Final. while modern power plants may reduce water withdrawals by up to 10 percent. or the equivalent of 17 Olympic-sized swimming pools every day. less efficient plants can be much worse. they contribute even more to the nation’s water scarcity.Climate Politics Page 119 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Nuclear Power Solves Water Wars Nuclear power water requires massive amounts of water consumption Sovacool and Cooper.D. This staggering amount is equal to the entire country’s water consumption in 1995. Perhaps the most important—and least discussed—advantage to a federal RPS is its ability to displace electricity generation that is extremely waterintensive. Mitchell. coal.. and degree of independent oversight and regulation.000 Georgia homes. for example. notably water resources. from mill tailings to spent fuel. require massive supplies of water to cool reactor cores and spent nuclear fuel rods.plutonium in current designs. a national nonprofit organization committed to reforming U. withdraws an average of 57 million gallons every day from the Altamaha River. even though the details of accident mechanisms and accident probabilities vary with design. Radioactive Realities: Why Nuclear Power Is a Poor Way to Meet Energy Needs.000 gallons of water per minute. to 7. energy policy (Benjamin and Chris. June.245 A conventional 500 MW coal plant. for instance. “Atomic Myths.President of IEER. actually consume more.246 Older.244 In 2006. Nuclear power plants create weapons usable materials . 119 Ellis.newenergychoices. in particular. while they withdraw less water.913 gallons of water for every MWh of electricity it generates. Nuclear waste management: Wastes associated with nuclear power. consumes around 7. In 2006.248 Nuclear reactors. holds a Ph. and all traditional plants lose water through evaporative loss. enough to service more than 196. One nuclear plant in Georgia.3 billion gallons per day.org/pubs/atomicmyths. Closed-loop systems also rely on greater amounts of water for cleaning and therefore return less water to the original source. and nuclear facilities consume about 3. Advanced power plant systems that rely on re-circulating. Makhijani.

we're going to shift — it's a redistribution. Teddy & Megan . the policy may. I really do. would you? BECK: Yes. two years or 20 years. it's actually saying for these states that it wouldn't work independently. It will shift our production overseas. That will actually increase greenhouse emissions.. how long does it take — I mean. Copenhagen in December. On the flip side of it. if it doesn't cost anything. we're going to take the cost on us. What happened? Labor left America. quote. I'm good. too? But how does it work nationwide if it doesn't. so they won't feel the public wrath. BUCKNER: We are seeing the cannibalization of capitalism. they're going to will wind up in countries. they're saying it's not going to cost us anything. oh. BUCKNER: How does it work for the federal. most likely. the ones that get hurt. India and China aren't raising their labor costs. Fox News. They're not running around going. BUCKNER: No. BECK: Not even that.html) Cap-and-trade might not only hurt American competitiveness. do the exact opposite of what it sets out to do. What they don't recognize here is that we're not seeing the full picture. I agree with that. Labor unions exercise their right to petition for greater salaries and they got them. There is no way in which the increase in costs in America will ever remain — will keep us productive and keep us competitive. you go on vacation — they go on vacation after this. is what he's saying. BUCKNER: You slide in on a Friday night so it doesn't hit the news cycle until Monday. talked about this and he said. where is it. It can't be.. this is from the governor of Virginia. According to the EPA — EPA. So. "Well.com/story/0. I mean. we're going to even it out across the country. DAVID BUCKNER. BECK: David." Why would that happen? When those companies take their businesses overseas. This is an exportation of labor.00." It can't be. We are seeing — even these environmental bills with no science and no way to pay for them — fully validated. They won't. We are seeing policies in five months that have cannibalized five corporations and brought them underneath the umbrella of one government — which I never would have imagined in a capitalist environment in America we would see. but we are seeing unsustainable ideas happening here. You saw when our labor costs went up. We don't know whether it can ever resolve that. they're gone for a week. I don't know if you are as pessimistic as I am. 120 Ellis. it went to India and China.And so. "You're right.Professor of Organizational Leadership at Columbia University (David. That's what concerns me. you know — I mean. So. they're saying that prices have to be inherently increased so that will be an incentive to not produce products. that we — that China and India — we can't go to.. the — it's not an environmental plan. And not only that. and we can't convince them to do it. but we could never pass it just as a state. BUCKNER: Yes. it loses the thrust of the legislation.S. June 29th 2009. we just — we have to get this passed as a nation.. we need to give more money to our people. BECK: So.2933. they're saying.foxnews. Mitchell.. Why? BUCKNER: So. I don't think I could design anything like this. BECK: Well. It is the economics of it. the arguments on both sides are intellectually and economically dishonest. "cause domestic production to shift abroad.. I have — I have to tell you. I don't — I don't know if it's in two months.. The thrust of the argument is the increase in talks. (CROSSTALK) BUCKNER: Because it's going to be — well. because that would hurt us competitively and we'd lose business here. I am. "But it won't cost you anything.529487. “Will Cap-and-Trade Cripple U. 6/29/09. Production?”." They're going to take the markets. Tell me how you're going to raise the cost of something such that people will be dissuaded from producing and not cost anything on the other side.. Here's what they'll do. BECK: If I — if I look at this — I mean. http://www. And the reality of it is. and next week is a holiday. I don't think I could design a taking down of this country any better than the people — if I were an enemy of this country. but also. On the other side.BUCKNER: You slide it in on a Friday.Climate Politics Page 120 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Bad – Warming Cap and trade increases global warming – causes companies to shift overseas and release more emissions Buckner. And it's not just about politics. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR: How are you doing? BECK: Well." I mean. without capand-trade rules because they can make their products cheaper there. for America to say we can solve the global changes. the president said that we have to act first. On the one side. We increased minimum wage. I think we are witnessing the destruction of our country. There is not economic honesty in the dialogue. And everyone will follow. How can you have — the very thrust of this legislation is based upon the fact that you're going to raise prices so that people won't produce and create greenhouse emissions.

swaps and more in that new market. will be all cost for no climate gain. "Dorgan: Reduce CO2. The American public paid the price for it. But I don’t support the “cap-and-trade” plan now being debated in the Congress. But it has to be done the right way with targets and timelines that let us accomplish our goals without driving the cost of energy for homeowners and businesses out of sight. Meaningful emission reductions can only occur if China. In no time they’ll create derivatives.S. no".US Senator (Byron. large cap-and-trade carbon securities market. Mitchell. They are ready to go. In Italy. "With China and India recently issuing statements of defiant opposition to mandatory emissions controls. in Political Science from Harvard (Jerome R. But it has to be done the right way. But given recent history. Just last year. That speculation drove the price of oil from $60 to $147 a barrel and gasoline to more than $4 a gallon. I have little confidence that the large financial markets are free or fair enough to trust them with a new. I support capping carbon emissions. the G8 could only manage to set a target of reducing carbon emissions worldwide 80 percent by 2050. line and sinker. The Wall Street Journal was equally honest." Meanwhile. July 17th 2009. most of the investment banks have already created carbon trading departments. Inhofe said. 6/17/09.Climate Politics Page 121 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Can’t Solve Warming Cap and trade can’t solve warming.. So. December. India.five other actions are more preferable Dorgan. under tight questioning from Oklahoma's Republican Sen. US Senator D-ND. Supporters call it a “market-based solution. the Financial Times noted the G8 meeting jeopardized the outcome of the Copenhagen climate summit set for the G8's failure to set meaningful short-term goals "prompted a larger group of nations – including China. and families. http://www. I’m not! For those who like the wild price swings in the oil futures market. http://www.” I think it is the wrong solution.S. And remember the financiers who wallpapered America with risky derivatives and credit default swaps that they traded in dark markets before the financial collapse last year? We shouldn’t need a second expensive lesson in how manipulation in financial markets can hurt our country. Here’s what I believe we need to do to protect our environment and make us less dependent on foreign oil: . Then the same speculators forced the price back down and made money in both directions. as part of far-Left climate change agenda the Obama administration has bought hook. yes. By failing to reach an accord on shorterrange targets.reviewmessenger. speculators overwhelmed the oil futures market. Grandforks Herald.Ph. appearing before the Senate Environment Public Works Committee. “Cap and trade” is an approach that would have the government set caps on carbon emissions from certain sources. the unseemly speculation in mortgage backed securities or the exotic and risky financial products such as credit default swaps that pushed our economy into the ditch. and every day they were trading 20 to 25 times more oil than was being produced. D. Don’t’ get me wrong. Staff reporter for WND. and I don’t support it. this cap and trade plan will be the answer to their prayers. confirmed that an Environmental Protection Agency chart did show that unilateral U. July 17th 2009.com/index." Sen. Teddy & Megan . cap and trade. Review Messenger. The cap and trade plan does not meet that test for me. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. acting alone through the job-killing Waxman-Markey bill would impose severe economic burdens on American consumers. I like free markets.We should establish caps on carbon that are accompanied by both adequate research-and- development funding and reasonable timelines so we can develop and commercialize technologies that’ll 121 Ellis. and other developingcountry polluters – to backtrack from their own commitment to numerical targets they had planned to announce [at the G8 meeting].grandforksherald. noting James Inhofe. India and the developing countries go along.China and India need to take action as well Corsi. I’m willing to cap carbon to address the threat to our environment. then establish a market in which allowances for CO2 emissions would be bought and sold on a financial exchange.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1997:g8-fallsflat-on-carbon-ban&catid=19:guest-opinion) Last week. In fact. actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the global climate. businesses. the Obama administration faced setbacks to impose cap-and-trade legislation on the United States and on the world." DA can’t solve warming. 6/17/09.com/event/article/id/126797/group/Opinion/) I’m in favor of taking action to reduce CO2 emissions and to protect our environment. I know the Wall Street crowd can’t wait to sink their teeth into a new trillion dollar trading market in which hedge funds and investment banks would trade and speculate on carbon credits and securities. "I am encouraged that Administrator Jackson agrees that unilateral action by the U. all without any impact on climate. “G8 falls flat on Carbon Ban”.

.Even as we continue to decarbonize the use of fossil energy. solar.I propose we use the majority of the revenue from a plan that caps CO2 to provide refunds to those who would otherwise experience increased energy costs.To move all of that new energy. We have the greatest wind energy potential of any state. 122 Ellis. biomass and other renewable energy. We are a major energy producing state. We have the ability to produce large quantities of oil.Climate Politics Page 122 of 156 7WJ – HPSW greatly reduce the CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. North Dakota and the nation have a lot at stake in this debate. And we have large deposits of coal. geothermal. We have the ability to produce a large quantity of biofuels. which is our country’s most abundant form of energy. . we need to build a transmission system that will let us produce renewable energy where we can and move it to the load centers where it is needed. we need to move toward using electricity to fuel our transportation fleet. . solar. biomass and other sources. we should move aggressively to maximize the production of renewable energy from wind.To fully reap the benefits of cleaner energy and reduced dependence on foreign oil. Mitchell.We need to set an ambitious Renewable Electricity Standard along with longer term tax incentives for the production of wind. . Teddy & Megan . .

Between 2000 and 2006. drafted the Kyoto Protocol. for example. In the first two years of the EU cap-and-trade system.” More than a decade ago.com/news/32007-1. Al Gore now prefers carbon-based taxes over cap-and-trade. Head of the Economic Advisory Firm Sonecon and Undersecretary of Commerce in the Clinton Administration. leaving everyone better off. President-elect Barack Obama is committed equally to fighting climate change and restoring economic growth. to evade or manipulate the system. But the Clinton administration never even sent the Kyoto treaty to the Senate for approval. it’d be a different story entirely. However. In the words of Yogi Berra. putting us at risk for another crisis. still pushes forcefully for a cap-and-trade scheme. mandate a cap-andtrade system. gives away or auctions permits to produce those emissions. Roll Call. the EU emissions jumped by 3. with daily price shifts as great as 70 percent. toward a carbon-based tax program with most of the revenues recycled in forms of tax relief. Given its impact on the European Union. The clearest illustration of the problems with cap-and-trade is the European Trading Scheme. legislators are currently pushing to impose a similar emissions scheme here in the States. According to a recent study in Nature.rollcall.html) Politics and baseball have a great deal in common. to break a deadlock and gain support from Russia and other developing nations that were effectively exempt from reducing their emissions. there’s little if any evidence that the ETS has had any effect at all on emissions in Europe.rollcall. And the volatile prices for the permits themselves. the prices for ETS permits are highly volatile. Under cap-and-trade. These are the main reasons why the father of climate-change politics. Japan. It didn’t work for me. and lets a new market sort out the messy job of determining the prices of emissions. In that respect. unsettling everyone’s markets and undermining investment. the debate will largely boil down to the last two choices. can sell to other ETS members.S. were to join Europe — and China as well — in cap-and-trade. American voters have heard this before. Roll Call. But basic economics punctuated by the developments now gripping the U. The treaty imposed deep cuts in emissions for developed countries. And since it’s unlikely that politicians will opt to maintain the status quo. the increased costs under cap-and-trade will be hidden in the added costs of goods 123 Ellis. To the contrary. Mitchell. 1/15/09. (That’s even more significant when you account for the fact that Not only have the EU emissions policies missed their objectives. and it’ll destroy the economy Shapiro. continue the present approach that relies on higher efficiency standards. once we set aside those offsets.S. 2/3/09 (William. Though both policies will raise the price of energy. The system also has failed to establish a stable price for carbon — a goal widely considered a prerequisite for any effective climate change effort. the United Nations. Teddy & Megan . they have increased energy costs. These regimes may offer the path of least current. Washington our economic growth was much stronger. One reason is that major emitters such as Germany simply exempt many of their facilities generating greenhouse gases. based on the Kyoto protocols covering most of Europe. themselves exempt from caps. in 1997. http://www.com/news/31397-1. Another factor is the “offset” permits that European “transition” economies. Two. “Time for a Fresh Debate Over America’s Climate Policy”. issues emission permits to covered industries and creates a market for trading permits.html) We all have a moral imperative to get climate policy right. some U. would attract speculation and new financial derivatives. given its support by some environmental groups and a number of European governments. it seems that some politicians have already made up their minds before real debate has even begun. a number of lawmakers are narrowly focused only on cap-and-trade — the same kind of futile approach that’s failed to lower emissions in Europe. Chief Executive Officer at Marshall Institute. Climate Task Force (Robert.S. According to a new report by the Government Accountability Office. Going forward. impose a carbon tax. “The Real Choice Between Cap-and-Trade and CarbonBased Taxes”. Can’t solve warming – cheating is inevitable O’Keefe. voters should be thankful we passed. Three. cap-andtrade systems are riddled with daunting problems. The core idea is that businesses that can cut their emissions targets most cheaply will do so and sell permits to those who cannot. permits prices moved up or down by an average of 17.S. A cap-and-trade system is very unlikely to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions — and more likely to introduce new. The Clinton/Gore administration made the same promise but. while America’s carbon dioxide emissions only increased 2. political resistance. a system that sets a limit on emissions. looked at the consequences and blinked. While well-intentioned. new auto technology and lower emission technology. http://www. President Bill Clinton. Since the entire global permit market only currently amounts to some $60 billion.Climate Politics Page 123 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Can’t Solve Warming Can’t solve warming – too many daunting problems. Eleven years have elapsed.S. including governments. the incoming administration and Members of the 111th Congress will have to carefully weigh all the serious options being proposed to reduce carbon emissions. However. As last Thursday’s House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing illustrated. Even more regulations cannot eliminate most of cap-and-trade’s inherent price volatility or the incentives for its participants. stunted economic growth and spawned cheating in the carbon trading system. but still allowed to sell “excess” permits to us and Europe.” But here’s the catch. such volatility doesn’t threaten economic stability.) has three options. A carbon tax system would apply a stable price to carbon. in the end.5 percent. the major Kyoto signatories. and global financial systems clearly point in a different direction. creating direct incentives to develop and use less carbon-intensive fuels and more energy-efficient technologies.5 percent per month. To achieve that. emissions under the ETS have actually increased by 10 percent. if the U. and in that time almost all EU nations. with strong support from Vice President Al Gore. traded on financial markets. arguing : “I tried [a carbon tax] once. have failed to meet their targets. The best way to do both is to give up cap-and-trade and learn to love carbon-based taxes. One. trillion-dollar risks for the financial system. proposing a 2012 target for the U. my former boss. “This is like déjà vu all over again. it’s only appropriate to quote one of America’s legendary ballplayers as the 111th Congress and President Barack Obama pledge to take bold steps to combat climate change. Volatility like the kind experienced in the ETS would translate into much more volatile energy prices. This was the approach then-Vice President Al Gore proposed at the climate summit in Kyoto. Despite all of these environmental and economic failings of the EU cap-and-trade system. Burned by the political firestorm over his proposed BTU tax in 1993. that was 7 percent below 1990 levels. The Democratic Congressional leadership supports cap-and-trade.3 percent.Co-Founder of the U. the government sets an annual “cap” on greenhouse gas emissions. reduces that limit over time.

Given the current economic pain and disruption generated by the financial sector meltdown. These taxes add to the cost of emission-producing energies and. places a price on carbon and then allows the market to respond. Teddy & Megan .” Congress should take a fresh. A carbon tax. it’s a stealth tax. There are serious doubts whether it will accomplish either. create incentives to find alternatives without In contrast to a CO2 trading market. options. putting more money into the hands of workers. the resulting increased prices could be offset by reducing the payroll tax.Climate Politics Page 124 of 156 7WJ – HPSW and services. In theory. cap-and-trade is intended to stabilize energy prices and provide incentives to develop new technologies. the option favored by an increasing number of economists and analysts. And unlike a direct tax. administer and enforce it. cap-and-trade spawns vested interests that will lobby hard to protect their interests and preserve the system. leaving voters vulnerable to further exploitation of financial instruments. as such. On top of that. That means this policy will advantage average Americans rather than Wall Street traders while still discouraging carbon emissions. It requires an elaborate bureaucracy to operate. And the advantages of a carbon tax are good public policy. In his inaugural address. And there’s no convincing evidence that cap-and-trade will work or that it would work as well as a carbon tax. the government policies responsible for higher prices under a carbon tax are clearly visible to consumers. opaque system over a simpler. there’s less chance of accountability. understand why so many continue to favor a more complex. Mitchell. more transparent one. Good public policy makes for good politics. So before America’s leaders drag the public through a decade-old debate “all over again. and careful look at all of our policy to date. objective. it’s difficult to enriching traders and promoting the kind of lobbying that’s inevitable with cap-and-trade. Without transparency. 124 Ellis. Obama indicated he would oppose government programs that don’t work. In reality.

Mark Warner and urge them to vote against cap-and-trade. there are many against this bill. 7/18/09 (Ed. "Beware the consequences of cap-and-trade".heritage. cap-and-trade is wrong because it’s a massive new energy tax. ■ 3. 125 Ellis. In conclusion. Jim Webb and Sen.S. This letter made three declarations: ■ 1.doesn’t low temperatures. In short those few who earn the money to pay the taxes can‘t afford to perpetuate this hoax. On March 4. It will kill American jobs. and none of the changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability. Mitchell. July 21st 2009. 2007. ■ 2. independent of the actions of humans.com/news/2009/jul/18/beware-consequences-cap-and-trade/) As far as scientists supporting cap-and-trade to stop global warming.Climate Politics Page 125 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Can’t Solve Warming Cap and trade won’t solve warming. and carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life.000 years. There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity have in the past. Leading scientists acknowledge that computer models can’t predict climate. Sen. Teddy & Megan . and be highly susceptible to fraud and corruption in a time when Americans can’t afford it. http://www. I suggest all concerned taxpayers contact U. 13. http://blog. a hundred scientists wrote a letter to the secretary-general of the United Nations.” He covers much information refuting the global-warming mantra. and there has been no net global warming since 1998. 7/21/09 (“A Baker’s Dozen of Reasons to Oppose Cap and Trade”. in an International Conference on Climate Change. now or will ever cause catastrophic climate change. and other countries are key The Foundry. Even the flawed and significantly biased cost estimates of $140 per year or $170 per year aren’t worth the alleged benefits since the bill would lower temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century. July 18th 2009. On Dec. 10.) No impact to warming – average rates are natural and CO2 emissions aren’t out of control Hartman. The Foundry. 2008. more than 500 scientists closed the conference with what is referred to as the “Manhattan Declaration”: Global climate has always changed and always will. as well as Greenpeace’s adamant opposition due to all the corporate handouts in the bill should be telling signs that the environmental benefits are nonexistent. sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change. I challenge The Tidewater News to obtain and reprint an article written in 2008 by Eric Creed entitled “The Greatest Hoax Ever Perpetrated. Recent observations of the phenomena such as glacial retreats. The average rates of warming per decade recorded by satellites in the late 20th century fall within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10. The fact that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson confirmed the bill would do nothing for global temperatures without commitment from large emitters like India and China following suit.org/2009/07/21/a-baker’s-dozen-of-reasons-to-oppose-cap-and-trade/) There’s no environmental benefit.tidewaternews. cause electric bills and fuel prices to sharply increase.

Climate Politics Page 126 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Can’t Solve Warming Cap and trade only reduces temperature by . the EPA.cfm. Teddy & Megan .*senior policy analyst in Energy and the Environment for the Heritage Foundation.[2] 126 Ellis. strongly suggests that a 60 percent reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2050 will reduce global temperature by 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2095. analysis by the architects of the endangerment finding.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2407. environmental benefit. **research assistant in the Thomas A. Mitchell. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (4/23. "Five Reasons the EPA Should Not Attempt to Deal with Global Warming".2 degrees Loris and Lieberman 2009 .heritage. In fact. http://www. WEA) The extraordinary perils of CO2 regulation for the American economy come with little. Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2407.1 to 0. if any.

S. July 13th 2009. energy system until cost-effective and reliable alternative energy sources are developed. shutting out many qualified minority. Chamber of Commerce strongly supports comprehensive legislation to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases while providing for a strong American economy. nor does it adequately preempt state and regional greenhouse gas programs.”. is how to accomplish that goal. international cooperation remains a major stumbling block to addressing global climate change. This bill is not the best we can do. and here are four quick reasons why. carbon-based fuels are and will remain for decades the backbone of the U. but because “it’s the best we can do. along with many of the other mandates in the bill.Climate Politics Page 127 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Fails – Warming Even if they win all of their arguments. Politico. and-trade system is the best approach. Furthermore. tariff provisions that impose tariffs on carbon-intensive imports could be deemed to violate our international obligations — given the worldwide economic situation now is not the time to spark a trade war. small. based on a failing European model that they themselves are looking to abandon. picking technology winners and losers is not the way to go about it.U.com/news/stories/0709/24837. Imposing limits on our own energy use and driving up our own costs — while developing nations like China and India pollute with abandon — will neither reduce global greenhouse emissions nor improve America’s competitive position. Third. ACES contains dangerous provisions that could lead to widespread lawsuit abuse. “Waxman-Markey bill: 'this isn’t the best of U. and nonunion businesses from the entire market. the renewable electricity standard.the current version of cap and trade will fail – carbon fuels are inevitable and international cooperation is more important Kovacs.politico. A few months ago in The Wall Street Journal.S’. Mitchell.S. or RES. made the argument that a “well-designed” cap- the American Clean Energy and Security. will add costs and distort the workings of the carbon market the bill would establish. The question. or ACES. A feasible cap-and-trade system might work. First. Chamber Of Commerce (William.” This may be the greatest indictment issued against the legislative branch since Joseph Welch questioned Joe McCarthy’s sense of decency. http://www. the EDF — and many other cap-andtrade backers — praised the passage of the Waxman-Markey bill not because it is an effective piece of legislation. president of Environmental Defense Fund. by far. Teddy & Megan . And by applying the Davis-Bacon Act. but what we got with 127 Ellis.S. Second. Nonetheless. ACES does not do a good job of ensuring those alternatives will be available. the bill will result in diminished competition. It does not fully and permanently protect America’s 27 million small businesses from being forced to comply with costly standards. If the objective is to allow the market to work to find the lowest-cost solutions.html) The U. 7/13/09. Chamber Representative. Fourth. Fred Krupp. among other weakness. Act was deeply flawed. The bill fails to equitably allocate credits to the refinery sector. of course.

And since it’s unlikely that politicians will opt to maintain the status quo. with daily price shifts as great as 70 percent. Eleven years have elapsed. a system that sets a limit on emissions. the resulting increased prices could be offset by reducing the payroll tax. 9 (William. These taxes add to the cost of emission-producing energies and. the option favored by an administer and enforce it. But basic economics punctuated by the developments now gripping the U. and global financial systems clearly point in a different direction. The system also has failed to establish a stable price for carbon — a goal widely considered a prerequisite for any effective climate change effort.Climate Politics Page 128 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: C&T Solves Warming Won’t solve warming – EU system failed O’Keefe. if the U. the government sets an annual “cap” on greenhouse gas emissions. the debate will largely boil down to the last two choices. legislators are currently pushing to impose a similar emissions scheme here in the States. The core idea is that businesses that can cut their emissions targets most cheaply will do so and sell permits to those who cannot. there’s little if any evidence that the ETS has had any effect at all on emissions in Europe. Going forward. A cap-and-trade system is very unlikely to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions — and more likely to introduce new.5 percent. once we set aside those offsets. there’s less chance of accountability. However. have failed to meet their targets. permits prices moved permits that European “transition” economies. President Bill Clinton. (That’s even more significant when you account for the fact that our economic growth was much stronger. Two. “Time for a Fresh Debate Over America’s Climate Policy”. One. 2/3 http://www. it’s difficult to understand why so many continue to favor a more complex.com/news/31397-1.3 percent. but still allowed to sell “excess” permits to us and Europe. 9 (Robert. In theory. Between 2000 and 2006. based on the According to a recent study in Nature. my former boss. proposing a 2012 target for the U. Cap and trade fails – evasion and manipulation Roll Call. cap-and-trade spawns vested interests that will lobby hard to protect their interests and preserve the system. to break a deadlock and gain support from Russia and other developing nations that were effectively exempt from reducing their emissions. the United Nations. “The Real Choice Between Cap-and-Trade and Carbon-Based Taxes”. Volatility like the kind experienced in the ETS would translate into much more volatile energy prices. impose a carbon tax. To the contrary. for example. it’s a stealth tax. the EU emissions jumped by 3. The clearest illustration of the problems with cap-and-trade is the European Trading Scheme. Given its impact on the should be thankful we passed.” But here’s the catch.com/news/32007-1. One reason is that major emitters such as Germany simply exempt many of their facilities generating greenhouse gases. Three. Though both policies will raise the price of energy. the major Kyoto signatories. cap-and-trade is intended to stabilize energy prices and provide incentives to develop new technologies. It requires an elaborate bureaucracy to operate. mandate a cap-and-trade system. The Democratic Congressional leadership supports cap-and-trade. In contrast to a CO2 trading market. while America’s carbon But the administration European Union. Teddy & Megan . Another factor is the “offset” up or down by an average of 17. arguing : “I tried [a carbon tax] once. the government policies responsible for higher prices under a carbon tax are clearly visible to consumers. reduces that limit over time. Without transparency. were to join Europe — and China as well — in cap-and-trade. That means this policy will advantage average Americans rather than Wall Street traders while still discouraging carbon emissions.S. Burned by the political firestorm over his proposed BTU tax in 1993. the prices for ETS permits are highly volatile. Since the entire global permit market only currently amounts to some $60 billion.html) More than a decade ago. These regimes may offer the path of least current.rollcall. continue the present approach that relies on higher efficiency standards. unsettling everyone’s markets 128 Ellis. opaque system over a simpler. the increased costs under cap-and-trade will be hidden in the added costs of goods and services. Under cap-and-trade. that was 7 percent below 1990 levels. stunted economic growth and spawned cheating in the carbon trading system. given its support by some environmental groups and a number of European governments. This was the approach then-Vice President Al Gore proposed at the climate summit in Kyoto. themselves exempt from caps. such volatility doesn’t threaten economic stability. There are serious doubts whether it will accomplish either. with strong support from Vice President Al Gore. create incentives to find alternatives without enriching traders and promoting the kind of lobbying that’s inevitable with cap-and-trade.rollcall. some U. Mitchell. trilliondollar risks for the financial system. emissions under the ETS have actually increased by 10 percent.) Not Clinton only have the EU emissions policies missed their objectives.5 percent per month. Given the current economic pain and disruption generated by the financial sector meltdown.S. increasing number of economists and analysts.S. On top of that. political resistance.1/15 http://www. Chief Executive Officer @ Marshall Institute.html) While well-intentioned. leaving everyone better off. as such. voters dioxide emissions only increased 2. and in that time almost all EU nations. and lets a new market sort out the messy job of determining the prices of emissions. still pushes forcefully for a cap-and-trade scheme. issues emission permits to covered industries and creates a market for trading permits. gives away or auctions permits to produce those emissions. new auto technology and lower emission technology. drafted the Kyoto Protocol. in 1997. can sell to other ETS members. A carbon tax. It didn’t work for me. Despite all of these environmental and economic failings of the EU cap-and-trade system. toward a carbon-based tax program with most of the revenues recycled in forms of tax relief. putting more money into the hands of workers. According to a new report by the Government Accountability Office.S. The treaty imposed deep cuts in emissions for developed countries. more transparent one. And unlike a direct tax. they have increased energy costs. In reality. it’d be a different story entirely. leaving voters vulnerable to further exploitation of financial instruments. cap-and-trade systems are riddled with daunting problems. In the first two years of the EU cap-and-trade system. Roll Call. places a price on carbon and then allows the market to respond. Kyoto protocols covering most of Europe. Washington has three options. Japan. never even sent the Kyoto treaty to the Senate for approval.

And the volatile prices for the permits themselves. Al Gore now prefers carbon-based taxes over cap-and-trade.Climate Politics Page 129 of 156 7WJ – HPSW and undermining investment. to evade or manipulate the system. Mitchell. would attract speculation and new financial derivatives. 129 Ellis. Teddy & Megan . including governments. traded on financial markets. Even more regulations cannot eliminate most of capand-trade’s inherent price volatility or the incentives for its participants. These are the main reasons why the father of climate-change politics. putting us at risk for another crisis.

However. since there are only about 11. Teddy & Megan . “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1. and horseshoe crabs—not to mention sand fleas. Mitchell. Emeritus Environmental Science @ UVA and First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service. improvement in storm water drainage systems and avoiding hurricane-prone coastal development. coastal forests. the problem is not great. I am very frank in pointing out the dangers of beachfront property along the Gulf Coast. as they have so many times in the past. roads. At the very least. we will avoid encouraging new building and development in low-lying coastal plains. and it would have to be done with great sensitivity to the coastal wetlands. and water systems. The main point I stress. 160-161) A continued slow rise in sea levels is probably the biggest problem for humans likely to arise from a moderate global warming. building a dike around Bangladesh may not be a bad idea anyway. Prof. whether or not sea levels are rising. and remind us that normal hurricane risks are amplified as our cities grow and our people seek waterfronts on which to live and play. Still. The problem is not sea levels per se. Coastal areas threatened today will be threatened in the future. The world wouldn't lose its wetlands due to rising sea levels. The massive problems inflicted by Hurricane Katrina on the city of New Orleans and the communities of the Gulf Coast in 2005 underscore that point. But if they were. biting flies. is miniscule compared with the storm surge of a powerful hurricane like Fredrick or Camille. Bangladesh has built a large number of "typhoon towers" that allow the population to climb above the floods with the belongings they can carry. infrastructure that can withstand the severe weather events that we know are going to continue. poisoning soils. bridges. the floods of salt water often stay for weeks. and Dennis. but perhaps it will need to be done. And. Tougher zoning for low-lying areas and tougher building codes for areas within reach of storm surges make sense. the Tuvaluans do not appear to be threatened by rising sea levels. or even 50 years. The sea level rise.000 Tuvaluans. Six inches per century is slow. among other actions. The amount of land involved would be trivial. is that they invest today in is to inform developers and industries of the potential climate risks and rewards in Alabama. The real impact would be on man-made structures. this is a smaller problem than the alarmists have claimed. say. it would cause significant coastal changes. but the storm surges from huge tropical cyclones that have hit the country every three to four years in recent decades. and inflicting massive amounts of physical damage on buildings. A dike would be expensive. spreading disease. halting economic activity. to state and local agencies as well as industries. or even longer? If we are wise. The wetlands and their species would simply move slightly upslope. emigration does not present insurmountable problems. if one is able to survive the storms. Actually. Director of Global Food Issues @ Hudson Institute." 333 More than one observer has declared that we would have to "build a dike around Bangladesh" to prevent higher sea levels from destroying that lowlying country and drowning millions of people.500 Years”. How many buildings near coasts are built with the expectation that they will last 100 years. but if it continues for the next five hundred years. might even prefer it.Climate Politics Page 130 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Sea Levels No impact to rising sea levels – people and species can both adapt Singer and Avery in ‘7 (Fred. which would have to be abandoned or moved inland. 200 years. which will continue. We expect a continued abundance of the corals. recently testified before Congress: One of my duties in the office of the State Climatologist A sea level rise of 6 in. and beach combers. mosquitoes. p. What about low-lying islands? As previously noted. will be very slow and thus give decades of opportunity for adaptation. the Tuvaluans There will always be an ebb and flow between land and water. Alabama state climatologist. John Christy. President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project and Distinguished Research Professor @ George Mason. and their interface will be rich with competing organisms. The point here is that we live on a planet where the climate has been changing constantly for the past billion years. Even here. 130 Ellis. America should stop encouraging high-risk waterside building through government-financed flood insurance. over 100 years. These investments include extending floodway easements.

p. 187) The plain truth is that climate plays an extremely minor role in the transmission of pathogens. What is not small is the dissonant convergence between media hungry for dramatic news and researchers eager for a place in the paper or on TV. p. that's a major scientific disease vector. 2002. to name a few things that sure aren't "equal" over time and distance. “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists.. given a small change in climate. Think about technology. Scientific studies prove there is no clear relationship between warming and disease spread Michaels 4 (Patrick. as is predicting future distributional changes in disease prevalence. genetic engineering and sanitation.. In fact. But to assume everything else will be equal is a poor scientific assumption. Everything else being equal. Difficulty in separating directional climate change from short-term controversial. Here are some excerpts: Associations between climate and disease do not necessarily imply causation. Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies @ Cato and Prof. some diseases will spread somewhat and others will recede somewhat." As a review.g. Environmental Sciences @ UVA. and the Media”. as scientific writing should be when it is about something as nebulous as how climate might potentially affect disease. Environmental Sciences @ UVA. habitat alteration or drug-resistant strains] is of antimalarial resistance and failed vector control programs are probably as important as climate factors in driving recent malaria expansions. Politicians. "Climate Warming and Disease Risks for Terrestrial and Marine Biota. After all. 131 Ellis. In today's climate. Change in climate is so small by comparison that it is nearly irrelevant. expansion variation has made it challenging to associate climate warming with disease prevalence or severity. and the Media”. Whether [vector-borne disease] expansions are due primarily to climate change or other anthropogenic influences (e. the article was a compendium of many researchers' previous work and therefore included little that was scientifically new. Teddy & Megan . We found no unequivocal examples of natural changes in severity or prevalence resulting from directional climate warming per se. its purpose was to assemble recent findings on how climate affects diseases and how conditions for disease transmission might change if current climate trends stay on track. The paper is filled with caveats like those..Climate Politics Page 131 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Disease Spread Climate plays a tiny role in disease spread Michaels 4 (Patrick. Mitchell. edition of Science contained a review article by Drew Harvell of Cornell University and six coauthors titled. Rather.. 186-187) The June 21. Politicians. Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies @ Cato and Prof. antibiotics. it amounts to nothing more than speculation when so many factors completely unrelated to climate are far more important than climate change itself in determining why a given animal or plant is infected by a particular disease. “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists.

pdf) alarmists claim that global warming makes droughts more frequent and severe.” • “Coincident droughts. 1730s). there is no apparent relationship between temperature and dryness (or wetness) in Northern Hemisphere data. but analyses of climate data from Africa. dated 12 November 2003: • “An inspection of the maps shows that droughts similar to the 1950s. dry and wet periods have alternated during periods of both warming and cooling. by the staff of the NOAA Paleoclimatology Program. during the 1860s. Teddy & Megan . Mitchell. Similarly. published in Moberg et al. Asia. and from California to the East Coast.Climate Politics Page 132 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Drought No increases in drought ---. 4-28. in terms of duration and spatial extent.” • “Longer records show strong evidence for a drought [during the last half of the 16th century] that appears to have been more severe in some areas of central North America than anything we have experienced in the 20th century. Consider Comment: Climate the table below.it doesn’t correlate to temperature Lewis 6 (Marlo. and Europe fail to confirm a link between warming and drought. including the 1930s drought… These droughts were extremely severe and lasted for three to six years. For centuries. Senior Fellow @ Competitive Enterprise Institute. occurred once or twice a century for the past three centuries (for example. (2005): Long-term tree-ring records also indicate that the frequency and severity of 20th century droughts in North America were well within the bounds of natural variability. or the same droughts. “Scare Mongering as Journalism: A Commentary on Time’s “Special Report” on Global Warming”.” 132 Ellis. Consider these excerpts from North American Drought: A Paleo Perspective. are apparent in tree-ring records from Mexico to British Columbia. a long time for such severe drought conditions to persist in this region of North America.org/pdf/5288. 1820s. http://cei.

So every inch of rain above normal reduces the annual burn by 400. and the Media”.14. don't draw the conclusion that global warming is therefore associated with perception of more forest fires means that there are more forest fires—remember Dan Rather and the deluge of hurricane coverage he set in motion in Galveston all those years ago.12 shows summer (June— September) temperatures since 1960. Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies @ Cato and Prof. heat.000. on the average. But. the 1930s. By the 1990s that moved up to 30. Figure 6. In the warm 1990s. and burn data and turn it into a mathematical "model. the total "change" in the climate-related signal according to our model is minus 300. Scientifically speaking. rainfall. (In the cool 1960s.Climate Politics Page 133 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Forests No increase in forest fires ---. an average of 25 million combusted in the 1920s. the cartoon deer who probably spawned more ecological mismanagement and traffic fatalities than any other animal in cinematic history. The computer calculates that X is approximately equal to 700. It's shown graphically in Figure 6. a rise of about 0.13 is decadal average precipitation over the United States.000 acres.3 inches.9°F in the period. Figure 6. This little "model" explains a bit less than half of the total year-to-year variation in acreage burned in the United States. and Figure 6. That net change of minus 300.000. but that doesn't mean there's more to hear about.000-acre foreststack. Since 1960.9 degree rise in temperature means that we are burning 630. In other words." First. Consider what's happened since Bambi.000.11 shows 10-year averages for acreage burned in the United States. the 2.000 more acres per year. Despite our straightforward math.) Before the 1942 release of Bambi. Teddy & Megan . 142-145) It is also one of the easiest to dispute. That's part of the reason why.they’re decreasing burned acres Michaels in ‘4 (Patrick. If you have enough data—usually at least 10 "independent" observations of the "modeled" variable ("acreage burned") and for each predictor ("temperature" and "rainfall")—you can run a fairly straightforward statistical calculation that determines the values of X and Y that best describe the hypothesized mathematical relationship between fire. or a rise of 2.000fewer acres because of the increased moisture. and rain. Mitchell. It's not very hard to take the temperature. that a year that is one degree warmer than normal will have 700. say. How about this one: Acreage burned = X (temperature) – Y (rainfall). (And don't assume your 133 Ellis. you can't tell the climate signal from the random noise.000 more burned acres.000 acres. p. the 0. But there's also an increase in precipitation. “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists. We hear more about it. we averaged about 28. you specify an equation that defines a hypothesis about the way something works. which means. about 38 million acres went up each year. or in the current era of irrational fire suppression. the average was a little around 5 million acres per year going up in smoke.) reduced fire in the United States. Y is equal to 400. it was also around 5 million.5.3-inch rise in rainfall means that we're burning 930.3 inches of rain per year. This isn't just a straw doe. Environmental Sciences @ UVA.000 acres is a needle buried in an annual 5. In the 1960s. There is a warming trend. we used to just let things burn. when we look at. Politicians.

That causes the sea to warm. The Arctic Ocean warmed to 23 C (73 F). attaining a concentration of between four and five times that of today. Some of these so-called "positive feedbacks" are already known. AFP 4/13/2009 (Agence France Presse.natural. which leads to the loss of more ice.700 parts per million (ppm). But all this CO2 can only account for between one and 3.Climate Politics Page 134 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Greenhouse Theory Flawed The dominant greenhouse theory is incomplete—it fails to explain past warming. "Our results imply a fundamental gap in our understanding about the amplitude of global warming associated with large and abrupt climate perturbations. led by Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii. For instance. the team found. What seems clear is that a huge amount of heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases -. the findings are relevant as they highlight the risk of hidden mechanisms that add dramatically to warming. this exposes the uncovered sea to sunlight. A trio of Earth scientists. "This gap needs to be filled to confidently predict future climate change. Mitchell. says the paper. WEA) PARIS (AFP) — A runaway spurt of global warming 55 million years ago turned Earth into a hothouse but how this happened remains worryingly unclear. reflective layer. Even though there are big differences between Earth's geology and ice cover then and now. scientists said on Monday. Previous research into this period. They believe that levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) rose by 70 percent during PETM's main phase to reach 1. depriving it of a bright. try to account for the carbon that was spewed out during PETM. "Mystery mechanism drove global warming 55 million years ago"." warns Zeebe's team. But these "feedbacks" are poorly understood and some scientists believe there could be others still to be identified. when a patch of Arctic sea ice melts. Teddy & Megan . as opposed to man-made -. as this could shed light on aspects of global warming today. which in turn helps the sea to warm. estimates the planet's surface temperature blasted upwards by between five and nine degrees Celsius (nine and 16. There must have been some other factor that stoked temperatures higher. called the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. or PETM.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jXKGlsM4aZXPmItKk9TowSECsEYg.8-6. and so on. http://www. The theorised sources include volcanic activity and the sudden release of methane hydrates in the ocean.google." 134 Ellis.were disgorged in a very short time. How PETM happened is unclear but climatologists are eager to find out.2 degrees Fahrenheit) in just a few thousand years. or about the temperature of a lukewarm bath.3 F) of PETM's warming if the models for climate sensitivity are right.5 C (1.

the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. The report found that only about half of the warming that occurred during a natural climate change 55 million years ago can be explained by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Mitchell." says oceanographer Gerald Dickens. the IPCC predicted the Earth would warm by anywhere from 2 to 11 degrees by the end of the century due to increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by human industrial activity. "In a nutshell. says a new study published online today in the journal Nature Geoscience.usatoday.com/sciencefair/2009/07/could-we-be-wrong-about-global-warming. Dickens said.Climate Politics Page 135 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Climate Models Bad Climate models are inaccurate—newest journals flow our way.the ones used to predict global warming -. 135 Ellis. known as the “Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum” (PETM). USA Today Science Fair." In their most recent assessment report in 2007.html.000 years. "Could we be wrong about global warming?". Teddy & Megan .caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM. is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of this ancient warming. global surface temperatures also rose dramatically during the PETM. WEA) Could the best climate models -. What caused the remainder of the warming is a mystery. theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -the same ones used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for current best estimates of 21st century warming -. study co-author and professor of Earth Science at Rice University in Houston. As the levels of carbon increased. This makes the PETM one of the best ancient climate analogues for present-day Earth. The conclusion. http://blogs.all be wrong? Maybe so. Average temperatures worldwide rose by around 13 degrees in the relatively short geological span of about 10. Rice 7/14/2009 (Doyle. for unknown reasons. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models." During the warming period.

July 21st 2009. Mitchell. http://blog. energy costs. The Foundry.org/2009/07/21/a-baker’s-dozen-of-reasons-to-oppose-cap-andtrade/) 136 Ellis. businesses The Foundry. GDP. Teddy & Megan .Climate Politics Page 136 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Bad – Economy Cap and trade kills the economy. 7/21/09 (“A Baker’s Dozen of Reasons to Oppose Cap and Trade”.jobs.heritage.

) It will reduce economic growth. When all the tax impacts have been added up. The Brookings Institute. that’s equivalent to about 1. Although upper income families tend to use more energy (and thus emit more carbon per household). we find that the average per-family-of-four costs rise by almost $3. 3. all in the year 2030.3-2. the poor pay more […].500 to be exact.7 million fewer jobs than without cap and trade. Heritage’s CDA found that by 2035 gasoline prices would increase 58 percent. Brookings predicts GDP in the United States would be lower by 2.3 percent ($350 billon) below the baseline in 2030 and 1. and worst of all. From 2012 to 2035. the other says it’s expensive. If cap and trade were so sure to work. Cap and trade is an energy tax that falls disproportionately on the poor. All three aforementioned studies found significant losses in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). especially the poor.600.5 percent ($730 billion) below the baseline in 2050. Heritage found the average GDP lost is $393 billion. for the average year over the 2012-2035 timeline. the higher energy prices would reduce economic activity by forcing businesses to cut costs elsewhere. natural gas prices would increase 55 percent. If only a small portion (15 percent) of the energy tax revenue is given back to the consumer.) More subsidies for unproven technologies and energy sources.5% in the first decade below the baseline. But Heritage isn’t alone in these estimates.Climate Politics Page 137 of 156 7WJ – HPSW The cap and trade debate. A federally mandated RES is proposed only because renewables are too expensive to compete otherwise. Since 85 percent of America’s energy needs come from carbon emitting fossil fuels. 2.000 per year. 4. 1. however. By 2035. natural gas prices would rise by an estimated 16%. Proponents of a carbon cap acknowledge this.) It will cost a family-of-four an additional $3. there is a projected 2. “Relative to total expenditure. the poor suffer most.000 per year. saying. 5.) It hits low-income households hardest. selective hearing can dictate what you believe Waxman-Markey will do to the economy and how it will affect global warming. One side says it’s cheap. In the year 2035 alone. hitting a high of $662 billion in 2035.7 million jobs in each year of the policy through 2030–after accounting for “green job” creation. Rebates or not. You hear it’s a jobs bill – that investing billions of dollars in new green technologies that will create or save millions of jobs. and the way they will be met is by raising the price of energy high enough so people use less.” Policymakers sought to protect consumers. You hear it won’t cost Americans families very much – about a stamp per day is what proponents of the bill say. Nothing could be further from the truth. the years in which we modeled the bill.4 trillion (in 2009 dollars). A study done by Charles River Associates prepared for the National Black Chamber of Congress projects higher unemployment of 2. a national mandate will cost Americans both as taxpayers and as ratepayers. home heating oil would increase 56 percent. stimulating the economy while igniting a green revolution. the accumulated GDP lost is $9. by reducing their workforce for example. job loss will be 1. like most debates in Washington. the burden on the poor obviously becomes heavier. Teddy & Megan . since low-income households spend a larger percentage of their income on energy. In effect. a supporter of a carbon tax.1 million greater than the baseline assumptions. And if you add up the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035. Depending on what side of the political isle you fall on. Here are thirteen reasons to oppose cap and trade.5 million fewer jobs than without a cap-and-trade bill. Census population projection estimates. why is all this even necessary? 137 Ellis.15 million jobs. The carbon dioxide reduction targets are still the same at the end of the day.) It will destroy 1. the tax impact is $4. cap and trade would be massive tax on energy consumption. electricity prices go up by 22% and gasoline increases by 23 center per gallon. CRA’s and the Black Chamber’s study found that relative to the baseline. Mitchell. Using U. That’s a lot of postage stamps—162. has become a numbers game. our primary measure of economic activity. it’s about $71. The bill also include a renewable electricity standard that mandates 15 percent of the nation’s electricity from renewable energy by 2020 as well as hundreds of billions of investments (read: taxpayer subsidies) for efficiency improvements and renewable energy technology.500.5 percent in 2050 and the National Black Chamber estimates that in GDP will be 1. and thus doing damage that no check would cover. projects that cap and trade will increase unemployment would by 0. from higher energy prices by handing out rebate checks or tax cuts. This means that carbon emission-reduction policies have a regressive impact on income distribution – unless coupled with revenuerecycling policies that protect the real incomes of the poor and middle classes. Washington is forcing costlier energy options on the public. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that. Since renewables are lavished with substantial tax breaks.) It will increase your energy bills. electricity prices would jump 90 percent. 6.S.

"Climate policy: free trade promotes a cleaner environment". against foreign competitors whose governments have chosen to be less draconian. Heritage Foundation.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2407. Some U. which will see job losses in some industries that exceed 50 percent. reduced consumer spending.S. "Five Reasons the EPA Should Not Attempt to Deal with Global Warming".cfm.S. as the climate change zealots propose to erect trade barriers to raise the costs of foreign products produced under less severe environmental policy constraints. **research assistant in the Thomas A. climate regime does far more harm than good and should be avoided. energy cost increases of 30 percent or more. higher energy prices fall disproportionately on the poor.[1] If Congress and the President do embark on such a potentially treacherous course.Climate Politics Page 138 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext.S. America's trade partners are unlikely to agree. http://www. whether consistent with WTO agreements or not. categories that include virtually every product in our economy. consumers and producers will find no relief from artificially inflated prices by turning to lower-cost imports. trade measures is very real.org/Research/tradeandeconomicfreedom/wm2408. households and firms will face much higher costs for energy and energy-intensive goods. Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2407.S.[1] High energy costs result in production cuts. restrictions. companies and policymakers may find it fair for the government to prop up domestic businesses. C&T Kills Economy Climate bill will decimate economic growth – higher costs and trade restrictions Markheim 2009 .*senior policy analyst in Energy and the Environment for the Heritage Foundation. Hard-pressed U. WebMemo #2408.S. Mitchell.heritage. would undermine development in poorer countries and make it more difficult to achieve a multilateral consensus on the rules of trade that best support environmental objectives. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis study of the economic effects of carbon dioxide cuts found cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses of $7 trillion by 2029 (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). whose profitability will have been destroyed by new climate change regulations. and ultimately a much slower economy. Teddy & Megan . 138 Ellis. http://author. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (4/23. Cap and trade destroys economic growth – taxes all energy use. the EPA's proposed global warming policy would severely limit economic growth. single-year GDP losses exceeding $600 billion in some years (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). Even when the economy does recover.000 for several years. Daniella. and annual job losses exceeding 800. Many such trade restrictions could violate World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and lead to legal sanctions against the U. it is clear that the adoption of protectionist polices as a part of a U. economy runs on fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide. ensures billions of dollars lost from the GDP each year and increases unemployment Loris and Lieberman 2009 . since low-income households spend a larger percentage of their income on energy. Any U. Above anything else.Jay Van Andel senior trade policy analyst int he Center for International Trade and Economics at Heritage (4/24. When all these negative effects are taken into account.cfm.heritage. Hit particularly hard is manufacturing.S.S. WEA) any attempt to reduce carbon dioxide would be poison to an already sick economy. WEA) The projected cost of a climate scheme on the U. But importantly. increased unemployment. the potential for nations to retaliate against U.S. Even if some of the proposed measures hold up against legal scrutiny in the WTO. Since 85 percent of the U. economy--evidenced from Europe's problematic climate program and the Kyoto Protocol's failure to affect emissions in signatory nations--illustrate how difficult it is for governments to impose binding climate restrictions without undermining economic growth. imposing a cost on CO2 is equivalent to placing an economy-wide tax on energy use.

Mitchell. contemplate going to countries such as China where carbon emission caps are unlikely to be taken seriously. D. The Heritage Foundation's analysis found that Arizona would lose thousands of jobs. Proponents of the cap-and-trade proposal argue that job losses will be offset by the creation of new. At a time when the economy remains shaky and unemployment has reached a 25-year high. July 17th 2009. when he was the director of the Congressional Budget Office in the Bush administration.cfm? newsid=20346352&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept_id=222077&rfi=6) On June 26. The truth is that government schemes designed to reduce carbon emissions will inevitably place new taxes on middle-class Americans in the form of increased energy bills and will cost jobs as those manufacturers who remain in the U. director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama administration. Senate could take up the House legislation. over 30. "The tax imposed by the cap-and-trade system is therefore equivalent to raising the family's income tax by about 50 percent. "green" jobs. They would be bad for families and would slow the economic recovery as well. That would give all Americans time to register their opinions on the bill. "Human activities are producing increasingly large quantities of greenhouse gases. If Americans communicate their opinions about this bill to their representatives in Congress. “G8 falls flat on Carbon Ban”.zwire." Byrd insisted that clean coal can be a "green energy.000 now pays an income tax of about $3.com/site/news. Sen.Climate Politics Page 139 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext.Va. will feel the effects of this tax hike. The increase. whose government has invested heavily in "green" jobs.. Review Messenger." Orszag argued that cap and trade was a "market-oriented" approach to reducing carbon emissions" that would be more efficient in reducing carbon dioxide emissions than a "command-and-control" approach as typified in a system of government regulations 139 Ellis. July 16th 2009. saying in a statement that "I cannot support the bill in its present form." "Those of us who understand coal's great potential in our quest for energy independence must continue to work diligently in shaping a climate bill that will ensure access to affordable energy for West Virginians. The effect is the same as if they had had their taxes raised.Ph.. regardless of income. When the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analyzed the cost of reducing carbon emissions by 15 percent below 2005 levels." he testified. Economist Peter Orszag. Cap and trade prevents growth—businesses and families won’t be able to compete in the global economy Corsi. known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act. a typical family of four with earnings of $50. and this year's version will once again face opposition from Senate Republicans and some moderate Democrats.reviewmessenger. and am so very proud of the miners who labor and toil in the coalfields of West Virginia.000 in the first year alone. Teddy & Megan . R-AZ. But it's not certain those jobs will materialize. it was clear Orszag believed global climate change resulting from human causes was a serious. 7/16/09." West Virginians may not be the only Americans that will suffer economically if cap and trade passes the Senate. but legislation he and congressional Democrats are backing would do just that”. according to a Spanish economist. In addition to the tax increase. 6/17/09. C&T Kills Economy Cap and trade kills the economy—taxes would prevent consumer spending and thousands of jobs will be lost Kyl. The bill would implement a "cap-and-trade" program with the ostensible purpose of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide into the Cap-and-trade programs set strict. In 2008. Rather than directly raising taxes on Americans. The Heritage Foundation concluded that it would slow long-term growth by almost $10 trillion over 26 years. I am convinced it can be defeated again.S. Robert Byrd. Eloy News." atmosphere. the House of Representatives passed legislation described by Harvard University economist Martin Feldstein as "a stealth strategy for a massive long-term tax All Americans. it estimated a family's cost of living would increase by $1. "The accumulation of these gases in the atmosphere is expected to have potentially serious and costly effects on regional climates throughout the world. similar legislation went down to defeat." That's $1. And jobs would be lost. perhaps even catastrophic problem. D-W.000. cap-andtrade raises the cost of living for everyone by raising energy costs and consumer prices for virtually everything. http://www." Feldstein wrote recently in the Weekly Standard. "To put that $1. let alone make up for the jobs that are lost. though it may not do so until September. From his testimony before he joined the Obama administration.com/index. “President Obama has pledged not to raise taxes on middle- income Americans.600 carbon tax in perspective. In Spain." Byrd said. http://www. blasted the cap-and-trade legislation. "I remain bullish about the future of coal. This year won't be the first time that the Senate has considered cap-and-trade. Congress should not be considering new taxes.600 a year.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1997:g8-fallsflat-on-carbon-ban&catid=19:guest-opinion) In a bad sign for the Obama administration.600 that families won't be able to spend or invest in the economy. particularly CO2. in Political Science from Harvard (Jerome R. Americans would also feel the pinch because cap-and-trade will hurt economic growth." Admitting that a cap-and-trade program amounts to a "carbon tax. two jobs are lost for every green job created.US Senator (Jon. Staff reporter for WND. Those sources would then either reduce carbon emissions or buy or trade emission allowances to achieve the required overall emissions reductions. mandatory limits on carbon emissions from various sources (like electric utilities). testified before Congress on cap-andtrade in 2008.

not lose homes and pay monthly living expenses." The truth is that: Cap-and-trade will increase gasoline prices and the cost of energy in the 25 states that get more than 50 percent of their electricity from coal. at a time the businesses are trying to compete in a global economy. at a time when families are struggling just to keep jobs. including manufacturing companies. Businesses that emit carbon dioxide. including those involved in raising children. when the science behind climate hysteria is more certain. Red Alert recommends we concern ourselves with the climate change catastrophe later. 140 Ellis. Red Alert calls on the American people to make sure the Senate knows that any senator voting for the Obama administration cap-and-trade legislation faces strong and determined opposition that will work actively to defeat them in the next election cycle. Orszag estimated a cap-and-trade emissions program could generate as much as $145 billion a year in the cap-and-trade program would function as a tax corporations would most likely pass on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Moreover. Mitchell.Climate Politics Page 140 of 156 7WJ – HPSW that would require across-the-board emission reductions by all firms. the imposition of what amounts to a cap-and-trade tax may further depress the economy. Acknowledging that to the success of a cap-and trade program because they would be the most important mechanisms through which businesses and households would be encouraged to make investments and behavioral changes that reduced CO2 emissions. will face yet one more cost of operations in paying cap-and-trade costs. Teddy & Megan . Proponents of cap-and-trade schemes typically assume the economic costs of what they perceive as the "climate change catastrophe" produced by man-made carbon dioxide emissions far outweigh the economic cost of the scheme itself. Orzag testified that "price increases would be essential revenue for the federal government. In the meantime.

“Electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” under this program. What does a so-called “energy bill” have to do with E. 7/18/09 (Ed. how could anyone justify putting more people out of work? In addition. On Page 1. In our faltering economy. This estimate seems reasonable in that every product on a store shelf will have a carbon tax included to be passed on to the consumer.increases energy costs and destroys consumer spending Hartman. for an individual with no dependents will double and include annual inflation adjustments. too. Mitchell.S. Teddy & Megan .com/news/2009/jul/18/beware-consequences-cap-and-trade/) I agree with Bob Edwards (“Reader disagrees with cap-and-trade talk. C&T Kills Economy Kills the economy. The Heritage Foundation estimates that the cost will range from $426 in 2012 to $1. I do not want to scramble for additional funds to cover outrageous electric or fuel bills. July 15) that the cap-and-trade bill will cost Americans jobs and further damage the economy. On Page 1.193.C. This cost will be passed to the consumer. The authors of this onerous bill know that American workers will be displaced and that it will cause energy costs to soar.T. the “Energy Refund Program” will allot monthly cash payments to offset the additional burden of energy costs caused by this bill.tidewaternews.” Wednesday. presidential candidate Obama admitted. http://www. The cost of transporting goods to market will drastically increase. 141 Ellis.I. government if it’s determined that the capand-trade bill resulted in the reduction of revenues going into these two trust funds.209 this bill references the Earned Income Tax Credit. the government will be here to bail you out.? Nothing but pandering! Another interesting section is No. Does Congress expect more damage to these two programs by this bill? Where will the money come from for any of it? The Congressional Budget Office has estimated this bill would cost each household $175 in 2020.I. "Beware the consequences of cap-and-trade".Climate Politics Page 141 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. That is three years that our government will knowingly force Americans out of work. energy rates will drastically increase. if you fall within a socioeconomic level of no more than 150 percent of the poverty line. The E. On Page 1.” It allows the administrators of Medicare and Social Security to access the general revenues of the U. Yet.241 in 2035. In an economy that’s losing many jobs a month.T. 443: “Protection of Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.157 this bill states that any worker who loses his or her job as a result of the changes made by the bill will be eligible for special unemployment benefits for a period of up to 156 weeks.C. Tidewaternewsdotcom. July 18th 2009. In January 2008.

First.US Congressman (Tom. but the objective is the same: to force a dramatic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Second. it’s worse. Madam Speaker. Calif. Assembly Bill 32. Let’s ignore for the moment the fact that the planet’s climate is constantly changing and that long-term global warming has been going on since the last ice age. this is deadly serious stuff. why would they want to do the same thing to our nation? Madam Speaker. Can’t Solve Warming/Economy Cap and Trade doesn’t solve warming or the economy – California’s attempt at reducing emissions proves McClintock. construction. California’s unemployment rate began a steady upward divergence from the national jobless figures. So applying a tax to the economy designed to radically constrict carbon dioxide emissions means radically constricting the economy. In California. AB 32 and companion legislation caused them to abandon that contract.Climate Politics Page 142 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. We have lost so many jobs the UC Santa Barbara economic forecast is now using the D-word — depression — to discuss California’s job market. We need to understand what that means. and at its highest point since 1941. This House has just made the biggest economic mistake since the days of Herbert Hoover. R-CA.000 imported products. the first thing that economists point to is the SmootHawley Tariff Act that imposed new taxes on more than 20. Waxman-Markey is our generation’s Smoot-Hawley. baking and brewing — all of which produce enormous quantities of this innocuous and ubiquitous compound. In the most serious recession since the Great Depression — why would members of this House want to repeat the same mistakes that produced that Great Depression? Watching how California has just wrecked its economy and destroyed its finances. And I have spent the last three years watching as that law has dangerously deepened California’s recession. What is it that happened in January 2007? AB 32 took effect and began shutting down entire segments of California’s economy. Until that bill took effect. If this measure becomes law. EPA-approved coal-fired electricity plant in Utah. California’s unemployment numbers tracked very closely with the national unemployment rate. 7/9/09. the cap and trade bill proposes what amounts to endlessly increasing taxes on any enterprises that produce carbon dioxide or other socalled greenhouse gas emissions. And this brings us to the fine point of it. Mitchell. because it imposes new taxes on an infinitely larger number of domestic products on a scale that utterly dwarfs Smoot-Hawley.truthabouttrade. When you discuss the folly of the Hoover administration — how it turned the recession of 1929 into the depression of the 1930s. California’s unemployment rate is more than two points above the national rate.. in January of 2007. “Waxman-Markey Is Our Smoot-Hawley”. green jobs — exactly the same promises we’re hearing from cap and trade supporters. The city of Truckee. cargo and passenger transportation.en/) I had a strange sense of deja vu as I watched the self-congratulatory rhetoric on the House floor tonight. 142 Ellis. our planet will continue to warm and cool as it has been doing for billions of years. Congress will have delivered a staggering blow to our nation’s economy at precisely that moment when that economy was the most vulnerable. Let’s ignore the fact that within recorded history we know of periods when the earth’s climate has been much warmer than it is today and others when it has been much cooler. It transcends ideology and politics.org/content/view/14249/54/lang. Today. In fact. that’s not a future prediction. July 9th 2009. two things are certain. Let me give you one example from my district. Three years ago. Gov. Schwarzenegger assured us that AB 32 would mean an explosion of new.2 pounds of carbon dioxide every day — just by breathing. Let’s ignore the thousands of climate scientists and meteorologists who have concluded that human-produced greenhouse gases are a negligible factor in global warming or climate change. I stood on the floor of the California Senate and watched a similar celebration over a similar bill. exactly the opposite has happened. energy production. Ignore all of that and still we are left with one lousy sense of timing. I can tell you from bitter experience that in my district. But then. and I feel compelled to offer this warning from the Left Coast. that is a historical fact. every human being produces 2. The replacement power they acquired literally doubled their electricity costs. http://www. Teddy & Megan . It has profound implications for agriculture. was about to sign a long-term power contract to get its electricity from a new. In fact. So when economists warn that we can expect electricity prices to double under the cap and trade bill. It uses a different mechanism than cap and trade.

Like any commodity. The whole purpose of the bill is to force people to pay more for energy. The legislation. the usual rationale for a carbon cap is that. economy ever to emerge on Capitol Hill. wind and other new technologies aimed at boosting conservation. they had better succeed. the cap would become more restrictive. which now goes to the Senate. For the sake of the economy’s health. the two arguments are contradictory. That will add even more uncertainty to the business of energy production. by slowing the growth of consumer spending. Teddy & Megan . That has undercut the competitiveness of solar. “Kill cap and trade before it kills growth”. In Europe. the measure will need at least 60 votes. Not only that. Thomas.html) Up to now. which seems likely. The bill’s prospects in the Senate. If Republicans hang together and peel off a few Democrats. Now we’re told there won’t be any economic pain at all. and those price movements could be violent. those states together make up only 4 percent of the membership. yes. would What’s more interesting is the change in approach. they can stop the bill dead in its tracks. the recession has caused the price of carbon permits to plummet. Obviously. when he remarked that under his cap-and-trade plan. it would be futile: Without the cooperation of rapidly industrializing economies such as India and China — which say they have no intention of impeding their growth with carbon caps — anything the United States does will have little effect on overall global emissions. reducing CO2 emissions. Over time. http://www.) The Heritage Foundation pointed out that incredibly the CBO study failed to include in its calculations the overall effect on economic growth. That won’t spur economic growth. fortunately. which makes up the greatest share of the gross domestic product. the price of carbon permits will fluctuate. But in the Senate. The bill would not only make energy prices go up. Nor is it likely to work as its authors intend. are grim because the same political dynamic that worked in the House won’t apply in the Senate. but we have to understand that the short-term costs would be far less than the dire.Climate Politics Page 143 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: C&T Solves Economy Evidence that says cap and trade will help the economy is biased – the bill would massively raise energy prices and decimate jobs McClanahan.S. selfinflicted wound. Mitchell. (Lower-income households would get a rebate reducing their energy costs by $40. It will retard it. “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. The House barely passed cap and trade — the vote was 219-212.com/275/story/1306026. impose an overall limit on emissions of greenhouse gases. Obama’s latest tack is refuted by statements he made earlier this year. it would involve economic pain. 143 Ellis. Thanks to the Senate’s rules. 7/4/09. the New York and California delegations provided 26 percent of the support for cap and trade in the House.kansascity. Industries would then buy and sell permits to emit carbon.Editor at Kansas City Star (E. In fact.” How do you end up with a vibrant economy and lots of net job creation by forcing people to pay higher energy prices? Well. As Jay Cost points out at the Real Clear Politics site. The notion that cap-and-trade will do little harm came from a recent Congressional Budget Office analysis that pegged the bill’s annual cost in 2020 at a mere $175 for the average family. but — because energy costs raise production costs generally — it would make the prices of almost everything else rise as well. The result will be lower output and fewer jobs. lowering permit costs and the cost of using fossil fuels. long-term consequences of doing nothing about global warming. July 4th 2009. and that’s why this measure is one of the biggest threats to the U. Cap-and-trade would be a crippling. you don’t. Kansas City Star.

cap and trade is likely to increase greenhouse gases. Since energy is the largest sector of the U. Firms that reduce their emissions below the allowed amount would be able to trade their remaining credits to other companies. 7/16/09 (David.com/?p=11346) Members of my congregation are concerned about losing their jobs. A report by the National Association of Manufacturers estimates that limiting emissions by the projected amounts for 2050 will reduce U. EGP News. According to the U. economy. Experts predict that more than nine million families will fall into poverty. July 16th 2009. As some Republicans and Democrats who oppose the bill rightly argue. Census Bureau. Moreover. it’s the poor who suffer the most. low-income families will have a hard time putting food on the table. “Climate Change Legislation Caps Poor. And the jobs that will be lost because of cap and trade will likely go overseas to countries that do not have emissions caps. Ironically. But the cap-and-trade system will create huge job losses and negatively impact an already failing economy. Not Emissions”. For example. http://egpnews.S. This legislation would cap the amount of carbon emissions permitted. jobs in energy and manufacturing which will be lost will be replaced with less paying renewable energy jobs.Climate Politics Page 144 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: C&T Solves Economy – Green Jobs Cap and trade kills the economy . Poor and single-parent families I counsel are stretching to make ends meet. Teddy & Megan . there is no doubt that imposing limits on energy will affect all other sectors of the economy. According to a study by the University of Massachusetts. the average wage in “green energy” jobs is about 65 percent less than regular energy jobs. with 24 percent of African-Americans and 21 percent of Hispanics falling in this category. Ironically at this time of economic difficulty. 144 Ellis. there are more than 37 million people living in poverty.241 a year in additional energy costs as a result of cap-and-trade. gross domestic product by $269 billion with 850. all for a possible decrease in global temperatures of less than one-tenth of one degree by 2050. not reduce them.S. With the cost of living increasing due to taxes imposed from this pending legislation. transportation. and Senate leaders say a vote will come this fall. They are the ones who will have the greatest difficulty making ends meet. which would decline over time. Mitchell. these numbers are likely to increase. Due to the current economic recession. President Barack Obama is calling on the Senate to act.our evidence assumes green job increases Rosales. will have to pay about $1. The President’s goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020 and by 83 percent by 2050. Small businesses in our community are struggling to survive. That’s over $100 per month. consumers will end up paying “hidden taxes” in other areas (like food. the House of Representatives has passed a bill to reduce global warming emissions through a capand-trade system.S. and housing). Small business owners will also struggle to stay afloat.000 job losses by 2014. When the prices for daily commodities increase. an independent study by the Heritage Foundation finds that every American family. A Sure Foundation. on average.

while the price of diesel has nearly tripled during the same time period. the trucking industry is the driving force behind the nation's economy. Even fewer are aware of the significant employment. Committee on House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) With more than 750. 6/19/2008 (C.Climate Politics Page 145 of 156 7WJ – HPSW 2NC Trucking Industry Module Cap and trade will jack the trucking industry. personal income. Mitchell. Inc.5 million are commercial drivers. Department of Transportation. Our industry can not absorb rapid increases in fuel costs.000 interstate motor carriers in the United States. Inc. Vice President. Over the past five years. transportation. and tax revenue generated by the motor carrier industry. and agricultural sectors. fuel has now surpassed labor as their largest operating expense. According to the U. Nearly nine million people employed in the trucking industry move approximately 11 billion tons of freight annually across the nation.can’t absorb costs and allowances don’t solve Mullett. if they are making a profit at all. Randall. That is why the trucking industry is extremely sensitive to how climate change legislation may further escalate fuel prices. This explains why many trucking companies are reporting that higher fuel prices have greatly suppressed profits. Randall. 6/19/2008 (C. Trucking is a highly competitive industry with very low profit margins. ATA urges Congress to carefully evaluate other approaches to evaluate and address fuel price impacts that result from climate change legislation. public utility. Few Americans realize that trucks deliver nearly 70 percent of all freight tonnage or that 80 percent of the nation's communities receive their goods exclusively by truck. Of those employed in private-sector trucking-related jobs. service. retail. mining. Trucking industry is key to the economy Mullett. construction. Committee on House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) This hardship surprises few in the industry.S. 3. Trucking generates approximately $646 billion in revenue and represents roughly five percent of our nation's Gross Domestic Product. Vice President. Provisions to release more allowances to help mitigate fuel price spikes will not provide timely relief to our industry. all of whom operate in extremely competitive business environments with narrow profit margins. 145 Ellis. Teddy & Megan . total industry consumption of diesel fuel has gone up 15 percent. For most truckers. One out of every 13 people working in the private sector in our country is employed in a trucking-related jobs ranging across the manufacturing. The trucking industry is composed of both large national enterprises as well as a host of small businesses. 96 percent of motor carriers have 20 or fewer trucks and are characterized as being small businesses. Government Affairs Con-way. Government Affairs Con-way. Trucks haul nearly every consumer good at some point in the supply chain.

but state regulatory mandates have substantially increased the financial burdens being placed upon our industry. Randall.Climate Politics Page 146 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Trucking Industry Brink Trucking on the brink. new diesel engine emission standards imposed by the U. For instance. We are extremely sensitive to rapidly shifting operating costs given our thin operating margins of between 2-4 percent.000 to $10.000 while decreasing fuel up the cost of engines between $8.000 and.S. In 2006 alone trucking consumed over 39 billion gallons of diesel fuel. Vice President. We use a tremendous amount of diesel fuel every year to keep our economy moving and our industry is deeply concerned over what a cap-and-trade program may do to further exacerbate fuel costs and our current fuel emergency. which is $1. 6/19/2008 (C. This means that a one-cent increase in the average price of diesel costs the trucking industry an additional $391 million in fuel expenses.2 pounds of CO2 per gallon of fuel. Not only have equipment costs increased due to federal requirements. by many accounts. The average national price of diesel fuel this week is now over $4.89 more than just one year ago. These margins continue to be chipped away given the numerous and unprecedented costs being imposed upon the industry. Additional EPA diesel engine emission standards in 2007 drove Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2002 drove up engine costs on average of between $3. Vice President. Committee on House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) The fuel of choice for the nation's long-haul trucks is diesel fuel. Committee on House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) The trucking industry is concerned over what cap-and-trade legislation will do to the price of fuel we consume. Government Affairs Con-way. Teddy & Megan . Randall. Inc. 146 Ellis. most critically. Burning diesel fuel is the main source of carbon emissions from our industry equating to 22.margins thin Mullett. I wish to further expand upon the critical role diesel fuel plays in our industry. Mitchell. 6/19/2008 (C. Beyond equipment costs. we have experienced record increases in insurance premiums and. Diesel fuel provides greater fuel economy and the higher energy content necessary to transport widely diversified loads under extreme operating conditions. Diesel engine emission standards set to take effect in 2010 will substantially increase engine costs yet again while fuel economy impacts still remain unknown at this time. Inc. Government Affairs Con-way. decreased fuel economy between 2-4%. economy between 6-8 percent.69 per gallon. historical expenditures for fuel in the absence of any climate change legislation being passed.000 to $5. Even small increase in fuel prices could devastate trucking industry Mullett.

interstate and diverse nature of our business operations. The demand for more products will in turn require more trucks to deliver such goods which will result in more vehicle miles traveled and greater diesel fuel consumption. Mitchell.Climate Politics Page 147 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext.000 interstate motor carriers operating in the United States ranging from single truck operators to fleets with thousands of trucks. Keep in mind that as the nation's population continues to grow. medicine. Committee on House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) The trucking industry opposes carbon emission caps being placed on the trucking sector as unworkable and impracticable given the There are more than 750. so does the corresponding demand for more consumer goods. Government Affairs Con-way. Approaches to dramatically reduce carbon emissions from line-haul trucks will curtail the delivery of vital consumer goods across the nation such as food. Randall. Trucking Key to Economy Trucking collapse jacks the entire economy Mullett. The table below clearly shows these relationships. 147 Ellis. Inc. 6/19/2008 (C. Vice President. Teddy & Megan . Constraining the country's freight delivery system will do nothing short of shutting down life as we know it. and clothing.

July 14th 2009. 7/14/09. the US one will likely be closed or sold off as the cost of running it rises. the CEOs tenure can be measured in days before the stockholders demand a new CEO be appointed who will protect their investments. but it’s not just the direct energy costs that come into play. Texas. Areas near the coasts will likely seen only a limited impact. http://www. Most admit that their rigs get less than 8 miles-per-gallon on a good day. has against US based manufacturers grows. if Cap-andTrade goes through and increases the cost of fuel for trains and trucks permanently.examiner. the US manufacturers will see foreign factories gain a competitive advantage not because of better schools or training. The first is the fact that as the cost of energy increases due to the effects of Cap-and-Trade. but anyone who does not see the truth that businesses will react negatively to Cap-and-Trade is ignoring reality. The industry in the US has already suffered greatly as lower labor costs in other nations ravaged profit margins. Transporting products to markets is another energy intensive arena that businesses compete in. the competitive advantage a nation such as China. All of this will mean lost jobs. and if any business failed to make major changes to maintain its profitability once Cap-and-Trade goes into effect. Teddy & Megan . A factory closes due to increased energy costs and the workers lose jobs. However. One area the US once dominated is Steel. so most goods still have to travel the last legs of their journey by truck. but the interior of the nation will have to pay for the increased cost of moving goods to their cities and towns. and open the door for foreign competitors to jump in with an alternative material or product. I've talked to more than a few semi drivers who make the long hauls of goods and materials around this nation.Climate Politics Page 148 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Bad – Competitiveness (1/2) Cap and trade kills competitiveness. A store finds that it can no longer obtain goods at a low enough price to sell them at a profit. Now. but there are three that generate the largest push for companies to move their operations. If a company already has a factory overseas and one in the US. the damage from Cap-and-Trade is not going to be from its direct impact. these three issues all mostly concern the costs that businesses will face. "Cap-and-Trade is a job killer". And this issue will have a higher impact on any manufacturing that actually produces carbon on its own. But the increased cost from having to purchase carbon credits will drive the price they must demand for the same products higher. The bill in any form will quickly prove to be a job killer as the regulations and costs it imposes on manufacturing and logistics drives businesses to move operations out of the country. But such operations are power intensive and generate copious amounts of "greenhouse gases". which will have no carbon controls and therefore less expensive and more abundant energy is not a difficult choice. Part of why some people call part of the Midwest the "Rust Belt' is the fact that the region used to have massive steel mills working round the clock preparing raw steel for other factories to use. With consumer spending already dropping rapidly and unemployment rising. GreenChoice now would add about $58 a month to the electricity bill of an average home. Once again. Right now Austin. The availability of goods also will change. This was noted in an article published at the statesman. which noted: The reason is that GreenChoice prices have risen more than fivefold since the program started. and the workers there lose jobs. San Diego Examiner. which created a major program to sell wind-derived electricity through the local utility company.com/x-2988-San-Diego-EconomyExaminer~y2009m7d14-CapandTrade-is-a-job-killer) I've had a family member remind me that one study of the Cap-and-Trade bill that passed in the House of Representatives recently claimed that the average family of four would see only a modest $300 per year increase in their energy bills. Production will shift overseas as rapidly as companies can find alternative sites and prepare them for production.com website. often finding niche markets that foreign mills aren't willing to enter. Mitchell. More than a few people have used this as a sign that the bill will not impact the economy heavily. which has refused to participate in any carbon reduction treaties. Businesses in the US are not run as non-profit organizations. This is obvious. but because of regulations they must obey while their competitors do not suffer under the same restrictions. but only a few locations are directly on or by the tracks on which trains run. Sadly. The final area where costs will rise is logistics. Energy availability also becomes a factor as companies planning large expansions of factories must consider if the local power supply is sufficient. but a few mills have managed to remain in business. has discovered that the inability of the wind-farms to ramp up production to meet the growing need of customers has increased the cost of the green energy enough to make it uncompetitive in the local market.San Diego Economic Examiner (Mark. With costs of transport increasing. There are too many elements of this to list them all. Businesses need to be able to control their costs and plan for profitability. then that cost will impact business decisions and pricing.increases costs for businesses and encourages offshoring Vargus. 148 Ellis. Moving goods is less expensive by train. companies will be less willing to ship products long distances unless prices can rise at the destinations. For many manufacturers moving operations to China or India. The massive disruption of the energy production market that Cap-and-Trade would cause is not going to be welcomed by companies needing cost certainty.

Mitchell. the penalties to the US markets for passing this will be legion. Teddy & Megan . 149 Ellis.Climate Politics Page 149 of 156 7WJ – HPSW there is no sign that any business will welcome Cap-and-Trade and even less possibility that companies will add jobs after it goes into effect. It raises costs far too broadly to be avoided and with other nations making it clear that they will not join in and kill their own economies.

more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005 . and. In addition." Consequently. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel. its relative position will necessarily worsen. should not even be attempted.5 million Afghans. their people would be better off. That solves nuclear wars everywhere Thayer. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it). one gathers from the argument. developments such as the agricultural and industrial revolutions produced fundamental changes positively affecting the relative position of those who were able to take advantage of them and negatively affecting those who did not. During the Cold War. but nonetheless. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan.3 So. which will shift the sources of wealth and If the United States fails to recognize the change and adapt its institutions.S. voted in a critical October 2004 election. growing democratization--is directly linked to U. such as in Darfur.S. of security studies at Missouri State. and abandon more and more of its external interests. Britain or the United States today. but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood. particularly war's worst form: great power wars. American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because. 6 (Bradley. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. the United States must maintain its technological lead in the economic realm. primacy. democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States. And so. Indeed they do. Indonesia and Australia.S.Climate Politics Page 150 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Bad – Competitiveness (2/2) Competitiveness key to hegemony Khalilzad – 95 The United States is unlikely to preserve its military and technological dominance if the U. power. increasing respect for human rights. American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. In the past. U. 40 percent of them women. once states are governed democratically. become inward-looking. in general. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest. To sustain and improve its economic strength. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists. even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. prof. November/December. Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade. it is important to note what those good things are. American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey. India and Pakistan. economy declines seriously. As the United States weakened. power behind it. others would try to fill the Vacuum. l/n) THROUGHOUT HISTORY. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U. the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. spreading democracy helps maintain U. The first has been a more peaceful world. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened. It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. Teddy & Megan . Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics. most notably France and West Germany. South Korea and Japan. the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. Its success will depend on the choices it makes. Today. The National Interest. peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power--Rome. as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue. labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is open to question. a robust monetary regime.S. Israel and Egypt. "In Defense of Primacy". 150 Ellis. the relative position of classes and nations. liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview.S.S. Without U. Second. Rather. In such an environment. Of course. the domestic economic and political base for global leadership would diminish and the United States would probably incrementally withdraw from the world. Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East. Mitchell.S. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies. Some argue that the world may be at the beginning of another such transformation. it is because they are more open. leadership. power. where 8.

Asia and the Caucasus. who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India. Latin America. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive. Kuwait. They may not yet look like Western-style democracies. Mitchell. which are facilitated through American primacy. a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology. and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides. 151 Ellis. Lebanon. along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy. the Palestinian Authority and Egypt.Climate Politics Page 151 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe. but democratic progress has been made in Algeria. the march of democracy has been impressive. Morocco. respect for international property rights. the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. Iraq. helping to ensure military prowess. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit. Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization. Teddy & Megan . maximizes efficiencies and growth. particularly the poorest states in the Third World. Third. and mobility of capital and labor markets. With its allies .4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems. Abandoning the positions of his youth. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. By all accounts. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal.

Governments have therefore focused on a cap-and-trade system as a way of increasing the cost of CO2-intensive products without explicitly imposing a tax. Implementation of cap and trade is a more serious threat to trade – tariffs would immediately lead to a new round of protectionism Feldstein. House of Representatives having narrowly approved a climate change bill late last month.U. minimum renewable fuel inputs in electricity generation). In a cap-and-trade system. Those industries least likely to be harmed by the increased cost of having to buy emission permits at auction. C&T Kills Competitiveness Independent analysis finds cap and trade will destroy competitiveness – raises business costs and forces outsourcing Zeller. the resulting permit an auction. they are reluctant to impose a general carbon tax because of public opposition to any form of taxation. on July 8. weighed against the potentially grave consequences of doing nothing. representatives of the cabinet of President Barack Obama sat before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and urged passage of a meaningful bill to combat global warming.S. Business Standard.” had been tweaked. transportation. Inhofe said. It is with this in mind that representatives of more than 150 countries are scheduled to meet in Copenhagen in December to discuss ways to reduce CO2 emissions. and free allocation of permits has been widely curtailed — “because there’s a huge potential for perversion. the government sets total allowable national emissions of CO2 per year and requires any firm that causes CO2 emissions to have a permit per tonne of CO2 emitted. oil.Editor at New York Times (Tom Jr. Senate subcommittee that the E. Such a tax would cause electricity companies and industrial firms to adopt techniques that reduce their CO2 emissions. production technology standards (eg. according to reams of independent analyses. on the ability of the United States to find common ground on the issue at home. testified that American farmers and ranchers could benefit from carbon offset provisions in cap-and-trade legislation. http://www. the hearings have provided a sober accounting of the economic hazards posed by overzealous government meddling in the marketplace. “The logic is not difficult to understand. merits and implications of climate policy generally and a cap-and-trade system specifically. At other points. or that sell products like gasoline that cause CO2 emissions when used.Climate Politics Page 152 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. Mr. Teddy & Megan . which is busy debating just how to craft a version of its own. the secretary of agriculture. Scientific evidence appears to indicate that the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels (primarily coal. To that point.nytimes. the price of the permit would be a cost to the firm in the same way as a carbon tax — and with the same resulting increases in consumer prices. 7/19/09. blog. while Energy Secretary Steven Chu described climate change as an a Foreign Relations subcommittee brought in several representatives of European industry on the premise that they have learned a thing or two about cap-andtrade systems in the four years or so that the European Union has had one in place. That uniform individual cost incentive allows total CO2 to be reduced at a lower total cost than would be achieved by a variety of administrative requirements.” among witnesses and elected officials who appear far from consensus. cap-and-trade policies could produce significant harmful economic effects in the near term that would continue into the future. Inhofe. raising the possibility of serious risks to international trade. they have been a raucous display of political peacocking and sniping With the prospect for a global climate treaty hinging. Setting aside leaders like James M. and various industrial processes — contributes to gradual global warming. July 19th 2009. A carbon tax causes each firm and household to respond to the same cost of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. more recently. with long-term adverse effects on living conditions around the world. Although governments levy taxes on gasoline.” he said. system. Earlier this month. There is a serious danger that the international adoption of cap-andtrade legislation to limit carbon-dioxide emissions will trigger a new round of protectionist measures. the European carbon trading system — the world’s largest and oldest — has been racked by volatile and. are now being required to do so. Even if every country has a cap-andtrade system and all aim at the same relative reduction in national CO2 emissions. be included in the price charged to consumers. “Martin Feldstein: Cap-and-trade = protectionism?”. the research coordinator for energy and climate policy at the Öko-Institut in Berlin. such as automobile mileage standards. Matthes explained. as long as the cost of doing so is less than the tax that they would otherwise have to pay. Formerly Chairman Of President Ronald Reagan’s Council Of Economic Advisors and President Of The National Bureau For Economic Research (Martin. of course. where they have no mandatory carbon caps.business-standard. “will move overseas. Mr. Editor and writer for The New York Times covering alternative energy and green business. Inhofe said in a speech on the Senate floor as his colleagues in the House were preparing to vote on their bill. told the “unprecedented threat to our way of life. Felix Matthes. http://www. which would be levied on companies that emit CO2 in production.” Mr.com/2009/07/20/business/energy-environment/20iht-green20. particularly as rapidly industrializing nations — chiefly China — continue to resist the idea of implementing their own emission caps. in no small part.Professor Of Economics At Harvard. “Peacocks and Passions in Senate Climate Debate”. attention has now moved to the Senate. Consumers would respond to the tax-induced increase in the cost of the emissions-intensive products by reducing their consumption of those goods and services in favour of goods and services that create smaller amounts of CO2 emissions. If the government sells these permits in A cap-and-trade system can cause serious risks to international trade. will severely damage America’s global economic competitiveness. plummeting prices. In addition. and natural gas) — mainly in electricity production. The higher cost of production incurred to reduce emissions — and of any emissions tax still due — would. the Republican senator from Oklahoma who has referred to global warming as “the greatest hoax ever the chief concern surrounding any potential climate legislation in the United States is this: How will it affect the ability of American industry to compete around the globe? It is a fair question. “Carbon caps. At times. 6/27/09.” Jobs and businesses. Tom Vilsack. as my colleague Kate Galbraith reported at our Green Inc. etc. June 27th 2009. A common suggestion is to impose a tax on all CO2 emissions. Mitchell. Yet we do not see carbon taxes being adopted. While aimed at reducing long-term environmental damage..” A day later. The cap-and-trade system thus imposes a carbon tax without having to admit that it is really a tax. principally by raising the cost of doing business here relative to other countries like China.com/india/news/martin-feldstein-cap-andtrade-=-protectionism/362252/) The cap-and-trade system imposes a carbon tax without having to admit that it is really a tax.” Whether or not that logic is as airtight as Mr.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1) With the U. its method of initially seeding the market with free emission permits generated windfall profits for some companies — most in the utility sector — causing critics to dismiss the system as fundamentally corrupt. now in its “third phase. 152 Ellis. not least by a parade of witnesses now being called before various Senate committees and subcommittees to testify on the needs. Inhofe suggests is widely debated — perpetrated on the American people. the stakes are particularly high. After all.

impose a complex set of regulatory policies. the cap-and-trade system affects its international competitiveness. Worse still. Mitchell. by paying for the planting of trees) instead of reducing their emissions or buying permits. Such a system of complex differential tariffs is just the kind of protectionism that governments have been working to eliminate since the start of the GATT process more than 50 years ago. and allow companies to buy CO2 offsets (eg. 153 Ellis. which in turn would invite those who want to protect domestic jobs to argue for higher tariff levels. there will be political pressure to introduce tariffs on imports that offset the advantage of countries with low permit prices.Climate Politics Page 153 of 156 7WJ – HPSW prices will differ because of national differences in initial CO2 levels and in domestic production characteristics. cap-and-trade systems in practice do not rely solely on auctions to distribute the emissions permits. The plan working its way through the United States Congress (the Waxman-Markey bill) would initially give away 85 per cent of the permits. Such offsetting tariffs would have to differ among products (being higher on more CO2-intensive products) and among countries (being higher for countries with low permit prices). Teddy & Megan . When the permit prices become large enough to have a significant effect on CO2 emissions. Because the price of the CO2 permits in a country is reflected in the prices of its products. Such complexities make it impossible to compare the impact of CO2 policies among countries.

S. and the way they will be met is by raising the price of energy and thereby inflicting more economic pain. As long as nations are trading peacefully. China has already threatened retaliatory protectionist policies. the father of the nuclear disarmament movement. Mitchell. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs. whether the cause is environmental. the bill includes protectionist carbon tariffs to offset the competitive disadvantage U. but also to forestall conflict with other nations.heritage. When businesses are faced with the higher costs from an energy tax through a carbon capping policy. That's why bringing China. the threat of hostility diminishes. and their economies are built on exports to other countries. Teddy & Megan . Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. they have a major disincentive to wage war. a budding superpower. most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists. In a way. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity. and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce. our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. To mask the economic pain. labor or paranoia about global government. they just shift them around. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own prosperity. 1999) For decades.) It would disrupt free trade. The Foundry. the government awarded 15 percent of the allowance allocations to energy-intensive manufacturers. 7/21/09 (“A Baker’s Dozen of Reasons to Oppose Cap and Trade”. To counter this. they can certainly make production cuts. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. 99 (December 1. Another logical solution is for these companies to move overseas where they can make more efficient use of labor and capital. into the WTO is so important. such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell. July 21st 2009. firms would face. Actually.org/2009/07/21/a-baker’s-dozen-of-reasons-to-oppose-cap-andtrade/) 9. many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. Although the government awarded handouts to businesses. They're special-interest activists. 154 Ellis. Free trade solves extinction Copley News Service. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. But they're not. Free allowances do not lower the costs of Waxman-Markey.Climate Politics Page 154 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Bad – Free Trade Cap and trades kills trade – higher costs and tariffs The Foundry. http://blog. the carbon dioxide reduction targets are still there.

com/200907175536/energy-andenvironment/cap-and-trade-bill-villainy-on-a-grand-scale. 155 Ellis. by 2035.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lie beneath these "protected" acres. Mitchell. Its limits are.900. I seriously doubt that more than a relative handful know what Cap-and-Trade means or that it is even being debated. http://www. meaningless.Climate Politics Page 155 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Bad – Poverty Cap and trade creates more poverty – it targets taxes and unemployment toward already low-income individuals Caruba. 7/17/09. by the actions of this Congress. July 17th 2009. The Democrats in Congress and the present occupant of the White House. on March 25. It is estimated to destroy 844.000 jobs on average with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 1. their children." The United Nations Kyoto Protocol. it totally ignores the fact that all the other nations of the Earth will continue to generate "greenhouse gases. India. live in a very different. must hate America. the keystone of capitalism. "Cap-andTrade Bill: Villainy On A Grand Scale". "energy independence". Teddy & Megan . It will raise electricity rates 90% after adjusting for inflation. Out of 307 million Americans. and babbling endlessly about "green jobs" as the real jobs of Americans are systematically destroyed. Upon taking office. The Waxman-Markey bill will. Even if the bill were to become law. the House of Representatives passed the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 that adds two million more acres of wilderness to the 107 million acres already "protected" by the federal government. This bill will impoverish Americans and destroy the nation. Our present annual GDP is about $14 trillion. It is no accident that his Secretary of the Interior unilaterally cancelled 77 oil and gas leases or that.html) The Waxman-Markey bill is villainy on a grand scale. Society of Professional Journalists.000 jobs. very costly America. purposefully exempted China. and their grandchildren will. It is estimated that 300 million barrels of oil and 8. reduce the aggregate domestic product (GDP) by an estimated $7.4 trillion. Obama rescinded the executive order to permit exploration of the nation's offshore continental shelf for the wealth of oil and natural gas it possesses. by their actions.Member of American Society of Journalists and Authors (Alan.rightsidenews. intended to reduce these gases. Prices for gasoline and natural gas will rise by 74% and 55% respectively. by definition. and all undeveloped nations. They pose the greatest threat to its future that has ever existed in our history. but they. It is no accident that President Obama and his acolytes keep calling for "clean energy". The government owns 607 million acres of land in a nation founded on the belief in the sanctity and power of private property.

Teddy & Megan . energy and climate policy analyst. “DC Climate Bill Update. The White House is maintaining that both agenda items are the “valued children” of the Administration. advocate. and Foreign Relations Chairman Kerry (D-MA) is denying that the healthcare calendar will have any effect on climate (E&E). Mitchell. Wins beget wins. climate champions are insisting they will hold a vote this year. EPW Chairwoman Boxer and Agriculture Chairman Harkin (D-IA) have promised to stay on track with their committee pieces of the bill.” http://itsgettinghotinhere.Climate Politics Page 156 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Healthcare Kt Climate Healthcare passage key to strong climate bill Jenkins.org/2009/07/29/dcclimate-bill-update-via-1sky/) Though healthcare floor action has been pushed until after the August recess. 7/29/09 (Jesse. and they will continue to press Congress to pass both this year. A win on healthcare helps raise the political capital necessary to pass a strong climate bill before Copenhagen. Bottom line: 156 Ellis. currently the Director of Energy and Climate Policy at the Breakthrough Institute.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful