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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attempts to water down the bill could. with the remaining 15% to be auctioned. Key members of Obama's administration. Indeed. Having gained approval from the lower house. 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. with at least six of the Senate's 20 committees working on alternative legislation. while forcing US companies to comply with stricter environmental standards than their overseas competitors. which is predicated on a transition away from dependence on fossil fuels and significant investment in renewable technologies. for the fist time. It aims to cut fossil fuel emissions from power plants. such as Vermont independent Bernie Sanders. risk the support of senators. Further political horse-trading is inevitable. according to Bloomberg. oil refineries and vehicles to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. 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. Senators from Midwestern and industrial states are concerned that a cap-and-trade system could raise energy costs for consumers. Even with Obama's support. but the passage of the Waxman-Markey Bill through the House of Representatives is a landmark victory for Obama's energy policy. The passage of the bill. however. including farmers. The WaxmanMarkey Bill would also require that at least 15% of US electricity production by 2020 come from renewable sources. where the upper chamber's composition makes the polarisation of regional interests far more pronounced. Revenue from the auction will be redistributed to low-income households. Senate agriculture and forestry committee chairman senator Tom Harkin of Iowa said passage of the bill would be tough. 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. Mitchell. including energy secretary Steven Chu and foreign relations committee chairman John Kerry. 12 Ellis. factories. passage of a wide-ranging climate change bill before the end of 2009 now seems assured. Teddy & Megan . With Obama clearly willing to expend significant political capital to secure the passage of legislation which will. will face a far tougher time in the Senate. put a price on US greenhouse gas emissions. The bill's cap-and-trade programme allocates 85% of credits to industry without cost. also referred to as the Waxman-Markey Bill after its authors. the bill now passes to a sceptical Senate for ratification. 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. who support more stringent environmental standards.

"It's a different dynamic.html. who'll help combine their work into one massive bill this fall. It should have a broader appeal. Nebraska. but there's a new strategy this year that will make it harder for senators to reject it. Boxer has been telling audiences for years that Congress must act. Commerce. There will be so much in there. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of for climate change legislation could hurt their re-election chances. Boxer said the approach was unlike any she'd experienced since she joined the Senate in 1993. There will be investments in transportation." While vote counts vary. Teddy & Megan . and that it will. Mitchell.Environment and Public Works. There will be help for areas that need flood control. 13 Ellis. and it will make it easier. which Boxer heads. Finance.will have jurisdiction over the bill.miamiherald. "Boxer faces challenge of a lifetime' on climate change bill". WEA) Last year. "There will be so much in this bill.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. Six committees . Agriculture and Foreign Relations . Having said that. it's all difficult. After years of battling with the Bush There will be great opportunities for agriculture. and she predicted that it will simplify passage. Miami Herald. 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. Energy. Those committee heads have been meeting for months with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. http://www. There will be great incentives for energy efficiency. most observers say the bill's fate will lie with 15 or so Democratic moderates." she said in the interview. Boxer figures she has the best odds ever of getting a bill signed into law. Boxer's standalone climate-change bill fell to defeat.

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",, 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?",, 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

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

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

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

Climate Politics Page 20 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Senate The Senate will be substantially harder than the House.. For supporters. Teddy & Megan .” observed Frank Maisano. Mitchell.chron. http://www. 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. a Washington-based energy specialist with Bracewell & Giuliani. Dlouhy 7/11/2009 (Jennifer A.mpl/business/6524623. 20 “the largest problem is the regional nature” of the debate.html. Houston Chronicle. "Energy-climate overhaul an uphill battle in Congress". “Regional issues tend to blow up in the Senate.

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

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

Boxer tried and failed a year ago to pass a climate change bill. 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. Teddy & Megan . Mitchell.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.

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

"Climate bill takes hit in Senate from China". the Hill. and Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.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. Rushing 7/11/2009 (J. 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. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Sen. Mitchell. Teddy & Megan .) announced on Thursday that she is delaying the bill until after the August 25 Ellis. given the likelihood that Republicans will lock down against it. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) say they are skeptical of the climate change bill that passed the House last month. 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.html. Brown. http://thehill. Both Sen. 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.

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

S.html. 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. "Why the energy bill faces a tough Senate fight". rather than 51. http://energyandenvironmentblog. or South. meaning that supporters need 60 votes to pass a bill. resolution: * there were two important Senate climate change votes in April on the Senate budget 67 Senators.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 including 13 Democrats. Great Plains. Mitchell. Mitchell 7/2/2009 (Jim. As a reminder. voted against creating fast-track reconciliation protections for a cap-and-trade bill. 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.dallasnews. including 27 Democrats. regions such as the Midwest. Teddy & Megan . *54 Senators." 27 Ellis.

“It’s a very good thing. five other committee chairmen will share jurisdiction over the bill. in which countries will try to reach a global agreement to lower emissions of greenhouse gases. international climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The further along we are on that path.” said Manik Roy. director of congressional affairs at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. the more credible we are in the final negotiations. Mitchell. The measure will also incorporate a bill that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved in June. “Just having the House bill passed was a big boost.” Advocates for a climate treaty say the United States needs to show progress toward enacting a new law. climate change later". which would set a renewable-electricity mandate and open more of the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas drilling. very important that we succeed in this effort to enact this law in this Congress. Science and Transportation panels could hold separate markups. So the more we can do. WEA) Advocates Approve Members of several interest groups pushing for a climate change bill said the new schedule is a positive step. Meanwhile. “I want to take this as far as I can take it.” 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. allowing more time for the Senate to reach a consensus. In addition to Boxer. Boxer said the Agriculture and Foreign Relations committees may draft legislative text for her to incorporate into the bill. "Health bill now.” said Jake Schmidt. CQ Politics.” The Senate also has a narrow window to pass energy legislation before the United Nations climate change negotiations this December in Copenhagen. Palmer 7/11/2009 (Avery. Teddy & Megan . the Finance and Commerce. There’s no benefit to noble failure here. “It’s very. the better.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. Boxer said Congress already sent a strong signal internationally with the passage of the House bill.” she said. according to the administration. 28 Ellis.

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

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

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

chairman of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee.2bn) to $38bn. and proposes easing controls for new nuclear plants. told reporters earlier this week. a senior fellow with Center for American Progress. additional reporting from Allison Winter and Alex Kaplun and Darren Samuelsohn. nuclear proponents hope. In the "If you care about climate change . "US nuclear industry tries to hijack Obama's climate change bill". The "I think there will be a nuclear title. envisages almost unlimited federal loan guarantees to encourage wind and solar power and. Republican Teddy & Megan . he said. "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. yes. whose applications are now under review by the department of energy. including the former presidential candidate John McCain. 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. "Nuclear Title May Not Be Enough to Push Senate Climate Bill Over the Top".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. 32 Ellis. calling for a doubling of the number of nuclear reactors in the US by 2030. Ling 7/17/2009 (Katerine. Another crucial element of the Republicans' "nuclear renaissance" are two rival proposals for a "clean energy bank" now before Congress.html? pagewanted=print." Sen.) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev. under consideration by the Senate." nuclear title on incentives for R&D .. 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. But what should go in it and how much impact that might have for the nuclear industry is unclear. but I am not sure what else you can do for nuclear. The 152-page Republican bill contains just one reference to climate change. 100 new nuclear power plants is the place to start. and staking a claim for the money to come from a proposed clean energy development bank. http://www. New York Times. "we just have to do it the right way. Goldenberg 6/11/2009 . Climate legislation will be a boon to the nuclear industry—Republicans and nuclear lobbies have hijacked it. 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.US environment correspondent for the Guardian (Suzanne. Reid this week said he would be open to a nuclear component but.." said Joseph Romm. This conclusion comes after discussions with Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif. One version. ClimateWire." Romm said. also called this week for loan guarantees for building new reactors to rise from $" said Lamar Alexander. making its potential role in climate negotiations muted.). Mitchell. 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. Other Republicans have called on the administration to underwrite the $122bn start-up costs of 19 nuclear reactors.). "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.. Tom Carper (D-Del. he said.5bn (£11. new reactors. a Republican from Tennessee who is the strongest proponent of nuclear power in the Senate. Republicans in the House of Representatives produced a spoiler version of the Democrats' climate change bill this week.

The House of Representatives narrowly approved its version of the bill late last month and it included little mention of nuclear energy. long seen as an environmental headache due to its radioactive waste and potential safety risks. said Manik Roy. That's anxious to see nuclear get incentives because because Midwestern utilities mainly burn coal -.reuters.S. http://thehill." Roy said. Gardner 2009 (7/7.html.the fossil fuel that emits the most carbon dioxide -. Rueters. is actually a solution to worsening global warming. Moderate Democrats from Midwestern states are especially utilities there could get slammed by greenhouse gas regulations. Mitchell. Concessions for nuclear could help win them over. climate bill. 33 Ellis. The Hill. 25 of the 60 Senate Democrats are just as concerned about what the recession is doing to manufacturing. Teddy & Megan . Timothy. 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. climate bill". WEA) NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U. "Nuclear lobby presses for more loan guarantees". which is a big emitter of CO2. 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. a centerpiece of President Barack Obama's green agenda.and incentives to build nuclear plants could help them deal with the expenses and provide new jobs. Legislation that caps carbon emissions could make nuclear power more economical relative to other sources of electricity such as coal. "Nuclear could benefit from U. As many as 20 to A key question is whether the industry and its allies can convince enough lawmakers that nuclear power. 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 could stall in the Senate unless it contains incentives to help the nuclear power industry build the next generation of reactors. a vice president for government outreach at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. and the coal and oil industries. Obama will include nuclear incentives to help it pass Senate. "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. Snyder 6/21/2009 (Jim. a leading greenhouse gas. as they are about global warming.

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

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

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

"Renewable Energy Industries Ask Obama to Speed 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.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. “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 Economist writer and Nieman Fellow at Harvard (5/20. we have little confidence that ongoing discussions between D. Mitchell. geothermal. Three months have gone by since the stimulus packaged passed. solar.O. combined heat and power.blogs. Galbraith 2009 . http://greeninc. seen by Green Inc.E.” “and The letter. as has been a similar loan program that predates the stimulus. nuclear. Kate. WEA) Worried that an important loan-guarantee program has ground to a standstill. The signers represented virtually every type of clean energy — wind.nytimes.” 37 Ellis. cited “disagreements” between the Department of Energy and the Office of Management and Budget over regulations to carry out the loan guarantees. Teddy & Megan . New York Times Green Inc. the letter stated. and the Office of Management and Budget over these regulations will produce a satisfactory result in a timely manner. “With access to these loan guarantees. renewable energy industry associations sent a letter on Wednesday to President Obama urging him to speed the program along. hydro.” the letter continued.

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

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

complexity. including the possibility of delays in commercial operation of a completed plant or “another Shoreham”. including engineering design costs. James Asselstine. "The total cost of the plant. Mitchell. Platts Inside Energy." 40 Ellis. Lenders and investors in the fixed income markets will be acutely concerned about a number of political. Teddy & Megan .gov/nopr-comments/comment29. will likely require federal financial support to allow the companies and investors to director of the investment giant Lehman Brothers. "Some factors. this can be a substantial benefit for all the companies. uncertainty over the rules and questions about nuclear waste still worry investors. A federal commitment to loan guarantees resolves regulatory uncertainty surrounding federal policy that would otherwise prevent investment Sands 2008 (4/28.S. will make lenders unwilling at present to extend long-term credit to such projects in a form that would be commercially viable. In a hearing of the House Science and Technology Committee. http://www. 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. move forward with new nuclear plant commitment. and that investors remain wary. 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. lawmakers pressed six representatives of the nuclear industry. Some of the more controversial aspects of new nuclear power include government support for new plants. such as magnitude. he said.pdf. an environmental group and nuclear research community on the future of nuclear power. "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. Derek. and residual uncertainties associated with the new. regulatory and litigation-related risks that are unique to nuclear power." Asselstine said. a nuclear investment expert told a House panel last week. We believe these risks. and may make loan guarantees essential to attracting them. **also written with the managing directors for Goldman.*Managing director of Export and Agency Finance Group for Citigroup. including the regulated utilities that are considering a new nuclear project. of a new nuclear project. taxpayer. combined with the higher capital costs and longer construction schedules of nuclear plants as compared to other generation facilities.lgprogram. Lexis. but as yet untested NRC licensing process. "Investors urge loan guarantees for nuclear plants".energy. a point that investors are watching. Sachs & Co.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 . WEA) Despite new licensing regulations meant to streamline the construction of new nuclear power plants. as well as Merill Lynch and Morgan Stanley ("Loan Guarantees for Advanced Nuclear Energy Facilities". and large initial capital investment." Asselstine said. 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.

Because the U.. **research fellow in the Thomas A. if it is to avoid creating increased energy dependencies. Christopher.*research assistance @ Heritage. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (7/2. Nuke power inevitable in Europe and Japan. Japan is working to increase this to 37 percent by 2009 and 41 percent by 2017. ranking fifth in the world for per capita electricity consumption. ProQuest. http://www. model could create a politically tenuous dependency relationship between government and industry. Finland already gets 28 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. energy-starved Asia is where a nuclear revival is more likely to begin.President of the WorldWatch Institute (July/August. has made it clear that it would not subsidize 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. Nuclear power already provides 30 percent of the country's electricity. has a significant incentive to secure long-term energy solutions. Indeed. India and China both have ambitious nuclear plans. World Watch. the U. Teddy & Megan . As a result. WEA) France is an example of a country that developed nuclear energy to reduce foreign energy dependence after the oil shock of the 1970s. Even if their nuclear dreams are realized. has 19 reactors that provide about 18 percent of the nation's electricity. however. "Brave Nuclear World?/COMMENTARY: Nuclear Revival? Don't Bet on It!".org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1977. Mitchell. on the other hand. which will likely be a model used throughout the United States. The U. building new reactors is a must for the U. net exporter of electricity.K.K. decided to phase out nuclear energy for political reasons and now imports some of this energy.S. 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. while the U.S. "Nuclear energy: what we can learn from other nations". Flavin 2006 . safe and reliable form of energy.Climate Politics Page 41 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Nuclear Power Bad Nuke power inevitable--Asia. Presently. Heritage Foundation WebMemo #1977. the British model should provide a sustainable environment for nuclear power moving forward. alternatively. Up to 30 nuclear plants are planned in each country over the next two decades-which sounds impressive until you do the math.600-megawatt reactor.[3] Finland. and a possible sixth reactor would increase that amount substantially. continues to squabble politically about nuclear power but has offered some subsidies to the industry. while providing long-term politically stable support for nuclear power.heritage.[2] Finland has begun constructing a modern 1.[1] Germany. This is simply not a significant commitment for countries with populations of well over a billion and electricity demand growing at 10 percent annually. Loris and Spencer 2008 . WEA) With the nuclear construction business virtually dead in North America and Europe. neither country will be getting even 5 percent of its electricity from nuclear power in 2020. The British government.K. 41 Ellis. Embracing nuclear energy as part of an effort to decrease the nation's dependency on foreign energy sources.cfm.

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

http://www. Mitchell. New York Times. Domenici. Last year. "There should already be $25 billion to $30 billion in the loan guarantee fund. Congress limited the government to awarding just $4 billion in loan guarantees for clean energy projects during the 2007 fiscal year. Under current law. Teddy & Megan . Andrews and Wald 2007 (Edmund L. "It is very clear that this is a self-financing program. who has been pushing the Energy Department to move much more aggressively in approving loan guarantees. Domenici told James Nussle..Climate Politics Page 43 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Loan Guarantees Expensive Loan guarantees pay for themselves. at Mr. WEA) That is a big change." Mr.commondreams. In essence. Nussle's confirmation hearing last week. 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. 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. Mr. the government is only allowed to guarantee a volume of loans authorized each year by Congress. "US energy bill aids expansion of atomic power"." 43 Ellis. Bush's nominee to become the White House budget director. and Matthew L.

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

CQ Congressional Testimony.S. nuclear power leadership Fertel 2005 . nuclear power plant fuel depends on converted Russian warhead material. Such efforts have provided a dramatic contribution to global security.Vice President of the Nuclear Energy Institute (4/29. strong Congressional oversight will be necessary to ensure effective and efficient implementation of the federal government's nuclear energy programs. Mitchell. 45 Ellis. Nuclear power's place in a national energy policy".-Russian nonproliferation agreement to recycle weapons-grade material from Russia for use in As it has in the past.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. 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. Teddy & Megan .S. Marvin S. American reactors. more than 50 percent of U. Currently.. and to maintain America's leadership in nuclear technology development and its influence over important diplomatic initiatives like nonproliferation. as evidenced by the U.S. Testimony to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Resources.

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

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",, 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

constantly at the edge of death. http://www." including all physical objects. Those who understand energy production and its link to technological progress and who have positive humanitarian values support nuclear power. share the same values. Scientists define everything that man can perceive in the natural world as forms of "energy. cleanest and least expensive energy source available with current technology. Politics and Death”. Its use improves the standard of living. Many people strongly desire to help humanity. Nuclear power plants convert mass into electrical energy. Most other people. however. biofuel power. stagnation. very The United States was once the world leader in the production of useful energy. Had that American leadership continued. Moreover. Their interest in solar power. Teddy & Megan . by far. 51 Ellis. Mitchell. regression and untold human deaths will result. Without it. and maximizes technological Easily usable energy is the currency of human progress. our country and our world would be very different. oil and natural gas. They are also in favor of hydrocarbon power derived from coal. even though they do not work actively toward these goals. They spend their lives in efforts to increase the quantity and quality of human life. They passively support things that improve human life. 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. The lamentations of the popular press notwithstanding. wind power and other alternatives is less because those methods cannot yet generate large quantities of inexpensive useful energy. “Science. This converted "nuclear energy" is.*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. and of hydroelectric power. in how easily mankind can make use of them by means of current technology. increases the quality and length of human life. Technological miracles that are only dreams today would have already taken place.thenewamerican. These forms of energy differ. 6/14.Climate Politics Page 51 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Nuclear Power Good—Poverty Nuclear power key to check poverty Robinson and Orient 04 . the safest. The New American.

. 24 J. of course.000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since Trinity. The alternative to development. undeveloped nations where most people have no access to electricity. electricity use in the United States increased 57 percent between 1980 and 2000. Beller 2004 . massive government purchases of "renewables. 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. while total energy use increased just 27 percent. while those on the lower left side of this graph. tensions over dwindling water supplies and rising populations are reaching what many experts describe as a flashpoint." n7 People in the Western world. health. one billion people have no sanitary water. Estimates [*44] for future increases in energy and electricity use. "Atomic time machines: back to the nuclear future". prosperity. n5 which could [*43] be provided easily and inexpensively if energy were available to operate desalination and/or purification plants. 270) If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb. then we may destroy ourselves with the C-bomb. from North Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates. Energy is needed for development.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. The UN compiles the HDI for almost every nation annually. 41. disease. A deeper investigation into the data underlying the HDI reveals the effects of what Dr. p. Teddy & Megan . have a life expectancy of about eighty years.. n8 Preventing global conflict will require even more addition of electricity. It is a composite of average education level. 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. our use of electrical energy has been growing faster than total energy usage. Those who live in poverty live in the most dangerous of conditions. A climate shift in that single battle-scarred nexus might trigger international tensions that will unleash some of the 60. L. health and well being (average life expectancy). now calls "energy apartheid. and per capita income or gross domestic product. WEA) Our global neighbors need much more energy to achieve the standards of living of the developed world. which is easily sustained with ample energy. use of electricity increases rapidly as people become more healthy. n6 Figure 1 illustrates this for almost every nation on Earth (the data includes more than 90 percent of the Earth's population). Thus. range between doubling and tripling in the next fifty years. Note there is a threshold at about 4000 kWh per capita. Eric Loewen. wealthy. which is barely enough to keep a single 100-watt light bulb lit. One such correlation that was done a few years ago showed that electric consumption first increases human well being. Land Resources & Envtl. And in a world as interlinked as ours. n3 Another two billion use just 1000 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year. “The Next One Hundred Years”. a delegate to the United Nations 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. n10 Water wars go nuclear Weiner in ’90 (Jonathan. the Change Bomb. South Africa. Above this threshold. Already in the Middle East. and international security. who have and use large amounts of energy. "energy star" appliances and homes. and death. and educated. Mitchell. human development increases rapidly with increases in available electricity (there are. Chair of the Public Information Committee of the American Nuclear Society (Denis E. 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.Dr. Pulitzer Prize winning author." and energy saving and efficiency measures. then people who are well off increase their electric consumption. & Environmental Law. one explosion may lead to the other. One-third of the six billion people on Earth today lack access to electricity. Journal of Land. mandated fuel economy. 52 Ellis. is suffering in the form of poverty. billions of our global neighbors without sufficient electricity die decades before they should. Department of Mechanical Engineering at UNLV. n9 Even with conservation. Below this threshold. will die decades earlier. Lexis. n4 In addition. Resources. Without substantial increases in electricity generation. even with substantial efficiency improvements and conservation efforts. This suffering creates instability and the potential for widespread violence. such that national security requires developed nations to help increase energy production in their more populous developing counterparts. exceptions to every rule).

WEA) Power plants circulate significant volumes of water in the process of generating electricity. 53 Ellis. Nuclear power plants consume less water per unit of electricity produced than some forms of renewable energy. 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. http://www. NEI 2008 (July. Geological Survey (USGS). 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.3 percent—less than half of the freshwater consumed by residential use (6. "Water consumption at nuclear power plants". Of all the freshwater consumed in the United States. This water continuously is returned to its source and never is exposed to radioactive material. electricity generation accounts for 3. Teddy & Megan . Nuclear Energy Institute. according to the U.S. Nuclear power plants circulate water to cool percent).nei.

This report proposes action in 54 Ellis. The UK’s Low Carbon Transition Plan.htm. The researchers also point out a flaw in the nuclear energy argument. published on 15 July. the researchers say. 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. Experts Say". melting ice (33. The evidence shows that global carbon trading can deliver substantial cuts in greenhouse gases rapidly and costeffectively. will ultimately help in preventing catastrophic climate change in the long term. and storing it deep underground or on the sea floor will have very little effect on global warming. global warming. so-called carbon dioxide sequestration. The UK Government is committed to meeting its required 34% cut in emissions by 2020 through domestic action alone.4%) and sea water (28. Mark Lazarowicz MP. apart from emissions covered under the EU Emissions Trading System where limits on offsetting are set at EU level. The report makes clear that without a global system for carbon trading. The researchers have calculated that the heat energy accumulated in the atmosphere corresponds to a mere 6. eGov Monitor 7/20/2009 . 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. They suggest that scientists must also take into account the total energy of the ground. 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. The Global Carbon Trading report. 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. Mark Lazarowicz MP said: “Climate change is an international threat that needs international action. http://www.e. "The increasing carbon dioxide emissions merely show how most net heat is produced. i. “Cap and trade should be combined with targeted regulation.egovmonitor. is due to the greenhouse effect.5%). The "missing" heat. "Since net heat emissions accounts for most of the global warming there is no or little reason for carbon dioxide sequestration. tackle deforestation and adapt to the climate change already being experienced. WEA) Attempting to tackle climate change by trapping carbon dioxide or switching to nuclear power will not solve the problem of global warming. Their calculations suggest that most measures to combat global warming.. WEA) A global carbon trading network will be vital to preventing dangerous climate change. a new report commissioned by the Prime Minister Gordon Brown concluded today. such as reducing our reliance on burning fossil fuels and switching to renewables like wind power and solar energy. The carbon market could provide a significant proportion of that while the remaining heat is stored in the ground (31. These calculations are actually rather conservative. ice masses and the seas if they are to model climate change accurately. Nordell adds. Global carbon trading is our only hope at controlling" Nordell explains. Teddy & Megan . according to energy calculations published in the July issue of the International Journal of Global Warming. http://www. 26%.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. 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.the US Department of Energy and Climate Change ("Carbon trading vital to climate change success – PM Report". 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.sciencedaily. during that period. the ability of countries to avoid dangerous climate change will be limited and the costs of action increased. by the Prime Minister’s Special Representative on Carbon Trading. the researchers say. natural variations in climate and/or an underestimation of net heat emissions. But the same calculations also show that trapping carbon dioxide. 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. Carbon markets themselves will not however be sufficient to successfully tackle climate change and are needed alongside strong domestic action to cut emissions. Mitchell. and the missing heat may be much less. sets out the domestic actions required to meet its carbon budgets.5%).6% of global warming. taxation and public finance for comprehensive action.

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

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

522 photovoltaic solar panel installations. Inc. Berkeley's Haas School of Business and director of the UC Energy Institute. the world's largest solar company. may ban its solar panels because they contain toxic cadmium telluride. http://www. that have received state support from California and found that their cost ($86.[6] Other problems have arisen as well. Mitchell. Like wind. the European Union. Solar. **research assistance in the Thomas A. WEA) Solar energy projects are also running into trouble. Teddy & Megan . 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. For example.000) far outweighed their value ($19.[7] To replace the cadmium model with a silicon-based model would quadruple the production The general economic problems of solar power were recently described in a study by Severin Borenstein.000). lifetime costs are very low once the plant has been constructed. a professor at the University of California.Climate Politics Page 57 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Solar Solves Solar is too intermittent and costly. 57 Ellis.*research fellow in nuclear energy.cfm. Spencer and Loris 2008 .heritage.. recently told investors that its largest market. Given the low cost needed to operate a nuclear plant. solar is intermittent: It produces electricity only when the sun is shining. He looked at the costs of 26. Heritage Foundation. equal to 103 megawatts of capacity.000–$91. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (6/19.000– $51. Jack and Nicolas. [8] It is therefore difficult to conclude that wind or solar power should be built at all. "Critics of nuclear power's costs miss the point".

WEA) If climate change legislation fails to pass this year. with an enormous trade deficit.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." 58 Ellis.with oil at $147 per barrel. "We really have created an unsustainable economic model. But Congress needs to overhaul the entire economy. energy. executive director of the Blue-Green Alliance. Ben. Block 2009 (1/30. "Although The House of Representatives approved a plan on Wednesday that would provide about $100 billion of support for renewable energy. Mitchell. passage of the stimulus bill would be extremely we can't slow down and we can't stop there. To think we can somehow stabilize that and go back to doing business as we were in the summer of 2008 . 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. in order to create a more sustainable solution to current economic. said David Foster. transportation. Teddy & Megan .S." Foster said. http://www.worldwatch.that is the model that got us into this mess. climate change bill". "Growing optimism for U. WorldWatch Institute. and with a terrible global warming problem on our hands . energy efficiency. and environmental restoration projects. and climate change crises. a collaboration of labor unions and environmental groups. through a price on carbon.

59 Ellis. If we don’t address it very dramatically and very soon. Mitchell. David. and that’s melted the for almost every other issue on earth. the first truly timed test we’ve ever otherwise we'll have a mass extinction and a global warming catastrophe. or it will get beyond our control McKibben 7/15/2009 . Teddy & Megan . WEA) That’s a smart answer.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. You really want to go for two? Timeframe = this year. 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. LVW climate change taskforce. "Environment: race against time". http://www.guardianweekly. http://www. the Guardian.lwv. Governments must cooperate to cut industrial emissions while at the same time halting deforestation. an environmental campaigner and Green party candidate. The grave danger we face and the need to take vigorous global action to reduce GHG emissions without delay are clear. because those feedback loops are taking the outcome out of our hands. and accelerate the melting of ice.cfm&CONTENTID=13409." Tipping point is coming soon where climate change will be unstoppable.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. increase water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere. WEA) "People have known about the links between climate and forests for some time. then some halfway plan is a good fallback – you can come back in a decade and make it stronger. But global warming is different. release stores of carbon from soils and sea floors. scientists say". the warming that will follow can be expected to decrease albedo3 (reflectivity) and increase the rate of absorption of solar energy near the poles." said Tony Juniper. WEA) If we allow GHG emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation to continue to grow at their present rates. League of Women Voters. "POSITIVE FEEDBACKS AND CLIMATE RUNAWAY THE NEED TO ACT WITHOUT DELAY". melt Arctic tundra. "Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change. "There really is no time for delay.cfm? Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay. The Adam 2009 (3/11. but the alarming thing now is the level of certainty because real world observations are feeding into the computer models. If he can’t get national health care through the Congress.resident scholar at Middlebury (Bill. Climate change is happening more rapidly than anyone So far we’ve raised the temperature less than one degree Celsius. Tolman 2009 (4/30.

cratic and Republican presidential candidates have committed them. as are environmental activists. Scientists are talking about that kind of reduc. Dynamic Ice Sheets. and a number of other powerful greenhouse gases. beyond that point we get into a world where the positive feedback s I’ve just discussed may develop great force. but in Canada it isn’t even on the policy radar screen at the moment (notably.bon emissions by 2050. WEA) I’ll give you an indication of what we’re up against. "Positive Feedbacks.8° in turn. so the room to from pre-industrial temperatures is around 2°C. Homer-Dixon 2007 . Teddy & Megan .vative estimate. and the Recarbonization of the Global Fuel Supply: The New Sense of Urgency about Global Warming". PhD in IR from MIT (11/14. some people would put the threshold for carbon dioxide much lower.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.duce at least 2°C warming is about 450 ppm. 60 Ellis. Very soon humankind must cap and then ramp down global carbon emissions. (This is actually a conser.S. transcript of an address to the conference for a Globally Integrated Climate Policy for Canada.selves to such reductions). We have very little room to warm: the estimated maximum safe warm.) The current concentration of CO2 is about 380 ppm. for instance. Mitchell. Limited room to warm implies. The warming to date has been about 0. that I am talking about atmo. these 450 ppm do not include chlorofluorocarbons. Notice. 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. Indeed. a number of U.Centre for International Governance Innovation Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of International Affairs.spheric carbon dioxide and not ‘carbon dioxide equivalent.’ In other words. http://www. is about 70 ppm. nitrous oxide. The estimated carbon dioxide concentration that’s likely to pro. that we have very little room to emit.6°C. we need to be heading towards an 80 to 90 per cent cut in car. so we have about 30 years left until we reach 450 ppm.pdf. therefore. This leaves us with around 0. The incremental annual increase is currently about 2 ppm and rising. and the warming in the pipeline – even if all emissions cease right now – is about 0. If they did.6°C room to warm. Demo.tion. the actual limit for CO2 itself would be much lower than 450 ppm. Professor in the Centre for Environment and Business in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo.

61 Ellis.cfm. solar.16 Fourteen states have adopted renewable portfolio standards that require electricity suppliers to derive an increasing percentage of supply from renewable energy generation sources. 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. Public Utilities Reports.pur.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. http://www. State RPS legislation. WEA) In the vacuum created by the administration's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. Mitchell. Teddy & Megan .co-chairs the Energy. Environmental & Public Utility Practice Group of the Cozen O'Connor law firm (Peter J. however. such as wind. Fontaine 2004 .com/pubs/4419. and geothermal.. National legislation is essential. a number of states have stepped forward with legislative and policy initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. "Global Warming: The Gathering Storm". biomass.

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

Olver 7/6/2009 . and Sharon Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. **BA in economics and masters degree in social work from U Michigan (3/3. improved energy efficiency. Permits will be bought and sold on a carefully regulated market. and greater use of alternative clean energy technologies. Chad Stone. 63 Ellis. When combined with vehicle efficiency and biofuel standards enacted in 2007. http://www. Housing and Urban Development (John W. "Letter From Olver: House Passes Comprehensive Energy Legislation".Massachusetts representative on the House Appropriations Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation. or they can buy permits from other companies who have made these investments. Cap and trade is an adjustable mandate that we can target to the right level of emissions. Electric power plants. combined with the bill's other provisions. Teddy & Megan . 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. 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. A Over time.php?story_id=31496. This would force the economy to gradually adapt by reducing emissions through energy conservation. 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..pdf. http://www. HR 2454 will reduce America's dependence of foreign oil by 5 million barrels a day by 2030. 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. The number of emissions permits will decrease over time. The carbon cap will thus unleash a wave of investment.Climate Politics Page 63 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext.iberkshires. By 2050. former executive director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. would reduce total global warming emissions 83 percen below 2005 levels. Hannah Shaw. Mitchell. the number of emissions allowances would shrink in order to achieve the substantial emissions reductions that scientists say are necessary to curb global warming. 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. while the permit market ensures that cuts are made in the most economical way possible. C&T Solves Warming Cap and trade solves warming. this system. oil refineries. leading to steady emissions reductions. Stone et al 2009 . "CAP AND TRADE CAN FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING EFFECTIVELY WHILE ALSO PROTECTING CONSUMERS".*Chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

the problem of estimates. to a current price of only $200 a ton—far less than estimated benefits (Carlson. 2001). Teddy & Megan . **director of the Center for Innovation and the Environment at the Progressive Policy Institute (October 2001. The Acid Rain Program sets a single tonnage limit or "cap" on the emissions of SO2 from all utilities. Byron and Jan.ndol. This problem is largely caused by the SO2 emissions from the utility industry. which. resisted congressional efforts to place a limit or "cap" on its emissions. By combining an emissions cap with allowance trading. 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. Ironically. 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. 64 Ellis. change the earth’s climate (IPCC. Those who can control SO2 cheaply can sell emissions trading allowances to those who find reducing emissions more costly. a stringent environmental result was achieved at relatively low cost. WEA) acid rain loomed large on the nation’s agenda. 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. C&T Solves Warming Acid rain programs prove—cap and trade is the most effective free market mechanism Swift and Mazurek 2001 . 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.500 per ton of SO2 removed. Economy and Innovation at the Environmental Law Institute. ranging from $400 to $1. Mitchell. "Getting more for four". citing cost concerns. 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.pdf.*director of the Center for Energy. This combined approach is far less expensive than "first generation" laws that regulate emissions from each source separately. http://www.Climate Politics Page 64 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. Progressive Policy Institute. 2000).org/documents/clean_energy_part2. 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.

http://www. In total. 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. over and above the savings from the Combined Efficiency and Renewable Electricity Standard.. 2454 also provides for a number of free emissions allowances to help companies mitigate the economic impact of climate change legislation. there are many additional cost-effective efficiency opportunities ACEEE’s studies of energy efficiency’s potential indicate that current technologies can cost-effectively save 25-30 percent of total energy use. Whining.aceee. Senate passage of similar legislation will be more difficult.4 quadrillion Btu's. such savings will avoid about 345 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2020. Moreover. decreasing incrementally to 7 percent in 2029.R. 2454 could reduce U. 2454 is only the first arduous step toward energy transformation. Revised 6/23/09. Although these potential savings are dramatic. House passage of H. It would spark more clean-energy innovation and private investment in clean alternatives.5 quads of energy in 2030. Mitchell. These range from 43. http://www. 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. sequestration and reforestation provisions solve existing emissions.S. energy use by 5. No. and that new technologies could increase the available cost-effective savings. including New York State. C&T Solves Warming The climate bill is key to solve warming—it sets a hard cap on emissions. The cap would also set a price on carbon pollution. and unacceptable. Cumulative energy bill savings will total more than $250 billion by 2030.R. The warming bill will reduce CO2 emissions. A01.S. And. staff writer. 2009] H. Undoubtedly. Increasing the energy efficiency component of the Combined were dedicated to efficiency. hapless.S. the equivalent of taking 57 million cars off the road for a year. 6-25/09 [Amanda. including energy efficiency and wind and solar power.75 percent of allowances in 2012.” The Washington Times. lexis] 65 Ellis. “H. Podesta 09 – President of the Center for American Progress (John. Yes. These energy efficiency savings are more than the annual energy use of 47 of the 50 states. including substantial free allowances to electric utilities.900 PER HOUSEHOLD BY 2030”. The bill is weak.uses efficiency and renewable electricity standards Nadel and Watson 09 – [Steven Nadel and Suzanne Watson. PAGE ONE. By 2030. President and CEO of the Center for American Progress. the energy efficiency provisions in H. these energy efficiency savings grow to 12. 6/23/09] Despite these changes this bill is a giant leap forward in efforts to transition to a low-carbon economy. “Climate bill gives billions to foreign foliage.R. which accounts for about 5 percent of projected U.htm.americanprogress. and it must be improved before it passes the Senate. Critics assail futile 'offsets'. accounting for about 12 percent of projected U. It reflects the enormous shift in priorities between the Obama administration and the previous one.Climate Politics Page 65 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. In the short term the cap would reduce emissions by the equivalent of removing 500 million cars from the road by 2020. 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. The bill would worsen global warming by lifting the prohibition against the federal government purchase of oil from Canadian tar sands. energy use that year. energy use in 2020. 2454 WOULD SAVE $3. Combat Global a non-profit research organization. Teddy & Megan .R. Center for American Progress. If one-third of these funds American consumers would save over 2. which produce twice as much greenhouse gas pollution as regular oil. DeBard 09.8 quadrillion Btu’s. ACEEE NEWS RELEASE. reflecting the costs of dirty coal-fired electricity. Steve Nadel is the Executive Director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). 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.

Teddy & Megan . Those companies could. Supporting ways to keep trees alive or plant new trees. in effect. Mitchell. 66 Ellis. the government would reward domestic and international companies that perform approved "green" actions with the United States and beyond. called permits.and potentially very valuable. helps the effort. sell the permits to other companies that emit greenhouse gases. wherever those trees are located. The permits would be. licenses to pollute . they say. in turn. Under the program.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 .

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",, 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",, 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",, 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",, 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",, 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

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

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

China Daily 7/17/2009 ("China-US climate teamwork evolving". as best we can and as many things as we can. to share. WEA) Cooperation between China and the US is crucial in meeting the climate change" Chu said there is much the countries can do. http://www. Both were visiting China for the first time as part of the Obama administration. including improving technology to reduce carbon emissions and increasing energy efficiency. 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. the technology.htm. he said." Locke said. 72 Ellis." Chu said. "The US and China have what it takes to meet the world's energy challenge.Climate Politics Page 72 of 156 7WJ – HPSW China Key To Solve Warming China cooperation is key to make emissions reductions effective. "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. Mitchell. The objective of the planned joint clean energy research 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. "One of the most important things is mutual cooperation. which both China and the US have in abundance. 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. 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 .

the Guardian. resulting in additional atmospheric greenhouse gas loading and additional warming. further increasing carbon dioxide and methane emissions.” said Margaret Torn. http://www. Adam 2009 (3/11. “If the past is any guide. Now. 2006 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters (GRL). increased forest death. have co-authored a paper entitled: Missing feedbacks. also releases carbon into the atmosphere. Harte has been a leading figure for the past two decades on climate-ecosystem interactions. which are predicting a global temperature increase of as much as 5. which provides information about glacial-interglacial cycles over hundreds of thousands of years. scientists say". they calculated how much these rising concentration levels caused global temperatures to climb. a UC Berkeley professor in the Energy and Resources Group and in the Ecosystem Sciences Division of the College of Natural Resources.based on research by the DOE's Climate Change Resarch Division and the National Science Foundation (5/22. which in turn brings about more global warming. and on the impacts of anthropogenic activities on terrestrial ecosystem processes. Also increases feedback mechanisms to cause runaway warming. and is an Associate Adjunct Professor in UC Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group. which appears in the May. "Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century".com/releases/2006/05/060522151248. may be off by nearly 2. These are typically runaway processes in which global temperature rises lead to further releases of CO². Torn and Harte make the case that the current climate change models.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. then when our anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming.” said Torn. Using as a source the Vostok ice core. who heads the Climate Change and Carbon Management program for Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division.htm. including the highly praised Consider a Spherical Cow: A Course in Environmental Problem Solving. WEA) Positive feedback Amazon dieback is one of the key positive feedbacks brought about by global warming. it will alter earth system processes. and has authored or co-authored numerous books on environmental sciences. and so on. WEA) Studies have shown that global climate change can set-off positive feedback loops in nature which amplify warming and cooling trends. Torn is an authority on carbon and nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems. Science Daily 2006 . David. She and John Harte. In their GRL paper.Climate Politics Page 73 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Positive Feedbacks Continued warming causing feedbacks—this amplifies warming beyond control. asymmetric uncertainties. In the Amazon this happens on a more localised scale but the result. two of the principal greenhouse and the underestimation of future warming. that were released into the atmosphere in response to past global warming trends. Teddy & Megan .uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/ Mitchell. 73 Ellis. Their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting.0 degrees Celsius because they only take into consideration the increased greenhouse gas concentrations that result from anthropogenic (human) activities. 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. the researchers were able to estimate the amounts of carbon dioxide and methane. Combining their estimates with standard climate model assumptions. http://www.sciencedaily. “The results indicate a future that is going to be hotter than we think. "Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change.

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

but it was never ratified by the Senate.4746209. http://www.Climate Politics Page 75 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: G8 Solves G8 agreements are worthless without Congressional follow-up. after 75 Ellis. Teddy & Megan .0.latimes. It would fulfill Obama's G-8 promise by meeting the 2050 goal. signed the Kyoto Protocol to fight global warming in 1998. 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. Mitchell. LA Times 7/10/2009 ("Global warming: The heat is on the U.story. WEA) Such international pacts are usually meaningless without the backing of Congress.".S. President Clinton.

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

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

*senior policy analyst in Energy and the Environment for the Heritage Foundation.[5] Granting the authority for one of the largest and unprecedented regulatory undertakings in U. it could take 5.cfm. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (4/23. would be a chilling shift to a command-and-control system in which EPA officials regulate just about every aspect of the market. Beyond the costs of such actions. if not years. "Five Reasons the EPA Should Not Attempt to Deal with Global Warming". Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2407. **research assistant in the Thomas A.Climate Politics Page 78 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: EPA Regulation Solves EPA management fails.6 years for a project to jump through all the normal environmental Loris and Lieberman 2009 . 78 Ellis. construction project an average of 4. According to the Government Accountability Office. before a shovel can break ground. WEA) Having EPA bureaucrats micromanage the economy. Teddy & Megan . http://www. all in the name of combating global warming.4 years to complete a NEPA review. Mitchell. EPA regulations would essentially assure that a great deal of such economic activity would be held up for months. the red tape and permitting delays are almost unfathomable. history would greatly expand the EPA's power. Along For instance.heritage. Though the Administration recently enacted a stimulus bill and touted "shovel ready" construction projects to boost the economy. normally it takes a federal with the Clean Water Act's Section 404 requirements. the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to file environmental impact statements for EPA review before moving forward with projects.S.

the study's results also provide important response to critics of global warming. Russia.htm. 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). and the United States. WEA) The accuracy of computer models that predict climate change over the coming decades has been the subject of debate among politicians. Scientific opinion on climate change In the study. "We can now place a much higher level of confidence in model-based projections of climate change than in the past. "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. Great Britain.sciencedaily. environmentalists and even scientists. Australia. working group one of the IPCC released its fourth global warming report. Germany. 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." 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. Mitchell. Korea. they compare the output of the models against observations for present climate. and the best models are now capable of simulating present-day climate with accuracy approaching conventional atmospheric observations. 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. Teddy & Megan ." said Reichler.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. 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. 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. France. Given the significance of climate change research in public Of course. http://www. Earlier this year. 79 Ellis. Canada. "Coupled models are becoming increasingly reliable tools for understanding climate and climate change. To this end.

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

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

Mitchell. the communications director for the Republican minority on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.html?_r=1& http://www. paralyzing blizzards in China. but with a long-term warming trend clear nonetheless. less ice and rising seas should heat-trapping greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and forests continue to accumulate in the air. 1991-92. and a sharp drop in the globe’s average temperature. New York Times.” read a blog post and news release on Wednesday from Marc Morano. 82 Ellis. a scientist at Remote Sensing Systems. a private research group in Santa Rosa. He pointed to similar drops in 1988.. 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. Calif.” he said. “Earth’s ‘Fever’ Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way.” said Carl Mears. So what is happening? According to a host of climate experts. Andrew C. which is in its La Niña phase for a few more months. Revkin 2008 (3/2. “The current downturn is not very unusual.. including some who question the extent and risks of global warming. 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. a year after it was in the opposite warm El Niño pattern. and 1998.nytimes. political operatives and other people who challenge warnings about dangerous human-caused global warming have jumped on this as a teachable moment. 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. “Temperatures are very likely to recover after the La Niña event is over. opinion writers. Teddy & Megan . it is mostly good old-fashioned weather. "Skeptics on Human Climate Impact Seize on Cold Spell". 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.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. It is no wonder that some scientists. along with a cold kick from the tropical Pacific Ocean.

"John Moore: One world government and global warming/climate change/whatever". WEA) A major talking point amongst the skeptics is a certain indignation over how “global warming” became “climate change”. Moore 7/16/2009 ( Actually. 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. The general theory has been roughly the same for 150 years. National Post.” 83 Ellis. http://network.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 terms are irrelevant. we dispute the cause. Teddy & Megan . Some people think this was a marketing move by the international forces of socialism to protect our Coke-like franchise. Mitchell.

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

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

Bradley. and it certainly made Earth hotter than anytime in the last 400 years. the National Homer-Dixon 2007 . Professor in the Centre for Environment and Business in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo. Teddy & Megan . methodology. You are probably familiar with this debate. Their graph famously showed a sharp uptick over the last half-century.2 These 86 Ellis. except for some – and I use this word deliberately – crazies out there. Dynamic Ice Sheets.3 and Jones in 2003 to provide a temperature record from the years 200 to 2000 AD.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. saying that. 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. transcript of an address to the conference for a Globally Integrated Climate Policy for Canada. overall. 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.pdf. In response to criticism of the statistical methodology used to cobble these records together. and Hughes released a paper that estimated average global temperature for the last millen. I think the National Academy of Sciences report dealt with the hockey stick issue. It has been one of the most contentious pieces of evidence used to support the claim that we are experiencing an abnormally warm period. Mann. In 1999. They cobbled these proxy measures together to get a long-term record of the planet’s temperature. and the Recarbonization of the Global Fuel Supply: The New Sense of Urgency about Global Warming". while some questions remained about the methodology.Centre for International Governance Innovation Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of International Affairs. WEA) The first argument concerns the long-term trend of Earth’s average surface temperature. which is why it was widely labelled the ‘hockey stick’ graph. it has been covered in the pages of the Globe and Mail. http://www. Mitchell.nium. PhD in IR from MIT (11/14. The panel released its results last year.homerdixon. it’s off the table now.emy of Sciences in the United States created a panel to examine the Mann et al. "Positive Feedbacks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pleas for economic openness rang out at this year's summit. rebates will vanish. Mitchell. American enterprises say that China encourages the development of local enterprises by restraining foreign energy companies from entry into the Chinese market. most of the rationale for the U. If we win our modeling claims then you do not have a protectionism turn. Michael A.1 percent in 2008. its trade measures don't unnecessarily aggravate the external relationships that will be needed to get that done.html. WEA) China has also come under criticism for protectionism. The Financial Times' John Gapper says the Davos was different this year. saying Obama has ignored lessons from the Depression era.S. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned against reliance upon intervention and protectionism to cure economic ills.assistant editor and economics writer for CFR. French leaders. The International Monetary Fund estimates global trade will contract 2. CFR's Jagdish Bhagwati questioned U. Council on Foreign Ultimately. "Trade and Climate Change". progress on the international front will depend mainly on cooperative action. "Gloomy Portents for Global Trade". But if major U.Climate Politics Page 98 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Trade Turn China is already acting protectionist in the energy sector. Significant threats loomed for free-trade hawks well before Davos.S. Many of the financial sector's major players skipped the summit altogether (Bloomberg). Rather. too.chinastakes. Teslik 2009 . http://www. Protectionism up now—World Economic Forum meeting proves. WEA) In the long term. valued around $3. the only solution to the competitiveness problem is global climate action. 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. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao backed Putin. though. "We will only make the crisis worse if we succumb to the lure of protectionism and petty nationalism. for keeping a fair and open market was the consensus reached between leaders of the two countries at the G20 meeting in London. As a result. compared to an expansion of 4. Obama aside . The World Bank also projects a contraction--the first decline in global trade since 1982. however. President Barack Obama's pronouncements on trade. climate legislation.S.8 percent in 2009 (WSJ). 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. Levi 2009 .David M..cfr. U. 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. Mr. Lee Hudson. Over time. such as excluding foreign companies from bidding on a recent wind power project. Egypt's party scene. as did India's (Reuters). CFR. prototypal "Davos Man"--the international captain of finance whose prominence and significance has risen meteorically in recent decades--seemed humbled.3 billion. Congress should make sure that in crafting U. Democrats are pushing for "Buy American" provisions to be included in President Barack Obama's proposed stimulus package. the World Economic Forum's annual mega-summit in the Swiss Alps found itself at a crossroads.S. particularly among the leaders of emerging economies. Teddy & Megan . 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. no one country's industries will be unfairly disadvantaged. particularly as major developed economies seek to implement stimulus packages to boost their domestic economies.S. the short-term trade outlook isn't particularly rosy. degree from Harvard (1/30. The concern for policymakers. trade competitors all impose new and similar climate costs on their energy-intensive industries. 98 Ellis. saying world leaders must remain vigilant (Xinhua) in their efforts to curb trade protectionism. Locke said that China could not close its markets. saying such policies could backfire (Guardian). and several big banks cancelled the glitzy parties they have traditionally hosted at the summit. http://www. face strong protectionist pressures. http://www. the secretary-general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Trade policy could emerge as a flashpoint in the weeks and months to come. trade minister echoed concerns (Reuters) about protectionism. Since the United States has few sticks to bring to the climate negotiating table. "China Warns US: Carbon Tariff Will Invite Retaliation". the United States can't cut through this thicket by itself. ChinaStakes 7/16/2009 (Chinese business news. in an article published on the OECD's website. In a recent op-ed.cfr. 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." added Angel Gurria. WEA) Amidst the worst economic crisis in

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

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

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

as outlined in this bill.R.7 million American jobs over the next two years jobs by 2030. This is a welcome change from the Bush administration energy plan. Retrofits will employ building specialists and construction workers while burgeoning solar and wind industries will need machinists. Olver 7/6/2009 . could save approximately $1. WEA) The federal energy efficiency provisions included in H.php?story_id=31496. In addition. as well as changes to the bill made in a Rule's Committee version of the bill released yesterday. And unlike other jobs. which are estimated at over $4. buildings.a. These estimates do not take into account savings from energy efficient appliances.. and power plants will create 770. Less than two months later we approved a budget containing unprecedented support for mass transit and energy innovation. and engineers. the most important one yet.000 per household per year by 2030.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 improved efficiency standards the bill creates for appliances.Massachusetts representative on the House Appropriations Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation. The bill also changed the distribution of R&D funds. Changes to ACEEE's analysis come from an updated assessment of savings from a number of provisions. http://www. Rueters 6/24/2009 ("Updated Energy Savings Analysis of H. this is the perfect opportunity to make significant investments in industries that will become the base of a new American economy. Dollar for dollar. Teddy & Megan . 102 Ellis.R. The Center for American Progress estimates that the transition from foreign oil to clean American energy. which raised the average American household's energy costs by $ per household by 2030. Housing and Urban Development (John W.050 per household by 2020 and $4. ACES represents the next step.k. We have passed legislation to green our schools and preserve 2 million acres of wilderness. 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. jobs based on clean energy and energy efficiency depend on American resources and cannot be shipped overseas. Waxman-Markey). the American Clean Energy and Security Act (a. Efficiency mandates in the cap and trade bill solve any cost concerns. 2454. Mitchell. and in many ways. http://www. laborers. investments in a clean energy economy create four times as many jobs as investments in the oil and gas industry. will create 1. 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. Six months ago we passed an economic recovery act with investments in smart infrastructure and sustainable job creation. the American Clean Energy and Security Act". And according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.reuters. according to an updated analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE).100 between 2001 and 2007.iberkshires. 10 percent of the SEED (State Energy and Environmental Development) program is set aside for transportation programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. "Letter From Olver: House Passes Comprehensive Energy Legislation". 2454. factories. As our nation faces high unemployment and an ailing auto industry. 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.

S.” Green For All CEO Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins said in a statement. which was a driving force in securing green job training funds in the The bill includes a $860 million allocation to the Green Jobs nonprofit Green For All. Bishu 7/17/2009 (Deswta. Budget Office projected an annual cost of $175 for U. the reductions in carbon pollution required by the legislation will cost American families less than a postage stamp per day. Teddy & Megan . 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. 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. households between $80 and $111 per year. reduce harmful carbon emissions. 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. Ethiopian Review.*Chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. called the bill a significant step forward in creating a more equitable and secure country. households by 2020. WEA) • Protect consumers from energy price That is what the President’s proposal would do. chairman of the Apollo Alliance.cbpp. "House Passes Landmark Climate Change Bill. which equals 22 cents to 30 cents per day. Mitchell. “The American Clean Energy And Security Act is a giant leap forward to establish energy security. Ethiopian Review.and create millions of green jobs that will put our citizens back to work and get our economy back on track. Stone et al 2009 . 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 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. Hannah Shaw. http://www. Now Heads to Senate". households up to $1. former executive director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. The U. CBO calculates that the legislation will cost the average household less than 50 cents per 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.” said Phil Angelides. 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. According to estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency. **BA in economics and masters degree in social work from U Michigan (3/3. 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.000 jobs by 2020. WEA) Oakland. In addition.S. the 27 nations of the European Union have operated a cap-and-trade system since 103 Ellis. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. It ignores the fact that.ethiopianreview.” Let’s quantify it—the most official studies cite the cost to consumers at 30 cents a day. "CAP AND TRADE CAN FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING EFFECTIVELY WHILE ALSO PROTECTING CONSUMERS". http://www. Now Heads to Senate".ethiopianreview.pdf. http://www. Chad Stone. That claim is misleading because it focuses on just one aspect of the Administration’s cap-and-trade proposal.050 cumulatively and produce more than 300. “This legislation American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. green jobs here at home and help revive America’s long suffering manufacturing sector. Calif. A separate analysis from the Congressional Prefer our evidence—indicts of the proposal ignores offset mechanisms that blunt any economic impact. "House Passes Landmark Climate Change Bill. in addition to raising the cost of using “dirty” energy. with the result that no significant “tax increase” occurs. and Sharon Parrott.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.

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

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

I think there’s a general consensus we ought to return as much of it as possible to rate payers. Says Senate Energy Chairman”) The Climate Equity Alliance. These higher prices would be the result of legislation that would put a price on the gases linked to global warming. “Well. 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. The alliance further said that cap and trade is like a distribution of wealth program. but beyond that I don’t think there’s any specifics agreed upon." he said. 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. "It should not be legislation that is designed to raise revenue.. utility commissions. “Well. said it is not yet “clear” what the government is going to do with the revenue made from auctioning carbon permits. ranging from the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). “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. "We would discourage the committee from going down that road. electricity customers will face what Jeffry Sterba. When asked if he had an idea about how the revenue should be that cap and trade is designed to increase energy costs so that consumers invest in alternative (or green) energy sources.” he said. 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. 4/23/2009 (Dina Cappiello. Bingaman. called would be a windfall for shareholders. not sell them. 106 Ellis.. who leads the District of Columbia's Public Service Commission.” Auctions increase consumer spending AP. they could protect consumers from higher energy prices. . 4/30/2009 (Nicholas Ballasy. which represents 42 million consumers in 47 states." said Glenn English.Climate Politics Page 106 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: C&T Kills Economy – Auctions Current bill leads to auctions CNS News. and electric utilities told lawmakers that if they were given the allowances." If the allowances are sold. more climate friendly energy sources. it Edison Electric Institute. Bingaman said. They said that if Congress decided to give them to the producers of electricity." said Richard Morgan. "Revenues associated with pricing greenhouse gases would be returned to the very consumers who would be at risk for paying higher energy prices. 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. however. 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. Teddy & Megan . Mitchell. CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. electricity providers warned Thursday. as proposed by President Barack Obama. “Obama’s ‘Cap and Trade’ Plan Likely Will Raise Energy Prices. Representatives for rural cooperatives. which is comprised of more than a dozen organizations.

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

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

Her conclusion: The current U. position on climate change. and approximately equal gross domestic product. political or military supremacy.S. 'America's interests. could well result in the loss of Americas position as global political leader. not to mention its legitimacy and capability as a world leader. into a community of Western democracies and Third World dependents ready to fall into line behind U. are better served by [participating] in shaping rules and procedures rather than in sulking outside the tent.' 109 Ellis.S. 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. Teddy & Megan . Though Europe cannot challenge U.S. Mitchell. Mathews wrote.S.Climate Politics Page 109 of 156 7WJ – HPSW United States. the world's single superpower must acknowledge that its power no longer translates . . which is epitomized by the U. . posture. a larger percentage of world trade. 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. leadership. 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.

cfr. Michael A. Mitchell. known as Waxman-Markey. cement. economic growth will still be able to power a vibrant and internationally competitive in principle.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 macroeconomic impact of smart climate policy will likely be small..David M. But the devil is in the details--and the current bill gets the details wrong. 110 Ellis. and chemicals toward unregulated (or less regulated) competitors abroad. 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. addresses that by providing rebates to firms in those sectors to blunt the cost. Teddy & Megan .S. industries that use lots of energy and whose goods are traded globally have some reason to be nervous about a cap-and-trade system. Nonetheless. That approach is. Most companies will see at most limited changes in how they function day to day. CFR. reasonable. High carbon prices could tilt the competitive playing field in areas like steel. It would cushion the blow for trade-exposed heavy industry while maintaining the integrity of a U. WEA) Concerns about the possible competitive impact of climate regulations have been grossly exaggerated. The climate bill. aluminum.S. http://www. emissions cap. meaning that robust U. "Trade and Climate Change".

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

unrealistically.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. Obviously. Teddy & Megan . Mitchell. no significant fuel-shift to natural gas (despite this market's historic unpredictability).1 in 2025 (about $200).7 Program-that emissions to year 2000 levels by 2015. and will further reduce the bill's costs by independently contributing toward the bill's modest goal of reducing CO2 6. Fontaine 2004 . By changing this single assumption from EIA's analysis MIT found that monthly costs to the average household would be only $15 to $20.8 in 2010 (about $33 per household per month). EIA and no continued federal and state emission reduction programs. 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. Also. from 6. no market penetration of new low-emission technologies (despite billions of federal R&D spending). 112 Ellis. Environmental & Public Utility Practice Group of the Cozen O'Connor law firm (Peter J. http://www. "Global Warming: The Gathering Storm".co-chairs the Energy.cfm.7 to 8. Public Utilities Reports. 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.4 cents per kilowatt-hour to 6.pur.. and from to 9. EIA predicts average electricity prices will increase under the bill from 6.0 in 2020 (about $108). such programs are likely to continue.

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

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. nuclear power is more likely to decline than to increase in the coming years. July/august. including wind and solar. compared to 27 per cent for wind energy. By the end of 2007. reports that the American nuclear industry is so unattractive that it is unable to attract private investment. While the red-hot renewable industry. This is virtually inconceivable. 12. Saskatchewan). In total. The reality is quite different. because more than half the world's nuclear power plants are over 20 years old. 6 –Christopher. but its growth rate is lower than any other energy source. “Nuclear industry spins new mythology”. attracted $71 billion in private investment last year. global nuclear power capacity grew by less than 2.000 megawatts in 2007. The Star Pheonix (Saskatoon.Climate Politics Page 114 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Nuclear Power Decreasing Nuclear power is dead – growth is slow and leveling off Hanley. a figure equivalent to just one-tenth of the new wind power installed globally that year. A recent Time magazine article. 6/24. 34 nuclear reactors were being built worldwide. Mitchell. Global nuclear power decreasing now Flavin. Twelve have been under construction for 20 years or more. At least 70 nuclear plants would have to be built in the next decade just to replace those that are projected to be closed. Meanwhile. given that only 14 are now under construction. Is Nuclear Viable?. that it is experiencing a kind of renaissance.000 megawatts.5 per cent in 2007. Meanwhile. Proquest) Globally. 19. lexis) A second myth is that nuclear is now gaining worldwide acceptance. Growth was just 0. President of World Watch Institute (“Brave Nuclear World?/Commentary: Nuclear revival? Don’t bet on it!”. Teddy & Megan . pg. reports the Worldwatch Institute.800 megawatts. reducing capacity by 36. the nuclear industry attracted nothing. Global nuclear capacity stands at 372. more than 124 reactors have been retired by the commercial nuclear industry since 1964. 08 (Paul. 114 Ellis. Vol.

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

It is instrumental in denying the right to build nuclear weapons to all but a handful of countries. it has offered dozens of countries nuclear technology and access to nuclear power fuel.I sort of see that theme emerging again and themes that are strangely reminiscent of that -. President Eisenhower had a well-intentioned unfortunate initiative and that his "Atoms for Peace" proposal and it was well. I think we should -. The fission process makes plutonium.S.expanding nuclear leadership increases tech transfer – this increases prolif Keeny.(off mike) -because we're going to have to subsidize it. SUBJECT: CAN NUCLEAR ENERGY GO BEYOND THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005? June 18. PANEL II OF A COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS SYMPOSIUM. L/n. and by encouraging it on our terms we would have a better role.(off mike) -. These really poor undeveloping countries can't afford the capital costs of any kind of nuclear program. Britain. Meanwhile. 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) -. India.intentioned and was based on a thesis that nuclear power would be so commonplace that it had to be accepted as a worldwide phenomenon.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 -.not totally analogous but should carefully examine what we do in introducing -. and Pakistan-possess their own nuclear -. States. with the world awash in plutonium and highly enriched uranium. eight nation-states-Russia.Climate Politics Page 116 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Nuclear Power Leadership U. France.(inaudible). 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. it is only a matter of time before someone steals enough plutonium to make an adequate nuclear weapon. 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen.not necessarily stay under our control because I think -. 07 .how to use them. 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. And -. Nuclear Power is not the answer. While the Bush proposal includes taking the spent fuel back to the United not clear that that process can be undertaken with no cheating. Israel. even as there is much hand-wringing at the United Nations about the possibility that Iran and North Korea may be developing nuclear weapons. 116 Ellis. Turn .last couple of decades trying to retrieve the remnants of that program. the United States. 134135) In light of terrorist attacks using conventional weapons. The United States has adopted three contradictory stances at the same time: It is aggressively forging ahead to build more nuclear weapons. rday) MR. And I think that with based on a misunderstanding status for nuclear power at that time that led to a different -. nuclear leadership fails – overall nuclear hypocrisy makes prolif and terrorism inevitable Caldicott. KEENY: I'd just like to add one point.former deputy director of the U. China. pg.(inaudible) -. Then we proceed into the age of nuclear terrorism. Going back half a century. it is Thus. 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. Teddy & Megan . stating that it will use them preemptively even against non-nuclear nations. Mitchell. which can then be separated by reprocessing and converted to fuel for nuclear weapons. In the context of promoting nuclear energy.S Arms Control and Disarmament agency (Spurgeon.

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

left alone. and it would open the door to a so-called "plutonium economy" in which breeder reactors would run on the recycled fuel. As for the stretching of nuclear fuels. 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. 118 Ellis. When plutonium is extracted from spent fuel commercially. partly to stretch fuel resources. Teddy & Megan . 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. 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. it is argued. however. 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. is too radioactive to be readily handled by a criminal gang. 6 – Senior news editor for the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (William.Climate Politics Page 118 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Reprocessing Solves Prolif Reprocessing makes prolif and terrorism more likely Sweet. 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. greatly reduces the physical quantity of waste that must be permanently stored. producing more energy than they consume. pg. Mitchell. 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). 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. Spent fuel from reactors. 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.

for example. and all traditional plants lose water through evaporative loss. to 7. One nuclear plant in Georgia. June. require massive supplies of water to cool reactor cores and spent nuclear fuel rods. notably water resources. care of construction.S. Radioactive Realities: Why Nuclear Power Is a Poor Way to Meet Energy Needs. Because much of the water is turned to steam. The nation’s oil. the 3. Nuclear waste management: Wastes associated with nuclear power. Mitchell. they accounted for almost 40 percent of all freshwater withdrawals (water diverted or withdrawn from a surface. for instance.ieer.” 2004. America will soon be withdrawing more water for electricity production than for farming.or ground-water source).*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). energy policy (Benjamin and Chris.249 With electricity demand expected to grow by approximately 50 percent in the next 25 or the equivalent of 17 Olympic-sized swimming pools every day. Thus. This staggering amount is equal to the entire country’s water consumption in 1995. Newer technologies. natural gas. roughly equivalent to all the water withdrawals for irrigated agriculture in the entire United States. in engineering (specialization: nuclear fusion) from the University of California at Berkeley (Arjun. while they withdraw less water.President of IEER. they contribute even more to the nation’s water scarcity. consumes around 7.3 billion gallons per day. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.248 Nuclear reactors. withdraws an average of 57 million gallons every day from the Altamaha River. 07 . “Atomic Myths.000 gallons of water per minute. and nuclear facilities consume about 3. coal. continuing to rely on fossil fuelfired and nuclear generators could spark a water scarcity crisis.plutonium in current enough to service more than 196. 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.3 billion gallons of water each day.400 MW Sherer coal facility consumes as much as 9. In Georgia. Conventional power plants use thousands of gallons of water for the condensing portion of their thermodynamic cycle. in particular.000 Georgia homes. the Department of Energy warned that consumption of water for electricity production could more than double by 2030. Perhaps the most important—and least discussed—advantage to a federal RPS is its ability to displace electricity generation that is extremely waterintensive.245 A conventional 500 MW coal plant. These vulnerabilities relate to: Nuclear weapons proliferation: Nuclear power technology has a large overlap with nuclear weapons technology. a national nonprofit organization committed to reforming U.244 In 2006.913 gallons of water for every MWh of electricity it generates. Closed-loop systems also rely on greater amounts of water for cleaning and therefore return less water to the original source.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. actually consume more. if new power plants continue to be built with evaporative cooling. Advanced power plant systems that rely on re-circulating.. Severe accidents: Severe accidents on the scale of Chernobyl can occur with nuclear power plants. from mill tailings to spent fuel. even though the details of accident mechanisms and accident probabilities vary with design. closed-loop cooling technology convert more water to steam that is vented to the atmosphere. 4 . Teddy & Megan .newenergychoices. http://www. 119 Ellis. substantial amounts are lost to the local water table entirely.250 Waste from nuclear power contaminates water resources. while modern power plants may reduce water withdrawals by up to 10 percent. and degree of independent oversight and regulation.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.pdf) If projected electricity demand is met using water-intensive fossil fuel and nuclear reactors. less efficient plants can be much worse. holds a Ph. but actually “consumes” (primarily as lost water vapor) 33 million gallons per day from the local supply.D. Makhijani. Nuclear power plants create weapons usable materials . are very long-lived and threaten essential resources. In 2006.246 Older. Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). http://www. Coal plants also use water to clean and process fuel.

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

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

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

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

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

2008. On Dec. Leading scientists acknowledge that computer models can’t predict’s-dozen-of-reasons-to-oppose-cap-and-trade/) There’s no environmental benefit. and none of the changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability. In short those few who earn the money to pay the taxes can‘t afford to perpetuate this hoax. July 18th 2009. independent of the actions of humans. cap-and-trade is wrong because it’s a massive new energy tax. 10. http://www. ■ 2. ■ 3. there are many against this bill. I suggest all concerned taxpayers contact U. Mitchell. and be highly susceptible to fraud and corruption in a time when Americans can’t afford it. The Foundry.) No impact to warming – average rates are natural and CO2 emissions aren’t out of control Hartman. cause electric bills and fuel prices to sharply increase.doesn’t low temperatures. a hundred scientists wrote a letter to the secretary-general of the United Nations. "Beware the consequences of cap-and-trade". 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. 7/21/09 (“A Baker’s Dozen of Reasons to Oppose Cap and Trade”. This letter made three declarations: ■ 1. July 21st 2009.S. 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. There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity have in the past.000 years. more than 500 scientists closed the conference with what is referred to as the “Manhattan Declaration”: Global climate has always changed and always will. It will kill American jobs. sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change. 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. Jim Webb and As far as scientists supporting cap-and-trade to stop global warming. and carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life. Sen.” He covers much information refuting the global-warming mantra. In conclusion. in an International Conference on Climate Change. now or will ever cause catastrophic climate change. Mark Warner and urge them to vote against cap-and-trade.heritage. http://blog. 2007.Climate Politics Page 125 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Can’t Solve Warming Cap and trade won’t solve warming. 13. 125 Ellis. and there has been no net global warming since 1998. and other countries are key The Foundry. On March 4.tidewaternews. 7/18/09 (Ed. 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. Recent observations of the phenomena such as glacial retreats. Teddy & Megan . I challenge The Tidewater News to obtain and reprint an article written in 2008 by Eric Creed entitled “The Greatest Hoax Ever Perpetrated.

environmental to 0. http://www. analysis by the architects of the endangerment finding.Climate Politics Page 126 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Can’t Solve Warming Cap and trade only reduces temperature by .2 degrees Loris and Lieberman 2009 .heritage. the EPA. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (4/23.[2] 126 Ellis.*senior policy analyst in Energy and the Environment for the Heritage Foundation. if any. strongly suggests that a 60 percent reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2050 will reduce global temperature by 0.cfm. Mitchell. In fact. "Five Reasons the EPA Should Not Attempt to Deal with Global Warming". Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2407.2 degrees Celsius by 2095. **research assistant in the Thomas A. WEA) The extraordinary perils of CO2 regulation for the American economy come with little. Teddy & Megan .

carbon-based fuels are and will remain for decades the backbone of the U. Teddy & Megan . or ACES. Second. but because “it’s the best we can do.S’. is how to accomplish that goal. Chamber Of Commerce (William. This bill is not the best we can do. First. based on a failing European model that they themselves are looking to abandon. A few months ago in The Wall Street Journal. 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. by far. picking technology winners and losers is not the way to go about it. Third. ACES does not do a good job of ensuring those alternatives will be available. shutting out many qualified minority.S. 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. Nonetheless. president of Environmental Defense Fund. http://www. If the objective is to allow the market to work to find the lowest-cost solutions.” This may be the greatest indictment issued against the legislative branch since Joseph Welch questioned Joe McCarthy’s sense of decency. will add costs and distort the workings of the carbon market the bill would establish. “Waxman-Markey bill: 'this isn’t the best of U. A feasible cap-and-trade system might work. ACES contains dangerous provisions that could lead to widespread lawsuit abuse. and-trade system is the best approach.Climate Politics Page 127 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Fails – Warming Even if they win all of their arguments. It does not fully and permanently protect America’s 27 million small businesses from being forced to comply with costly standards. Act was deeply flawed. small. or RES. nor does it adequately preempt state and regional greenhouse gas programs. Mitchell.U. 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. Politico. international cooperation remains a major stumbling block to addressing global climate change.politico. Chamber Representative. Furthermore. July 13th 2009. The question. energy system until cost-effective and reliable alternative energy sources are developed. made the argument that a “well-designed” cap- the American Clean Energy and Security. among other weakness.S. 7/13/09. and nonunion businesses from the entire market. but what we got with 127 Ellis.S. Fourth. the bill will result in diminished competition. Fred Krupp. the renewable electricity standard.the current version of cap and trade will fail – carbon fuels are inevitable and international cooperation is more important Kovacs.”. The bill fails to equitably allocate credits to the refinery sector. along with many of the other mandates in the bill.html) The U. of course. And by applying the Davis-Bacon and here are four quick reasons why. Chamber of Commerce strongly supports comprehensive legislation to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases while providing for a strong American economy.

It didn’t work for me.S.S. given its support by some environmental groups and a number of European governments. voters dioxide emissions only increased 2. In theory. opaque system over a simpler. But basic economics punctuated by the developments now gripping the U. Chief Executive Officer @ Marshall Institute. but still allowed to sell “excess” permits to us and Europe. once we set aside those offsets. never even sent the Kyoto treaty to the Senate for approval. One. cap-and-trade is intended to stabilize energy prices and provide incentives to develop new technologies. Given the current economic pain and disruption generated by the financial sector meltdown. Washington has three options. Two. the major Kyoto signatories. Despite all of these environmental and economic failings of the EU cap-and-trade system.html) While well-intentioned. The system also has failed to establish a stable price for carbon — a goal widely considered a prerequisite for any effective climate change effort. leaving everyone better off. the option favored by an administer and enforce it. putting more money into the hands of workers. to break a deadlock and gain support from Russia and other developing nations that were effectively exempt from reducing their emissions. Given its impact on the should be thankful we passed. This was the approach then-Vice President Al Gore proposed at the climate summit in Kyoto. permits prices moved permits that European “transition” economies. still pushes forcefully for a cap-and-trade scheme. and in that time almost all EU nations. cap-and-trade spawns vested interests that will lobby hard to protect their interests and preserve the system.rollcall. there’s less chance of accountability.) Not Clinton only have the EU emissions policies missed their objectives.S. Japan.html) More than a decade ago. A carbon based on the According to a recent study in Nature. drafted the Kyoto Protocol. Roll Call. mandate a cap-and-trade system. such volatility doesn’t threaten economic stability. It requires an elaborate bureaucracy to operate. 2/3 http://www. According to a new report by the Government Accountability Office. A cap-and-trade system is very unlikely to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions — and more likely to introduce new. while America’s carbon But the administration European Union. Mitchell. And since it’s unlikely that politicians will opt to maintain the status quo. it’s difficult to understand why so many continue to favor a more complex. (That’s even more significant when you account for the fact that our economic growth was much stronger. it’s a stealth tax. In the first two years of the EU cap-and-trade system. the government sets an annual “cap” on greenhouse gas emissions. Since the entire global permit market only currently amounts to some $60 billion. themselves exempt from caps.S. increasing number of economists and analysts.” But here’s the catch. trilliondollar risks for the financial system. The clearest illustration of the problems with cap-and-trade is the European Trading Scheme. my former boss. places a price on carbon and then allows the market to respond. Eleven years have elapsed. On top of that. legislators are currently pushing to impose a similar emissions scheme here in the States. with daily price shifts as great as 70 percent. the resulting increased prices could be offset by reducing the payroll tax. To the contrary. 9 (William. political resistance. and lets a new market sort out the messy job of determining the prices of emissions. 9 (Robert. Three. These regimes may offer the path of least current. were to join Europe — and China as well — in cap-and-trade. Teddy & Megan . leaving voters vulnerable to further exploitation of financial instruments. impose a carbon gives away or auctions permits to produce those emissions. continue the present approach that relies on higher efficiency standards. These taxes add to the cost of emission-producing energies and. President Bill Clinton. some U. issues emission permits to covered industries and creates a market for trading permits. reduces that limit over time. emissions under the ETS have actually increased by 10 percent. “The Real Choice Between Cap-and-Trade and Carbon-Based Taxes”. that was 7 percent below 1990 levels. Between 2000 and 2006. as such. unsettling everyone’s markets 128 Ellis. Cap and trade fails – evasion and manipulation Roll Call. it’d be a different story entirely. for example.3 percent. the EU emissions jumped by 3.5 percent. the debate will largely boil down to the last two choices. create incentives to find alternatives without enriching traders and promoting the kind of lobbying that’s inevitable with cap-and-trade. The Democratic Congressional leadership supports cap-and-trade. a system that sets a limit on emissions. if the U.5 percent per month. One reason is that major emitters such as Germany simply exempt many of their facilities generating greenhouse gases. The core idea is that businesses that can cut their emissions targets most cheaply will do so and sell permits to those who cannot. In reality. However. stunted economic growth and spawned cheating in the carbon trading system. and global financial systems clearly point in a different direction. can sell to other ETS members. the increased costs under cap-and-trade will be hidden in the added costs of goods and services.rollcall. there’s little if any evidence that the ETS has had any effect at all on emissions in Europe. There are serious doubts whether it will accomplish either. Another factor is the “offset” up or down by an average of 17. toward a carbon-based tax program with most of the revenues recycled in forms of tax relief. Though both policies will raise the price of energy. have failed to meet their targets. And unlike a direct tax. Without transparency. Under cap-and-trade. Volatility like the kind experienced in the ETS would translate into much more volatile energy prices. Kyoto protocols covering most of Europe. they have increased energy costs. arguing : “I tried [a carbon tax] once. The treaty imposed deep cuts in emissions for developed countries. new auto technology and lower emission technology.Climate Politics Page 128 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: C&T Solves Warming Won’t solve warming – EU system failed O’Keefe. That means this policy will advantage average Americans rather than Wall Street traders while still discouraging carbon emissions.1/15 http://www. proposing a 2012 target for the U. “Time for a Fresh Debate Over America’s Climate Policy”. the government policies responsible for higher prices under a carbon tax are clearly visible to consumers. In contrast to a CO2 trading market. the prices for ETS permits are highly volatile. Burned by the political firestorm over his proposed BTU tax in 1993. with strong support from Vice President Al Gore. the United Nations. Going forward. in 1997. cap-and-trade systems are riddled with daunting problems. more transparent one.

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

and remind us that normal hurricane risks are amplified as our cities grow and our people seek waterfronts on which to live and play. Even here.500 Years”. say. improvement in storm water drainage systems and avoiding hurricane-prone coastal development. I am very frank in pointing out the dangers of beachfront property along the Gulf Coast. The wetlands and their species would simply move slightly upslope. 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.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. President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project and Distinguished Research Professor @ George Mason. emigration does not present insurmountable problems. among other actions. which will continue. but if it continues for the next five hundred years. Still. Actually. Six inches per century is slow. Tougher zoning for low-lying areas and tougher building codes for areas within reach of storm surges make sense. The amount of land involved would be trivial. over 100 years. and horseshoe crabs—not to mention sand fleas. coastal forests. Emeritus Environmental Science @ UVA and First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service. the Tuvaluans There will always be an ebb and flow between land and water. bridges. but the storm surges from huge tropical cyclones that have hit the country every three to four years in recent decades. Mitchell. Teddy & Megan . However. and inflicting massive amounts of physical damage on buildings. 130 Ellis. will be very slow and thus give decades of opportunity for adaptation. might even prefer it. building a dike around Bangladesh may not be a bad idea anyway. A dike would be expensive. and water systems. and it would have to be done with great sensitivity to the coastal wetlands. as they have so many times in the past. and their interface will be rich with competing organisms. What about low-lying islands? As previously noted. mosquitoes. to state and local agencies as well as industries. is that they invest today in is to inform developers and industries of the potential climate risks and rewards in Alabama. and beach combers. The sea level rise. We expect a continued abundance of the corals. spreading disease." 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. Alabama state climatologist. roads. if one is able to survive the storms. it would cause significant coastal changes. and Dennis. the Tuvaluans do not appear to be threatened by rising sea levels. The problem is not sea levels per se. recently testified before Congress: One of my duties in the office of the State Climatologist A sea level rise of 6 in. How many buildings near coasts are built with the expectation that they will last 100 years. the problem is not great. this is a smaller problem than the alarmists have claimed. These investments include extending floodway easements. biting flies. The main point I stress. we will avoid encouraging new building and development in low-lying coastal plains. infrastructure that can withstand the severe weather events that we know are going to continue. The world wouldn't lose its wetlands due to rising sea levels. is miniscule compared with the storm surge of a powerful hurricane like Fredrick or Camille. the floods of salt water often stay for weeks. or even 50 years. but perhaps it will need to be done. John Christy. 200 years. The point here is that we live on a planet where the climate has been changing constantly for the past billion years. Bangladesh has built a large number of "typhoon towers" that allow the population to climb above the floods with the belongings they can carry. Prof. Coastal areas threatened today will be threatened in the future. since there are only about 11. p. or even longer? If we are wise. At the very least. The real impact would be on man-made structures. Director of Global Food Issues @ Hudson Institute. “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1. whether or not sea levels are rising.000 Tuvaluans. halting economic activity. But if they were. poisoning soils. America should stop encouraging high-risk waterside building through government-financed flood insurance. And. which would have to be abandoned or moved inland. 160-161) A continued slow rise in sea levels is probably the biggest problem for humans likely to arise from a moderate global warming.

In today's climate. antibiotics. 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. Politicians. genetic engineering and sanitation. Whether [vector-borne disease] expansions are due primarily to climate change or other anthropogenic influences (e. expansion variation has made it challenging to associate climate warming with disease prevalence or severity. Politicians. 2002. “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists. and the Media”.. that's a major scientific disease vector. Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies @ Cato and Prof. Change in climate is so small by comparison that it is nearly irrelevant. In fact. given a small change in climate.. some diseases will spread somewhat and others will recede somewhat. 186-187) The June 21. "Climate Warming and Disease Risks for Terrestrial and Marine Biota.. p. Rather. Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies @ Cato and Prof. 187) The plain truth is that climate plays an extremely minor role in the transmission of pathogens. The paper is filled with caveats like those.g. Teddy & Megan . But to assume everything else will be equal is a poor scientific assumption. 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." As a review. the article was a compendium of many researchers' previous work and therefore included little that was scientifically new. as is predicting future distributional changes in disease prevalence. We found no unequivocal examples of natural changes in severity or prevalence resulting from directional climate warming per se. Scientific studies prove there is no clear relationship between warming and disease spread Michaels 4 (Patrick. p.Climate Politics Page 131 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Disease Spread Climate plays a tiny role in disease spread Michaels 4 (Patrick. Difficulty in separating directional climate change from short-term controversial.. to name a few things that sure aren't "equal" over time and distance. “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists. and the Media”. Mitchell. Here are some excerpts: Associations between climate and disease do not necessarily imply causation. 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. 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. After all. 131 Ellis. Environmental Sciences @ UVA. Think about technology. Environmental Sciences @ UVA. as scientific writing should be when it is about something as nebulous as how climate might potentially affect disease. edition of Science contained a review article by Drew Harvell of Cornell University and six coauthors titled. Everything else being equal.

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

we used to just let things burn. heat. Scientifically speaking. Y is equal to 400.they’re decreasing burned acres Michaels in ‘4 (Patrick. but that doesn't mean there's more to hear about. The computer calculates that X is approximately equal to 700. the 2. an average of 25 million combusted in the 1920s. about 38 million acres went up each year. “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists. How about this one: Acreage burned = X (temperature) – Y (rainfall). This isn't just a straw doe. which means. Teddy & Megan .13 is decadal average precipitation over the United States. the 1930s. rainfall.3 inches of rain per year. We hear more about it. Figure 6.000-acre foreststack.000. (In the cool 1960s. p.12 shows summer (June— September) temperatures since 1960.000 acres is a needle buried in an annual 5. we averaged about 28.000fewer acres because of the increased moisture. when we look at. That net change of minus 300.Climate Politics Page 133 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Forests No increase in forest fires ---. 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. the average was a little around 5 million acres per year going up in smoke.3-inch rise in rainfall means that we're burning 930. you can't tell the climate signal from the random noise. In the 1960s. the cartoon deer who probably spawned more ecological mismanagement and traffic fatalities than any other animal in cinematic history. It's shown graphically in Figure 6. that a year that is one degree warmer than normal will have 700. (And don't assume your 133 Ellis. By the 1990s that moved up to 30. or a rise of 2. the total "change" in the climate-related signal according to our model is minus 300. you specify an equation that defines a hypothesis about the way something works.000. But there's also an increase in precipitation.) reduced fire in the United States. There is a warming trend. a rise of about 0. and rain.9 degree rise in temperature means that we are burning 630. it was also around 5 million.000 acres. 142-145) It is also one of the easiest to dispute. or in the current era of irrational fire suppression. and burn data and turn it into a mathematical "model. It's not very hard to take the temperature. This little "model" explains a bit less than half of the total year-to-year variation in acreage burned in the United States. say. and the Media”.3 inches. Despite our straightforward math. Politicians. and Figure 6.11 shows 10-year averages for acreage burned in the United States. So every inch of rain above normal reduces the annual burn by 400." First. on the average. That's part of the reason why. 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.000. Mitchell. In the warm 1990s. In other words.000 more acres per year.14. But.9°F in the period. Figure 6. Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies @ Cato and Prof.5.000 more burned acres.) Before the 1942 release of Bambi. Since 1960. Consider what's happened since Bambi. Environmental Sciences @ UVA. the 0.000 acres.

Climate Politics Page 134 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Greenhouse Theory Flawed The dominant greenhouse theory is incomplete—it fails to explain past warming.natural. 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. or about the temperature of a lukewarm bath. The Arctic Ocean warmed to 23 C (73 F). "Our results imply a fundamental gap in our understanding about the amplitude of global warming associated with large and abrupt climate perturbations. That causes the sea to warm. Even though there are big differences between Earth's geology and ice cover then and now. A trio of Earth scientists." warns Zeebe's team.2 degrees Fahrenheit) in just a few thousand years. But all this CO2 can only account for between one and For instance. attaining a concentration of between four and five times that of today. called the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. "Mystery mechanism drove global warming 55 million years ago". reflective layer. led by Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii. How PETM happened is unclear but climatologists are eager to find out. "This gap needs to be filled to confidently predict future climate change.3 F) of PETM's warming if the models for climate sensitivity are right. try to account for the carbon that was spewed out during PETM. What seems clear is that a huge amount of heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases -." 134 Ellis. The theorised sources include volcanic activity and the sudden release of methane hydrates in the ocean. Mitchell. says the paper. scientists said on Monday. or PETM. 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. They believe that levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) rose by 70 percent during PETM's main phase to reach 1.5 C (1. the findings are relevant as they highlight the risk of hidden mechanisms that add dramatically to warming. and so on. as this could shed light on aspects of global warming today. AFP 4/13/2009 (Agence France Presse. estimates the planet's surface temperature blasted upwards by between five and nine degrees Celsius (nine and 16. this exposes the uncovered sea to sunlight.were disgorged in a very short time. which leads to the loss of more ice. http://www. Some of these so-called "positive feedbacks" are already known. Teddy & Megan . as opposed to man-made -. depriving it of a bright. There must have been some other factor that stoked temperatures higher.700 parts per million (ppm).8-6. which in turn helps the sea to warm. Previous research into this period. the team

Dickens said.html.000 years. This makes the PETM one of the best ancient climate analogues for present-day Earth. WEA) Could the best climate models -. http://blogs." In their most recent assessment report in 2007. As the levels of carbon increased. study co-author and professor of Earth Science at Rice University in Houston. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models. The conclusion. known as the “Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum” (PETM). the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. Rice 7/14/2009 ( global surface temperatures also rose dramatically during the PETM. Mitchell.the ones used to predict global warming -. Teddy & Megan .all be wrong? Maybe so. Average temperatures worldwide rose by around 13 degrees in the relatively short geological span of about 10. "Could we be wrong about global warming?".Climate Politics Page 135 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Climate Models Bad Climate models are inaccurate—newest journals flow our way. is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of this ancient warming. says a new study published online today in the journal Nature Geoscience. 135 Ellis. 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." During the warming period. "In a nutshell. USA Today Science Fair. 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.usatoday." says oceanographer Gerald Dickens. What caused the remainder of the warming is a mystery. for unknown reasons.caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM. 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 -.

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

000 per year. Census population projection estimates. and the way they will be met is by raising the price of energy high enough so people use less. since low-income households spend a larger percentage of their income on energy.) It will destroy 1. job loss will be 1. Mitchell.S. Since renewables are lavished with substantial tax breaks. the accumulated GDP lost is $9.4 trillion (in 2009 dollars).) It hits low-income households hardest. Rebates or not. all in the year 2030. the other says it’s expensive. Washington is forcing costlier energy options on the public.1 million greater than the baseline assumptions. cap and trade would be massive tax on energy consumption. however. Proponents of a carbon cap acknowledge this. the years in which we modeled the bill. 4. that’s equivalent to about 1. 6. like most debates in Washington.) It will reduce economic growth. stimulating the economy while igniting a green revolution. the poor pay more […]. A federally mandated RES is proposed only because renewables are too expensive to compete otherwise. 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. from higher energy prices by handing out rebate checks or tax cuts.15 million jobs. the tax impact is $4. 5. for the average year over the 2012-2035 timeline. saying. our primary measure of economic activity. 2. projects that cap and trade will increase unemployment would by 0. a national mandate will cost Americans both as taxpayers and as ratepayers.) More subsidies for unproven technologies and energy sources. there is a projected 2. A study done by Charles River Associates prepared for the National Black Chamber of Congress projects higher unemployment of 2.) It will increase your energy bills. Cap and trade is an energy tax that falls disproportionately on the poor. From 2012 to 2035. Heritage found the average GDP lost is $393 billion. The carbon dioxide reduction targets are still the same at the end of the day. That’s a lot of postage stamps—162. Here are thirteen reasons to oppose cap and trade.3 percent ($350 billon) below the baseline in 2030 and 1.5 percent ($730 billion) below the baseline in 2050. and thus doing damage that no check would cover. and worst of all. Brookings predicts GDP in the United States would be lower by 2. In effect. You hear it won’t cost Americans families very much – about a stamp per day is what proponents of the bill say. by reducing their workforce for example. Heritage’s CDA found that by 2035 gasoline prices would increase 58 percent.5 million fewer jobs than without a cap-and-trade bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. 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. the higher energy prices would reduce economic activity by forcing businesses to cut costs elsewhere. But Heritage isn’t alone in these estimates. why is all this even necessary? 137 Ellis.5% in the first decade below the baseline. it’s about $71. If cap and trade were so sure to work. One side says it’s cheap. If only a small portion (15 percent) of the energy tax revenue is given back to the consumer. “Relative to total expenditure.7 million fewer jobs than without cap and trade. Although upper income families tend to use more energy (and thus emit more carbon per household). Teddy & Megan .) It will cost a family-of-four an additional $3. a supporter of a carbon tax. You hear it’s a jobs bill – that investing billions of dollars in new green technologies that will create or save millions of jobs.5 percent in 2050 and the National Black Chamber estimates that in GDP will be 1. has become a numbers game. 3. By 2035. selective hearing can dictate what you believe Waxman-Markey will do to the economy and how it will affect global warming.500. In the year 2035 alone.000 per year. the burden on the poor obviously becomes heavier. All three aforementioned studies found significant losses in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). natural gas prices would rise by an estimated 16%. natural gas prices would increase 55 percent.600. we find that the average per-family-of-four costs rise by almost $3.” Policymakers sought to protect consumers. CRA’s and the Black Chamber’s study found that relative to the baseline. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that. the poor suffer most. hitting a high of $662 billion in 2035. especially the poor. home heating oil would increase 56 percent.7 million jobs in each year of the policy through 2030–after accounting for “green job” creation. Using U. Since 85 percent of America’s energy needs come from carbon emitting fossil fuels. And if you add up the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035. electricity prices would jump 90 percent.500 to be exact. electricity prices go up by 22% and gasoline increases by 23 center per gallon.3-2. The Brookings Institute. Depending on what side of the political isle you fall on.Climate Politics Page 137 of 156 7WJ – HPSW The cap and trade debate. 1. When all the tax impacts have been added up.

"Climate policy: free trade promotes a cleaner environment". which will see job losses in some industries that exceed 50 percent. Mitchell.heritage. and annual job losses exceeding 800.S. increased unemployment.S. consumers and producers will find no relief from artificially inflated prices by turning to lower-cost imports. Teddy & Megan . 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. Even when the economy does recover.cfm. Heritage Foundation. against foreign competitors whose governments have chosen to be less draconian. C&T Kills Economy Climate bill will decimate economic growth – higher costs and trade restrictions Markheim 2009 . Many such trade restrictions could violate World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and lead to legal sanctions against the U. WEA) The projected cost of a climate scheme on the U. climate regime does far more harm than good and should be avoided. it is clear that the adoption of protectionist polices as a part of a U. whose profitability will have been destroyed by new climate change regulations. America's trade partners are unlikely to agree.Climate Politics Page 138 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. ensures billions of dollars lost from the GDP each year and increases unemployment Loris and Lieberman 2009 .[1] If Congress and the President do embark on such a potentially treacherous course. 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).*senior policy analyst in Energy and the Environment for the Heritage Foundation. But importantly.cfm.heritage. Since 85 percent of the U. whether consistent with WTO agreements or not. WEA) any attempt to reduce carbon dioxide would be poison to an already sick economy. Hard-pressed U. Hit particularly hard is manufacturing. trade measures is very real. categories that include virtually every product in our economy. companies and policymakers may find it fair for the government to prop up domestic businesses. http://author. Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2407. http://www. WebMemo #2408.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. higher energy prices fall disproportionately on the poor.S. reduced consumer spending. economy runs on fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide. imposing a cost on CO2 is equivalent to placing an economy-wide tax on energy use. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (4/23. Even if some of the proposed measures hold up against legal scrutiny in the[1] High energy costs result in production cuts. energy cost increases of 30 percent or more. 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. single-year GDP losses exceeding $600 billion in some years (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). the potential for nations to retaliate against U. restrictions. Above anything else. Cap and trade destroys economic growth – taxes all energy use. "Five Reasons the EPA Should Not Attempt to Deal with Global Warming". 138 Ellis. since low-income households spend a larger percentage of their income on energy. When all these negative effects are taken into account. Some U.Jay Van Andel senior trade policy analyst int he Center for International Trade and Economics at Heritage (4/24.S. Any U. **research assistant in the Thomas A.000 for several years. the EPA's proposed global warming policy would severely limit economic growth. and ultimately a much slower economy. households and firms will face much higher costs for energy and energy-intensive goods.

They would be bad for families and would slow the economic recovery as well. mandatory limits on carbon emissions from various sources (like electric utilities). Robert Byrd. similar legislation went down to defeat. In addition to the tax increase." Byrd insisted that clean coal can be a "green energy. Americans would also feel the pinch because cap-and-trade will hurt economic growth. Cap and trade prevents growth—businesses and families won’t be able to compete in the global economy Corsi.600 a year. director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama administration.000 now pays an income tax of about $3. two jobs are lost for every green job created. saying in a statement that "I cannot support the bill in its present form. When the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analyzed the cost of reducing carbon emissions by 15 percent below 2005 levels. If Americans communicate their opinions about this bill to their representatives in Congress.zwire. But it's not certain those jobs will materialize." That's $1.600 carbon tax in perspective. when he was the director of the Congressional Budget Office in the Bush administration.Va. Proponents of the cap-and-trade proposal argue that job losses will be offset by the creation of new. "I remain bullish about the future of coal.reviewmessenger. "green" jobs. And jobs would be lost. Sen." Admitting that a cap-and-trade program amounts to a "carbon tax. Eloy News.US Senator (Jon." "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. Congress should not be considering new taxes. known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The increase. July 17th 2009. In 2008. The Heritage Foundation's analysis found that Arizona would lose thousands of jobs. though it may not do so until September. Review Messenger. 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.cfm? newsid=20346352&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept_id=222077&rfi=6) On June 26. From his testimony before he joined the Obama administration. Rather than directly raising taxes on Americans.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. "The tax imposed by the cap-and-trade system is therefore equivalent to raising the family's income tax by about 50 percent.. contemplate going to countries such as China where carbon emission caps are unlikely to be taken seriously. it estimated a family's cost of living would increase by $1. 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. D. 7/16/09. perhaps even catastrophic problem. whose government has invested heavily in "green" jobs.000 in the first year alone. particularly CO2. "To put that $1. I am convinced it can be defeated again. July 16th 2009. Those sources would then either reduce carbon emissions or buy or trade emission allowances to achieve the required overall emissions reductions." he testified.Ph. Teddy & Megan . 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. This year won't be the first time that the Senate has considered cap-and-trade.. cap-andtrade raises the cost of living for everyone by raising energy costs and consumer prices for virtually everything. Mitchell." West Virginians may not be the only Americans that will suffer economically if cap and trade passes the Senate. Senate could take up the House legislation. The effect is the same as if they had had their taxes raised.600 that families won't be able to spend or invest in the economy. but legislation he and congressional Democrats are backing would do just that”. At a time when the economy remains shaky and unemployment has reached a 25-year high. will feel the effects of this tax Politics Page 139 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. Economist Peter Orszag. 6/17/09.S. a typical family of four with earnings of $50. it was clear Orszag believed global climate change resulting from human causes was a serious. Staff reporter for WND. over 30. That would give all Americans time to register their opinions on the bill. “G8 falls flat on Carbon Ban”. and this year's version will once again face opposition from Senate Republicans and some moderate Democrats. In Spain. The Heritage Foundation concluded that it would slow long-term growth by almost $10 trillion over 26 years. regardless of income. http://www. http://www. C&T Kills Economy Cap and trade kills the economy—taxes would prevent consumer spending and thousands of jobs will be lost Kyl. "Human activities are producing increasingly large quantities of greenhouse gases.000. according to a Spanish economist." atmosphere." Byrd said. blasted the cap-and-trade legislation. D-W. testified before Congress on cap-andtrade in 2008. and am so very proud of the miners who labor and toil in the coalfields of West Virginia. let alone make up for the jobs that are lost. “President Obama has pledged not to raise taxes on middle- income Americans." Feldstein wrote recently in the Weekly Standard. "The accumulation of these gases in the atmosphere is expected to have potentially serious and costly effects on regional climates throughout the world." 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. in Political Science from Harvard (Jerome R.

at a time when families are struggling just to keep jobs. 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. will face yet one more cost of operations in paying cap-and-trade costs. Orzag testified that "price increases would be essential revenue for the federal government. when the science behind climate hysteria is more certain. Red Alert recommends we concern ourselves with the climate change catastrophe later. 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. not lose homes and pay monthly living expenses. Businesses that emit carbon dioxide. including those involved in raising children. Teddy & Megan . the imposition of what amounts to a cap-and-trade tax may further depress the economy. 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. Moreover." 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.Climate Politics Page 140 of 156 7WJ – HPSW that would require across-the-board emission reductions by all firms. Mitchell. 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. 140 Ellis. including manufacturing companies. In the meantime.

if you fall within a socioeconomic level of no more than 150 percent of the poverty line. the “Energy Refund Program” will allot monthly cash payments to offset the additional burden of energy costs caused by this bill. On Page 1. 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. July 18th 2009.T. I do not want to scramble for additional funds to cover outrageous electric or fuel bills. Yet.241 in 2035.? Nothing but pandering! Another interesting section is No. In January 2008. “Electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” under this program.” It allows the administrators of Medicare and Social Security to access the general revenues of the U.increases energy costs and destroys consumer spending Hartman. 443: “Protection of Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.Climate Politics Page 141 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. the government will be here to bail you out.C. Mitchell.209 this bill references the Earned Income Tax Credit. This cost will be passed to the consumer.C. Teddy & Megan .com/news/2009/jul/18/beware-consequences-cap-and-trade/) I agree with Bob Edwards (“Reader disagrees with cap-and-trade talk.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.S. presidential candidate Obama admitted. http://www.” Wednesday. for an individual with no dependents will double and include annual inflation adjustments.193. Tidewaternewsdotcom. In an economy that’s losing many jobs a month. The authors of this onerous bill know that American workers will be displaced and that it will cause energy costs to soar. 7/18/09 (Ed. The E.I. On Page 1. 141 Ellis. government if it’s determined that the capand-trade bill resulted in the reduction of revenues going into these two trust funds. energy rates will drastically increase. C&T Kills Economy Kills the 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.I. "Beware the consequences of cap-and-trade". In our faltering economy. July 15) that the cap-and-trade bill will cost Americans jobs and further damage the economy. how could anyone justify putting more people out of work? In addition. The cost of transporting goods to market will drastically increase. The Heritage Foundation estimates that the cost will range from $426 in 2012 to $1.T. On Page 1.tidewaternews. What does a so-called “energy bill” have to do with E. too. That is three years that our government will knowingly force Americans out of work.

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

That has undercut the competitiveness of solar. For the sake of the economy’s health. 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. it would involve economic pain. Thomas. the usual rationale for a carbon cap is that. the price of carbon permits will fluctuate. Not only that. lowering permit costs and the cost of using fossil fuels. http://www. the recession has caused the price of carbon permits to plummet. The result will be lower output and fewer jobs. Now we’re told there won’t be any economic pain at all. they had better succeed. “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.) The Heritage Foundation pointed out that incredibly the CBO study failed to include in its calculations the overall effect on economic growth.” How do you end up with a vibrant economy and lots of net job creation by forcing people to pay higher energy prices? Well. That will add even more uncertainty to the business of energy production. Like any commodity. The bill would not only make energy prices go up. would What’s more interesting is the change in approach. the New York and California delegations provided 26 percent of the support for cap and trade in the House. Obama’s latest tack is refuted by statements he made earlier this year.kansascity.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. they can stop the bill dead in its tracks. Mitchell. The legislation. the cap would become more restrictive. long-term consequences of doing nothing about global warming. 7/4/09. you don’t. selfinflicted wound. and those price movements could be “Kill cap and trade before it kills growth”. The whole purpose of the bill is to force people to pay more for energy. That won’t spur economic growth. which makes up the greatest share of the gross domestic product. Kansas City Star. The bill’s prospects in the Senate.Editor at Kansas City Star (E. fortunately. yes. 143 Ellis. The House barely passed cap and trade — the vote was 219-212. which seems likely. Industries would then buy and sell permits to emit carbon. If Republicans hang together and peel off a few Democrats. In fact. but we have to understand that the short-term costs would be far less than the dire. are grim because the same political dynamic that worked in the House won’t apply in the Senate. (Lower-income households would get a rebate reducing their energy costs by $40. Over time.S. when he remarked that under his cap-and-trade plan. Cap-and-trade would be a crippling. reducing CO2 emissions. In Europe. Thanks to the Senate’s rules. As Jay Cost points out at the Real Clear Politics site. which now goes to the Senate. 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. those states together make up only 4 percent of the membership. Teddy & Megan . July 4th 2009. It will retard it. economy ever to emerge on Capitol Hill. wind and other new technologies aimed at boosting conservation. and that’s why this measure is one of the biggest threats to the U. impose an overall limit on emissions of greenhouse gases.html) Up to now. the measure will need at least 60 votes. by slowing the growth of consumer spending. But in the Senate. Nor is it likely to work as its authors intend. Obviously. but — because energy costs raise production costs generally — it would make the prices of almost everything else rise as well. the two arguments are contradictory.

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

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

Vice President.S. 6/19/2008 (C. new diesel engine emission standards imposed by the U. historical expenditures for fuel in the absence of any climate change legislation being passed. The average national price of diesel fuel this week is now over $4. Even small increase in fuel prices could devastate trucking industry Mullett. Beyond equipment costs. by many accounts. 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. Burning diesel fuel is the main source of carbon emissions from our industry equating to 22. Teddy & Megan . Government Affairs Con-way. Mitchell. I wish to further expand upon the critical role diesel fuel plays in our industry.89 more than just one year ago. Vice President. Additional EPA diesel engine emission standards in 2007 drove Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2002 drove up engine costs on average of between $3. These margins continue to be chipped away given the numerous and unprecedented costs being imposed upon the industry.margins thin Mullett. economy between 6-8 percent. decreased fuel economy between 2-4%. 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. We are extremely sensitive to rapidly shifting operating costs given our thin operating margins of between 2-4 percent. most critically. Not only have equipment costs increased due to federal requirements. but state regulatory mandates have substantially increased the financial burdens being placed upon our industry. 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. In 2006 alone trucking consumed over 39 billion gallons of diesel fuel. Randall.000 and. Inc.69 per gallon.Climate Politics Page 146 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Trucking Industry Brink Trucking on the brink. For instance. we have experienced record increases in insurance premiums and.000 to $5. Government Affairs Con-way.2 pounds of CO2 per gallon of fuel. Randall.000 while decreasing fuel up the cost of engines between $8. Inc. 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.000 to $10. 146 Ellis. Diesel fuel provides greater fuel economy and the higher energy content necessary to transport widely diversified loads under extreme operating conditions. This means that a one-cent increase in the average price of diesel costs the trucking industry an additional $391 million in fuel expenses. which is $1. 6/19/2008 (C.

Teddy & Megan . so does the corresponding demand for more consumer goods. The table below clearly shows these relationships. Mitchell. Constraining the country's freight delivery system will do nothing short of shutting down life as we know it.000 interstate motor carriers operating in the United States ranging from single truck operators to fleets with thousands of trucks. Approaches to dramatically reduce carbon emissions from line-haul trucks will curtail the delivery of vital consumer goods across the nation such as food. 147 Ellis. and clothing. 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. interstate and diverse nature of our business operations. Keep in mind that as the nation's population continues to grow. Trucking Key to Economy Trucking collapse jacks the entire economy Mullett. 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. 6/19/2008 (C. Inc. Vice President. Government Affairs Con-way.Climate Politics Page 147 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. Randall. medicine.

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

149 Ellis. Mitchell.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. the penalties to the US markets for passing this will be legion. Teddy & Megan .

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

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

Business Standard. A common suggestion is to impose a tax on all CO2 emissions. with long-term adverse effects on living conditions around the world.nytimes. production technology standards (eg. At other points. where they have no mandatory carbon caps. Matthes explained. Formerly Chairman Of President Ronald Reagan’s Council Of Economic Advisors and President Of The National Bureau For Economic Research (Martin. and free allocation of permits has been widely curtailed — “because there’s a huge potential for perversion.Editor at New York Times (Tom Jr. in no small part. Scientific evidence appears to indicate that the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels (primarily coal. Tom Vilsack. weighed against the potentially grave consequences of doing nothing. To that point. cap-and-trade policies could produce significant harmful economic effects in the near term that would continue into the future.” A day later. as my colleague Kate Galbraith reported at our Green Inc. as long as the cost of doing so is less than the tax that they would otherwise have to pay. oil. merits and implications of climate policy generally and a cap-and-trade system specifically. raising the possibility of serious risks to international trade. A carbon tax causes each firm and household to respond to the same cost of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. House of Representatives having narrowly approved a climate change bill late last month. the secretary of agriculture. more recently. 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. they have been a raucous display of political peacocking and sniping With the prospect for a global climate treaty hinging. “Peacocks and Passions in Senate Climate Debate”. and natural gas) — mainly in electricity production. 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. Inhofe suggests is widely debated — perpetrated on the American people. 6/27/09. attention has now moved to the Senate.. http://www. Inhofe said in a speech on the Senate floor as his colleagues in the House were preparing to vote on their bill. Inhofe. Setting aside leaders like James M. the European carbon trading system — the world’s largest and oldest — has been racked by volatile and. Such a tax would cause electricity companies and industrial firms to adopt techniques that reduce their CO2 emissions. “Carbon caps. on the ability of the United States to find common ground on the issue at The cap-and-trade system imposes a carbon tax without having to admit that it is really a tax. June 27th 2009. will severely damage America’s global economic competitiveness. Yet we do not see carbon taxes being adopted. are now being required to do so. and various industrial processes — contributes to gradual global warming. 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. Even if every country has a cap-andtrade system and all aim at the same relative reduction in national CO2 emissions. 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. http://www. At times. Mr. 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.Professor Of Economics At Harvard. The cap-and-trade system thus imposes a carbon tax without having to admit that it is really a tax.” Mr. Felix Matthes. Inhofe said. which is busy debating just how to craft a version of its own.U. While aimed at reducing long-term environmental damage. 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. Implementation of cap and trade is a more serious threat to trade – tariffs would immediately lead to a new round of protectionism Feldstein. told the “unprecedented threat to our way of life. 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. Although governments levy taxes on gasoline. The higher cost of production incurred to reduce emissions — and of any emissions tax still due — would. “The logic is not difficult to understand. system. they are reluctant to impose a general carbon tax because of public opposition to any form of the hearings have provided a sober accounting of the economic hazards posed by overzealous government meddling in the marketplace. plummeting prices. particularly as rapidly industrializing nations — chiefly China — continue to resist the idea of implementing their own emission caps. 7/19/09.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1) With the U. 152 Ellis. 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. After all. according to reams of independent analyses. Earlier this month. Mr.S. minimum renewable fuel inputs in electricity generation). 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. Those industries least likely to be harmed by the increased cost of having to buy emission permits at auction. now in its “third phase. 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.” Jobs and businesses. Senate subcommittee that the E. testified that American farmers and ranchers could benefit from carbon offset provisions in cap-and-trade legislation. principally by raising the cost of doing business here relative to other countries like China. “Martin Feldstein: Cap-and-trade = protectionism?”. Editor and writer for The New York Times covering alternative energy and green business. In addition.Climate Politics Page 152 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext.” he said. transportation. on July 8. Teddy & Megan . July 19th 2009. Mitchell. such as automobile mileage standards. be included in the price charged to consumers. which would be levied on companies that emit CO2 in production. the stakes are particularly high. In a cap-and-trade system.” Whether or not that logic is as airtight as Mr. the resulting permit an auction. not least by a parade of witnesses now being called before various Senate committees and subcommittees to testify on the needs.” had been tweaked. the research coordinator for energy and climate policy at the Öko-Institut in Berlin. blog.” among witnesses and elected officials who appear far from consensus. “will move overseas. 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. of or that sell products like gasoline that cause CO2 emissions when used. C&T Kills Competitiveness Independent analysis finds cap and trade will destroy competitiveness – raises business costs and forces outsourcing Zeller. etc.

Climate Politics Page 153 of 156 7WJ – HPSW prices will differ because of national differences in initial CO2 levels and in domestic production characteristics. Mitchell. which in turn would invite those who want to protect domestic jobs to argue for higher tariff levels. the cap-and-trade system affects its international competitiveness. 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. impose a complex set of regulatory policies. 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). 153 Ellis. and allow companies to buy CO2 offsets (eg. When the permit prices become large enough to have a significant effect on CO2 emissions. Teddy & Megan . there will be political pressure to introduce tariffs on imports that offset the advantage of countries with low permit prices. Because the price of the CO2 permits in a country is reflected in the prices of its products. by paying for the planting of trees) instead of reducing their emissions or buying permits. Worse still. Such complexities make it impossible to compare the impact of CO2 policies among countries. 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.

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

They pose the greatest threat to its future that has ever existed in our history. Society of Professional Journalists.4 trillion. Its limits are. The government owns 607 million acres of land in a nation founded on the belief in the sanctity and power of private property. by the actions of this Congress. It is no accident that his Secretary of the Interior unilaterally cancelled 77 oil and gas leases or that. Out of 307 million Americans. meaningless.Member of American Society of Journalists and Authors (Alan.rightsidenews. It is estimated that 300 million barrels of oil and 8. by 2035. 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. The Waxman-Markey bill will. I seriously doubt that more than a relative handful know what Cap-and-Trade means or that it is even being debated. and their grandchildren will. and all undeveloped nations. Our present annual GDP is about $14 trillion. live in a very different. reduce the aggregate domestic product (GDP) by an estimated $7. It is estimated to destroy 844. Mitchell. It is no accident that President Obama and his acolytes keep calling for "clean energy". 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. intended to reduce these gases. their children. by definition. Even if the bill were to become law. it totally ignores the fact that all the other nations of the Earth will continue to generate "greenhouse gases. but they.000 jobs on average with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 1. "energy independence". must hate America. purposefully exempted China. This bill will impoverish Americans and destroy the nation. India. Upon taking The Democrats in Congress and the present occupant of the White House. It will raise electricity rates 90% after adjusting for inflation. and babbling endlessly about "green jobs" as the real jobs of Americans are systematically destroyed. 155 Ellis. Teddy & Megan . Prices for gasoline and natural gas will rise by 74% and 55% respectively. very costly America.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lie beneath these "protected" acres.900. "Cap-andTrade Bill: Villainy On A Grand Scale". on March 25. the keystone of capitalism. http://www.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." The United Nations Kyoto Protocol.000 jobs.html) The Waxman-Markey bill is villainy on a grand scale. July 17th 2009. 7/17/09.

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