Climate Politics Page 1 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
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
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................142 AT: C&T Solves Economy..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................115 AT: Nuclear Power Leadership................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ C&T Kills Economy..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................123 C&T Can’t Solve Warming........................................................................................................................................ Trucking Key to Economy......................................................................................................136 Ext.............138 Ext................................................................................................................152 C&T Bad – Free Trade......................................................................................... C&T Kills Economy..............................................148 C&T Bad – Competitiveness (2/2)............................................................................145 Trucking Industry Brink................................................................................................................................................................. C&T Kills Competitiveness............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Can’t Solve Warming/Economy......................................................................................................................................... Mitchell.............................................146 Ext.......... C&T Kills Economy..........................................................................................................................................Climate Politics Page 4 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Nuclear Power Bad – Extincion..................................................................................................................................................................120 C&T Can’t Solve Warming..................................................................................................................117 AT: Reprocessing Solves Prolif...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................125 C&T Can’t Solve Warming..............................................................156 4 Ellis..........................................................................................................................................143 AT: C&T Solves Economy – Green Jobs......................................154 C&T Bad – Poverty ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................121 C&T Can’t Solve Warming......139 Ext.................................................................................................................................130 AT: Disease Spread..................................................................................................150 Ext.......................................................................135 C&T Bad – Economy ..................................................................155 Healthcare Kt Climate................................................................................................................................................................................116 Nuclear Power Bad – Prolif .....................................................................................................................................118 AT: Nuclear Power Solves Water Wars.........................132 AT: Forests.................................................................141 Ext...................................133 Greenhouse Theory Flawed..............................................................................................127 AT: C&T Solves Warming.....................................................128 AT: Sea Levels................................................................................................................................................................................126 C&T Fails – Warming .................................................................................................134 Climate Models Bad................................................................................................................................131 AT: Drought........144 2NC Trucking Industry Module..................................................................................................................................119 C&T Bad – Warming ................................................................ Teddy & Megan
................................................................................................................................................................................................................147 C&T Bad – Competitiveness (1/2)...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Teddy & Megan
. Mitchell.Climate Politics Page 5 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
however. and potentially irreversible changes. In the short term. and Energy Secretary Steven Chu. “We’re Going to Get It Done. With former EPA chief Carol Browner heading up his climate team in the White House. global leadership. The EPA plainly has the right to control CO2 emissions.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. If he does. energy security. Global warming has been crammed into a "green" box for the sake of political expediency. in the Northeast. because we have 60 votes." In Copenhagen. 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. For Obama. because we have a Democratic president. Obama has another chance to redirect land use away from highway sprawl and in a low-carbon. Instead. in the West. the president must travel to Copenhagen with real regulatory and legislative achievements. 7/27 (Darren. the White House science adviser.e360.”
http://www. This is more than a third of the $150 billion he promised over the next 10 years for clean energy investments. Jane
relationship that exists between sustainable economic prosperity and environmental stewardship
Lubchenco. Mitchell. it’s a very complicated issue. in terms of energy efficiency projects.Climate Politics Page 6 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Climate Good 1NC
Climate bill will pass – but it’ll be a tough fight Samuelsohn. Signs are good that Obama genuinely means business. The administration should also strengthen energy efficiency incentives and clean energy tax credits. it has become an open question as to how existing coal plants and permits for new ones will now fare under the act. Simultaneously and climate plan. At his direction. and the real issue is how aggressively the law will be applied. global commerce. the United States will reclaim the mantle of global leadership when it takes its seat in Copenhagen. and the United States needs to lead. really hinges upon the fate of coal-burning power plants under the Clean Air Act.uk/environment/2009/feb/03/network-obama-climate-meeting-copenhagen)
chairman of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. agricultural policy. The legislation must be signed into law this year. Over half the American economy has already voluntarily put itself under mandatory [carbon] reduction schemes. who would sign a bill. pending further review. 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. light
rail. inaction on climate change. and he should empower them and other government scientists to speak loudly. The president's executive action on coal will invigorate Copenhagen and bring seriousness to bilateral discussions with China. some of the governors. 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. After eight years of U. televised address to the nation about the climate crisis and the need for immediate action and U. part of the Guardian Environment Network. given the acceleration of global ice melt. If that first signal gets amplified. the political winds at his back are now as favorable as they will ever be. so if the package survives its passage through Congress.co. it must be appreciated for its cross-cutting immensity — it is fundamental to national security. to Copenhagen. despite currently low fuel prices.yale. the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Interview with Senator John Kerry. Manufacturers will soon have to deliver higher mileage vehicles on an accelerated schedule. clean energy. extreme weather events. By approving the waiver after a formal review process. and allow the thorny bailout of Detroit to proceed without any doubt as to where the industry must head.
credibility to the promise he made in his inaugural address to "roll back the specter of a warming planet. It is not an energy
Obama will still face heavy regulatory and legislative lifting to turn promise into reality
before Copenhagen. Doesn’t mean it’s going to be easy — it’s not. To secure his crowning achievement
6 Ellis.edu/content/feature. unequivocally. he must demonstrate how science has been restored "to its rightful place" in America in strong climate regulation and law. though. So there’s a very different dynamic. working with your senators.
Coming to Copenhagen with the necessary legislative accomplishments — in addition to regulatory ones — will be harder still. Now
you have President Obama. and
green jobs. Obama must also make a prime-time. there are greater possibilities this time around. and environmental protection. and it will be hard fought.
http://www. The new president must use the bully pulpit of his office to provide quick and remedial education. it will certainly change the tone of what happens with coal in Congress longer-term. Can you talk a little about the [changed]
dynamics? John Kerry:
This time there’s a reality to it. because we have a responsibility to people. the world's coal juggernaut. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson will guarantee steep future emissions reductions from the transportation sector. the question of coal rests largely in Obama's hands. cement plants. Science. 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. other kinds of things mayors have done. he will be ahead of schedule on that score. economic recovery. and frequently to the American public about the true science of climate change and the urgency of our present circumstances. dangerous feedback loops. because the science is more compelling. Such a speech would send a clear signal to the American
. mass-transit direction. and shipping. President Bush was waiting at that point with a veto pen. but it is essential to Obama's success. public health and safety. exercise the full might of his executive powers and regulatory discretion under the Clean Air Act to jump-start action. other heavy industries. The boldness of Obama's regulatory strategy. Since the Supreme Court affirmed in Massachusetts v. The latest science only underscores the need for immediate action. in its rightful place. and I think a lot of
communities have already moved — I mean. where powerful lobbies have held science at bay. Americans have been purposefully led astray about the reality of global warming and about the positive
. 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. as delay into 2010 will wreck it on the shoals of mid-term
investment in a clean energy grid. land-use planning. As expected. the
as people begin to analyze the realities here.S.S. For almost a decade. By itself. and smart growth. this investment inside a trillion dollar package merely colors the economic recovery with a pale green hue. adopt a mandatory federal renewable energy target. He is talking frequently about energy and climate change. American leadership offers the only hope of success. Obama has well chosen his scientific team in John Holdren. Teddy & Megan
. The proposed economic recovery package has been disappointing to advocates of public transit. and he has the authority to stop new dirty coal plants cold.guardian. But with the federal Transportation Bill up for reauthorization in 2009. EPA that carbon dioxide could be regulated as a pollutant under the law. 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. his inspiring oratory alone will not be sufficient. and increase
. and spend freely from his enormous store of political capital to lead the government to enact comprehensive federal climate legislation. 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. 2/3. Obama has tapped the talent he needs to implement a powerful regulatory strategy. The president must also instruct his cabinet to clarify the impact of global climate change on each of their respective portfolios. can tolerate no further delay. with sparse dollars allocated to those needs. the electorate is way ahead of some of our colleagues here. 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. Obama must expend political capital in Congress and work with leaders to complete passage of science-based federal legislation capping greenhouse gas emissions. and energy efficiency — $54 billion worth. which 13 other states are poised to adopt as well. says that emissions must be stabilized by 2015 and in decline by 2020.
state compacts in the Midwest.
would set the stage for passage of a comprehensive international treaty to slow global warming. permits to pollute the air with greenhouse gases would be auctioned and the proceeds returned to citizens.Climate Politics Page 7 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
There will not be another political opportunity as ripe as now. 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. It makes a cap-and-dividend plan largely immune from criticism that it will be costly to the public.
7 Ellis. will protect the most vulnerable American families from rising energy prices and will help build a long-term constituency for climate action. while the window of opportunity is wide open. everybody owns the sky and the emissions cap then becomes universally comprehensible as it begins to turn us toward a low-carbon
. who originally formulated this concept and has championed it tirelessly. The extra income. but one of them is rising as a preferred choice because
elections. This American accomplishment. a time when political courage disappears. and global warming pollution will proceed essentially unchecked. Teddy & Megan
." Under this program. nor will there be another financial context more sensitive to a strong new signal. the prospect of sending monthly dividend checks to families is a political winner.
it protects low-and middle-income families from rising energy prices. it must do so with a price on carbon as part of its cure. and it increases the chances of passage this year. None of the options is perfect. Peter Barnes. With cap-and-dividend. As the global economy starts to rise from collapse. cap-and-dividend provides the best point of departure because it creates a fundamental break with business-as-usual. It establishes a new. Mitchell. In the present economic crisis. 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. cognitive frame of reference: the democratic principle that an equal share of the sky belongs to each person. It's called "cap-and-dividend. began by asking a simple question: Who owns the sky? Without a price signal. Still. which should be targeted especially to the poor. Now is the year for President Obama to act. winning. Indeed. Whether the allocations should be shared and what the right ratios ought to be will be the subject of intense political negotiation on Capitol Hill. nobody does. brought by President Obama to Copenhagen along with other concrete actions.
Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean.Climate Politics Page 8 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Climate Good 1NC
Warming guarantees multiple positive feedbacks triggering extinction – adaptation cannot solve Tickell. and much of the world's most productive farmland. cities.co. 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. with more frequent and severe
The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks. The world's geography The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced.
would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age. But the
idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea. This is a remarkable understatement. And as the Arctic warms. All the world's coastal plains would be lost. that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". look 55. when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel. Billions would undoubtedly die. both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions. bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable. 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. Climate Researcher. Sir David King. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. melting of the Arctic sea ice. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable. “On a planet 4C hotter.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. Mitchell.guardian.
8 Ellis. Teddy & Megan
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming. Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. when a global
temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5. To see how far this process could go. and the more the Arctic warms. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. all we can prepare for is
extinction”. who warned
droughts. transport and industrial infrastructure. the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. 8/11http://www. floods and hurricanes. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser. The Gaurdian. 8 (Oliver. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke. complete with ports. and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. notably the summer The more the ice melts.
a "tipping point" . the most prevalent greenhouse gas. we have released more than 1. 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. is the highest it has been for the past 650. “Guardian Weekly: Just 100 months left to save Earth: Andrew
Simms on a New Green Deal that could forestall the climate change tipping point”. To do so you combine current greenhouse gas concentrations with the best estimates for the rates at which emissions are growing. linked to climate change. 8/15. warming the
When these gases accumulate beyond a certain level . Other dynamics include the decreasing ability of oceans to absorb CO2 due to higher wind strengths. The
loss of ice cover reduces the ability of the Earth's surface to reflect heat and. One example is the melting of ice sheets. and adding to climate change. or the increase in greenhouse gases. In just 250 years. as a result of the coal-fired Industrial Revolution. and the effect of those environmental feedbacks.Climate Politics Page 9 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
2NC Impact Calc – Warming Quick
The impact is quick – 81 months to extinction Guardian Weekly.global warming will accelerate. Teddy & Megan
. the maximum concentration of greenhouse gases allowable to forestall potentially irreversible changes to the climate system. In climate change.800bn tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. a
atmosphere. with different ocean circulation. This has already been observed in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic.
9 Ellis. approximately 1. the Earth's climate will shift into a more volatile state. Mitchell.000 years. by revealing darker surfaces. wind and rainfall patterns. scientists at least have the sense of humour to term what drives this process as "positive feedback". 8 (Andrew Simms. If that happens. the implications of which are potentially catastrophic for life on Earth. increases the amount of heat absorbed. Faced with circumstances that threaten human civilisation. and based on a conservative estimate. Greenhouse gases trap incoming solar radiation. Currently. So. potentially beyond control. due to human activity.000 tonnes of CO2 are released into the atmosphere every second. global warming will continue even if we stop releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. and changes to land use such as the growth of cities and the felling of forests. if we are lucky. The concentration of carbon
dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere today. we could reach a tipping point for
the beginnings of runaway climate change. number of feedback loops amplify warming through physical processes that are either triggered by the initial warming. Let us be clear exactly what we mean. Because of such self-reinforcing feedbacks. This is often referred to as irreversible climate change. L/N)
In just 100 months' time. once a critical greenhouse concentration threshold is passed.
This bill is about jobs — clean energy jobs that stay here in America. is the number one potential state for wind in the country. we will show. we don’t want anything partisan out of this. adaptation technology transfer. So. 7/27 (Darren. and we’ve just got to get it caught up. fire risks. That’s one thing that’s changed. and they’re going to run ads in support of people where they do this. the electorate is way ahead of some of our colleagues here. What’s their energy. and there may be several things we feel we can tweak. 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. It’s taken a lot of time to try to get health care through here. This is a jobs bill. This is about how do we meet those interests. I mean. in the Northeast. may I add significantly. It is an anti-pollution bill that protects children from all the impacts of bad air. Less rainfall. that we’re going to create jobs that don’t go overseas. I think that that realization is striking home with people. it’s going to be regulated by the EPA. We’re trying to find a way to save the coal industry. different kinds of entities. because the science is more compelling. any time you’re successful it opens up the opportunity to go out and be successful again. and it will be hard fought. though. it’ll be a very big deal. So the key here is to build as broad a coalition as is possible. that provide a higher standard of living. These issues are going to rise and fall based on how well they are addressed. You have the Europeans calling for stronger targets. We may just put them into the bill with [Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman] Barbara [Boxer]. working with your senators. e360: Some say that the House bill is too weak. So I think
e360: As an advocate without President Bush around. I look forward to it. People make too much of all that stuff.
[American Wind Energy] Association. and it is a huge step forward for energy independence for our country. I think this bill
health care could be trouble? Kerry: Well you know how this place works. even gave us some ideas about things they would have liked to have done but weren’t able to. I have no illusions about it. 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. We met with Markey and Waxman. and various power companies. the Climate Action Partnership. But
10 Ellis. who would sign a bill. But we’re going to have to find a level of compromise here that works for people. is it hard to push this?
Kerry: We don’t want [to be] divisive. Governor Christine Gregoire here. because we have a responsibility to people. You’ve got tech companies. there are greater possibilities this time around. Doesn’t mean it’s going to be easy — it’s not. Secondly
.. some of the governors. two days ago.
got global climate change impacts hitting states all across the country. but it got the votes. e360: From a political standpoint. Over half the American economy has already voluntarily put itself under mandatory [carbon] reduction schemes.yale. and so you have DuPont and Siemens.e360. on economics. and the United States needs to lead. Let this debate be joined. Their “no” is a vote for the status quo. But they’re going to try to educate the public about it. like Florida Power and Light and American Electric Power. 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. In fact. putting advertisements together. Mitchell. there are many reasons for people to embrace what is going to be done here. a lot of folks who are on the lower end of the economic income scale. could be in trouble because of this cap-andtrade bill. North Dakota. 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. So as the evidence comes in.
state compacts in the Midwest. You have to take risks. So I think that the public is ahead of some of the politicians in Washington on this. and so scientists are deeply alarmed. and what they’re doing.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. So. in terms of energy efficiency projects. this is legislating. e360: Can you talk about what general issues you intend? Kerry: The kinds of things are offsets. Do you think there’s any truth to that? Kerry: I don’t agree. because we have a Democratic president. So this will be hard fought. He says President Obama. I know that the House started at a higher level and had to move backward somewhat. and on good environmental policy — good economic
this bill is really a bill for the transformation of the American economy. [with] enormous positive assets. it’ll be very tough.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. What’s changed from last year to this year? Kerry: I think our colleagues are well aware of the problem and concerned about it. you’ve
dramatically faster — and in greater affirmation of the predictions — than anybody had thought. I can’t tell you what the level will be in the bill. reporters’ e-mail inboxes were flooded with press releases from the National Republican Congressional Committee attacking the House Democrats who voted on those amendments. and they
votes. Teddy & Megan
. a very strong bill. I know it’s tough. and the status quo hurts Americans. The Republicans. Can you talk a little about the [changed]
dynamics? John Kerry:
This time there’s a reality to it. and they’re also going to run ads describing this challenge appropriately in certain states to encourage people to change their mind. beetle pine nut bugs that are eating forests in Colorado and Montana. all of whom believe that this is a big deal for America’s economy.
e360: In [the 2004 presidential] campaign. This is an economic jobs bill. potential goals for Copenhagen. this is not a campaign. our commitment to clean coal technology is in fact a huge incentive for coal states to recognize that this is a good moment. make stronger. and I think a lot of
communities have already moved — I mean. and local populations are perceiving those things. and I respect that. Interview with Senator John Kerry. So there’s a very different dynamic. other kinds of things mayors have done. and a major coal interest. in a run for a second term. e360: Republicans think they can take the House and Senate back with this vote. Again. there’s a huge grassroots effort going on right now that will support the people who are involved with this. coal has a better opportunity for its future if it comes on board this bill. talking about how many jobs they created in their states as a consequence of their moves on environmental policy. Kerry: Well. e360: How much does the health care debate influence the climate debate — success on health care breeds success on climate and failure on
when you fail at something it also doesn’t end the opportunity to get something done. Different people are raising money. Do they want to fix the system? No. That decision has yet to be made. including North Dakota. because those are decisions that will be made down the road here as we get together in the next weeks. that pay people decent salaries. what’s their plan? What plan do they have for anything? Do they have a plan for heath care? No. without the assistance that we’re going to put in this bill to help them. It’s not a partisan issue.edu/content/feature. the
as people begin to analyze the realities here. President Bush was waiting at that point with a veto pen. You have to be reasonable — West Virginia has huge unemployment. “We’re Going to Get It Done. I’ve also talked to Newt Gingrich. it’s a very complicated issue. It represents one of the fastest growing sectors of many of our states.”
http://www. Al Gore. people who look at the facts are going to realize what’s really happening here. because we have 60 votes. on facts. this is not a race for the presidency. who believe that we’ve got to do this. after every single House amendment vote that took place in the Energy and Commerce Committee. Things are happening to the negative because of climate change. We had Governor Bill Ritter from Colorado here. that it was watered down too much in the negotiations. They’re just trying to figure out what’s the best way to try to deal with it. But there this is a growing recognition of a major challenge to Americans’ security and economic interests. I think
encouraged us to do that if we can in various places. hiring people involved with grassroots organizing. What’s your opinion? Kerry: I introduced legislation several years ago that had higher levels of reductions. in the West. and they can dispute and completely discredit any arguments that they’ve lost jobs because they’re doing those things.. This is an issue that ought to be based on science. And we’re still fighting that. to Copenhagen. Are you concerned that you might be too polarizing as a senator representing Massachusetts now? Kerry: I really don’t think so. Now
you have President Obama. Thirdly. it has been determined by the
policy. because if it doesn’t. We may mark it up ourselves. and we’re going to have to negotiate here — obviously intelligently — and get the
the House bill is actually a very good bill. It could produce ten thousand times its own electricity needs just from wind. you didn’t win West Virginia and Montana and the Dakotas and these states that are the swing states. stronger drought.
it’s a significant engine of growth for the economy. If evidence came in in a few years showing we could slow it down. Kerry: We’d all like it — ideally you’d get a November signing. that are going to be necessary. domestically. when they learn there are incentives for energy efficiencies or new technologies. Things don’t end with Copenhagen. overall. So if your interest is in getting something done. between 75 dollars and a hundred and something. that’s a good level to go in with. or Secretary Clinton’s trip to India. So in fact delay hurts the American consumer. and it also doesn’t take into account the final things in the House when they voted. You know. budget issues. I think that China is doing a lot more than people know or think. 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. as well as an improvement in the health of children because you’re reducing pollution. This is not a static process. I’m optimistic about the capacity to do it. because a 2 degrees goal carries with it certain obligations. and we need to show them exactly how. But it’s going to take leadership. e360: And going into Copenhagen. if you had a law. If evidence came in saying we’ve got to speed it up. over an entire year for a family of four. among many. e360: When you look at the G8 meetings that just happened. negotiating with China and with other countries? Kerry: Not at all. Mitchell. and if we get a bill out of committee here. It also carries with it some requirements with respect to what you do. 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. health care. but that is what has to be fleshed out in the negotiating process. I thought the 2 degrees C goal [temperature increase target] they came out of [the G8 meetings] with is pretty significant. Teddy & Megan
. CBO [Congressional Budget Office] — and the EPA — has demonstrated that the cost to the lowest quintile of Americans is actually no cost. That puts pressure on China and India and everybody else. So that’s now being scoped into it. this is not the scary thing people have described it as. what people ought to understand is that legislation isn’t forever. Is it sufficient yet to deal with what we have to deal with going into Copenhagen? Not yet. and that gets more expensive. a lot of people are going to say.
11 Ellis. because it is harder to take more [CO2] out of the atmosphere the more you delay. that
we’re helping to mitigate any kind of cost increase against the individual homeowner or electricity user. “Wow. to achieve that. But when they learn that there are billions of dollars there to help develop clean coal technology. and I think that as people learn that this is actually a winner. which we do very effectively in this. But that’s without taking into account energy efficiencies or taking into account the new technologies. too. But we have to see what happens to the Senate schedule. we’re better off passing something. e360: Do we leave Copenhagen with a document that is the Copenhagen Protocol? Kerry: I hope so. that’s pretty good. does that tie the United States’ hands. Whatever we achieve in Copenhagen is a first major step. That was on the Waxman-Markey original bill.Climate Politics Page 11 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
is already better than a lot of people think it is or know it is. Hopefully we’ll have time to do it. e360: Senator Reid has said that he would like it signed into law by Copenhagen. and a bona fide effort by the United States. and just where we are. And also increasing the security of the United States because you’re reducing energy dependency. and you have the House bill at that moment. we should pass something. 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. because they don’t know yet really what’s in it. it’s a jobs creator. that’s our goal. with some adjustment as we go along to the realities of science and economics and other things as they come at us. and Speaker Pelosi has said the same. And if you want to enhance China’s prospects of signing onto [a treaty]. and the Chinese likewise. it’s $40 in their pocket. and everything else. there was some pretty harsh reaction toward the United States. we can always react. to do what we need to do. it’s a jobs winner. we can react. the issue doesn’t suddenly go away. and the cost to others is a range. I think people understand that. and regrettably it’s going to get actually more expensive.” e360: What level of specificity do you think the United States needs going into Copenhagen? Kerry: Well I think what the House has done.
Key members of Obama's administration. 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. such as Vermont independent Bernie Sanders. Mitchell. but the passage of the Waxman-Markey Bill through the House of Representatives is a landmark victory for Obama's energy policy. put a price on US greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed. 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. 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. where the upper chamber's composition makes the polarisation of regional interests far more pronounced. Senate agriculture and forestry committee chairman senator Tom Harkin of Iowa said passage of the bill would be tough. according to Bloomberg. the bill now passes to a sceptical Senate for ratification.
Senators from Midwestern and industrial states are concerned that a cap-and-trade system could raise energy costs for consumers. which is predicated on a transition away from dependence on fossil fuels and significant investment in renewable technologies. will face a far tougher time in the Senate. Having gained approval from the lower house. with the remaining 15% to be auctioned. oil refineries and vehicles to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. factories.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.
Further political horse-trading is inevitable. The WaxmanMarkey Bill would also require that at least 15% of US electricity production by 2020 come from renewable sources. the bill is unlikely to survive in its current form. Attempts to water down the bill could. including energy secretary Steven Chu and foreign relations
committee chairman John Kerry. including farmers. with at least six of the Senate's 20 committees working on alternative legislation. however. Revenue from the auction will be redistributed to low-income households. while forcing US companies to comply with stricter environmental standards than their overseas competitors. for the fist time. The bill's cap-and-trade programme allocates 85% of credits to industry without cost. It aims to cut fossil fuel emissions from power plants. have been working on securing Senate support for the bill since January. The passage of the bill. Even with Obama's support.
12 Ellis. With Obama clearly willing to expend significant political capital to secure the passage of legislation which will. also referred to as the Waxman-Markey Bill after its authors. Teddy & Megan
. passage of a wide-ranging climate change bill before the end of 2009 now seems assured. risk the support of senators.
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of
for climate change legislation could hurt their re-election chances. Boxer's standalone climate-change bill fell to defeat.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. Boxer figures she has the best odds ever of getting a bill signed into law. Nebraska.will have jurisdiction over the bill. Commerce." While vote counts vary. most observers say the bill's fate will lie with 15 or so Democratic moderates. There will be great incentives for energy efficiency. It should have a broader appeal. There will be so much in there. Miami Herald. but there's a new strategy this year that will make it harder for senators to reject it." she said in the interview. "There will be so much in this bill. Those committee heads have been meeting for months with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "Boxer faces challenge of a lifetime' on climate change bill". it's all difficult. Teddy & Megan
. There will be great opportunities for agriculture. Having said that.
"It's a different dynamic. 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. There will be help for areas that need flood control. After years of battling with the Bush administration.
Boxer said the approach was unlike any she'd experienced since she joined the Senate in 1993. Mitchell. Six committees . Boxer has been telling audiences for years that Congress must act. and she predicted that it will simplify passage. which Boxer heads.com/news/politics/AP/v-print/story/1138238.html.Environment and Public Works.
There will be investments in transportation.miamiherald. who'll help combine their work into one massive bill this fall. and it will make it easier. and that it will. WEA)
Last year. Agriculture and Foreign Relations . Finance.
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",
The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed a sweeping climate change bill today that will significantly change
the way Americans use and produce energy. The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), which passed on experts predict another battle.
a 219-212 vote, now moves to the Senate, where
Environmental groups hailed the bill's passing.
prepared statement. "President Obama
"This vote was a major hurdle, and we've cleared it," Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a
can walk into the G8 summit of world leaders in Italy next week with his head held high. Now we have momentum to move and improve legislation in the Senate and put it on President Obama's desk so he can go to December's international summit in Copenhagen with the full backing of the Congress and the American people."
Before the vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told her colleagues "we cannot hold back the future." She offered four words that she said represent the meaning of the legislation. "Jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs," she said.
14 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan
Climate Politics Page 15 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Uniqueness: Will Pass – AT: Mccain
McCain will give in despite his frustration over the bill. Yarow 7/16/2009 - economics degree at University of Delaware and master's in journalism from NYU (Jay, The Business
Insider, "What Will John McCain Do With The Climate Bill?", http://www.businessinsider.com/what-will-john-mccain-do-with-theclimate-bill-2009-7, WEA)
With the cap and trade bill sitting in the Senate awaiting proper debate, E&E Daily takes a very long look at John McCain's record on climate trade and tries to come up with an idea about how he'll vote.
Until Waxman and Markey put their names on the front page of the climate bill, McCain dominated any discussions about cap and trade legislation. He's tried introducing the legislation three different times and each time he's been shot down, pretty handily.
Now that there's a piece of legislation with some popular support, some momentum, surely he's happy? Well, not really.
And try as they might E&E can't really provide much insight as to how McCain will vote. They've got Republican Senator George Voinovich implying that McCain would vote against the bill because he knows it will hurt Americans. Opposing that point of view is John McCain himself, sort of: In contrast with GOP comments during last month's House debate, McCain argued that a capand-trade bill would work during the country's historic recession, citing the economic opportunities from a climate bill and questioning modelers who do not consider technological innovation and other ways to lower the policy's costs. He also held firm in his opposition to a "safety valve" limit on price limits, a point environmentalists say would stymie development of low-carbon energy sources. And McCain trumpeted the science, citing congressional delegation trips he had led to Antarctica,
the North Pole and Alaska.
McCain thinks the bill has a lot of crap in it (who doesn't?) but when push comes to shove, he'll exercise his influence on the debate, shape it so he's happy, hold his nose and vote yes.
Our reading of the article: John
15 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan
Climate Politics Page 16 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Uniqueness: Will Pass – Vote Count
Nate Silver says it’ll get to 60 votes – but it will be a close call Yarow, 7/6/09 (Jay, The Business Insider, Nate Silver: Enough Votes In The Senate To Pass The Climate Bill) Political wonk and stats guru, Nate Silver says there's enough yes votes available in the Senate to get the climate bill passed but there will be probably be more compromises. After the House approved the climate bill, Silver created a regression model to determine how a Representative would vote. His model was pretty accurate, so he applied it to the Senate to see how it will vote. The model factors in ideology, partisan nature of a state, carbon emissions per capita, poverty, lobbying and employment in carbon intensive industries. Overall, Silver's analysis finds there are 52 voters likely to be in favor of the bill, but thinks there are 62-66 votes up for grabs. Here's the breakdown:
* Silver sees 44 highly likely yes votes, all Democrats, and 34 highly likely no votes, all Republicans. * In the middle there are 6 democrats that Silver deems "likely" yes votes. That would be 50 yes votes, enough for Biden to cast a deciding vote in favor of the legislation. * There are 3 more "possibly maybe" votes from Mark Begich (D-AK), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME) putting the total yes votes at 53. * There are 9 "problematic Democrats" that include: Evan Bayh (D-IN), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Mary Landireu (DLA), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and Ben Nelson (D-NE). These folks can expect calls from Rahm Emmanuel as the vote draws near. * There's four long shot Republicans: John McCain (R-AZ), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Mel Martinez (R-FL), and Chuck Grassley (R-IA).
While this should be assuring to any climate bill supporter, the real number that matters in the whole debate is 60. That's the number needed to bring the bill to vote and shut off filibustering. On major pieces of legislation, like the climate bill, Silver says the votes in favor of the bill usually fall in line with the votes against filibustering.
the bill isn't a slam dunk. There's going to be lots of compromising to get from 53 possibly approving Senators into 60 Senators definitely willing to have a vote on the bill. Once the bill is put to a vote, it looks likely it will be approved, unless the compromises kill the bill. As Silver puts it, "The
So, question is how many ornaments the Democrats could place on the Christmas Tree before it starts to collapse under its own weight.
Climate bill will pass with compromises – Nate Silver’s statistical analysis proves Doremus, 7/7/09 (Holly, Legal Planet: The Environmental Law and Policy Blog, Forecasting climate votes in the Senate) Nate Silver, the statistician who gained prominence in the last election cycle with his predictions for the presidential race, has modeled the prospects of the Waxman-Markey climate bill in the Senate. The analysis is necessarily based
on a number of assumptions, such as that the bill doesn’t change in its progress to the Senate floor. So its an artificial exercise, but an interesting one.
Silver’s model finds 51 votes with a reasonably high probability (75% or higher) of voting in favor of the bill (that’s not how Silver divides up the probabilities, but there’s a clear split in his model between Mark Begich of Alaska (77.98%) and the next highest Senator, Olympia Snowe of Maine (55.13%)). That would be barely enough to pass the bill, but not nearly enough to break a threatened filibuster. Silver sees 9 problematic votes in the
Democratic caucus and only 2 Republicans (Snowe and Collins of Maine) with a double-digit probability of breaking ranks with their party.
Overall, this is a slightly better assessment than I expected. Although the model considers only 52 Senators to be more likely than not to vote for the bill, there are somewhere between 6266 votes that are perhaps potentially in play. But . . . further compromises would almost certainly be needed, some of them designed to placate as few as one senator. The question is how
many ornaments the Democrats could place on the Christmas Tree before it starts to collapse under its own weight.
16 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan
Teddy & Megan
." said Lieberman. 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. and to "ameliorate some of the pain associated with an enormous societal change" in how Americans power their homes.Climate Politics Page 17 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Uniqueness: Will Pass – Odds
Climate bill has better than even chances of passing Cappiello. despite past
rifts with Dems. http://www. sounding like his 2000 presidential running mate.html)
Lieberman still thinks that cap-and-trade is the best way to control global warming emissions. "Every year the feel comfortable operating in the context of the House bill. 7/27/09— (Dina Cappiello. Lieberman says the odds for passage "are better than even" — thanks to a president who is behind the bill.com/politics/ap/51807187. problem gets worse. ”AP Interview: Lieberman. also has gotten more compelling since he wrote his first global warming bill more than a decade ago. He also says it would raise the money needed to make "revolutionary investments" in cleaner forms of energy.sfexaminer. however." he said. "That's the thing I like most and why I This year. vehicles and businesses. The science. he said. Vice President Al Gore. Mitchell. who went on to win a Nobel Prize for his work on global warming. still fights for global warming law”.
17 Ellis. the threat of real damage gets worse. San Francisco Examiner. even catastrophic damage.
28 deadline for six Senate committees to complete their pieces of a climate bill.” E&E
News. The upshot? Thanks to all the last-minute goodies included in the House climate bill. "And we may be doing that.
http://blogs. in the Finance Committee. 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. who sits on both the Environment and Public Works and Finance committees. WSJ 7/23/2009 (Wall Street Journal. That extra income will more than compensate higher energy prices. That schedule was abandoned after House and Senate Democrats struggled this week to find consensus in several committees. deadline for cap and trade. "We're going to. 7/23/2009 (Darren. senior reporter. have hearings on and fully intend to mark up
allowances." Manley said of the Sept. alongside several fiscal 2010 appropriations bills.
28 target. "We'll be taking that up. which allowances are free allowances. and something we ought to do. More than any other lawmaker. including the distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars in emission allowances. At the same time. "I
think the idea of marking up in late September is viable.” E&E News. The Obama administration continued its offensive on the climate bill. Reid's goal is to resolve health care differences in the key committees in time for a September floor debate. "Yes." said Sen.) 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. 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. 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. Lexis)
Baucus (D-Mont. “Baucus pledges to meet late Sept. 7/28/2009 (Darren.)
today acknowledged that the Senate would not begin floor debate until after the August recess on health care legislation. when he will also be tackling some of the core pieces of a climate bill. But that
shift in schedule does not affect Reid's Sept. Teddy & Megan
say. we'll meet it. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson. as well as provisions dealing with international trade. "Not aware of any change. And Senate Democrats still expect to meet Reid's timetable for the global warming bill. while we're debating on the floor health care legislation. he said today. with prospects for Senate success resting in large part on a small set of
said he is gearing up for September. Mitchell. farmers stand to rake in a fortune from so-called carbon offsets. senior reporter. Jim Manley. For now. he said." Baucus told E&E. And Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said he planned to meet Reid's deadline for moving his parts of the climate bill.
Still on track for climate passage – Senators can walk and chew gum at the same time Samuelsohn. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev. Baucus has been engulfed in negotiations on health care reform. But we can walk and chew gum.). Mostly. Tom Carper (D-Del. according to his spokesman.” Secretary Vilsack brandished a new report from the Agriculture Department.
Baucus agrees – they’ll get climate done in September Samuelsohn." An aide to EPW Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif. A number of administration heavyweights—Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. “Senate health care delay won't change cap-and-trade schedule." 18 Ellis." Baucus said of the Sept. as well as what allowances are auctioned. enjoying “significant net benefits. Baucus
(D-Nev. Farmers will make out a
lot better with climate legislation than without it.wsj. literally.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.com/environmentalcapital/2009/07/23/team-obama-why-farmers-should-love-the-climate-bill/tab/print/.) has set for six committees to sign off on their pieces of a sweeping climate bill. "Team Obama: why farmers should love the climate bill". and science advisor John Holdren—told the Senate Agriculture Committee to relax. 28 target that Majority Leader Harry Reid
Senate Finance Chairman Max bipartisan negotiations he is leading in the Finance Committee. 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.) confirmed that the plan still remains for
committee action in September.
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. as well as provisions dealing with international trade. when he will also be tackling some of the core pieces of a climate bill.” http://www.
19 Ellis. 28 target that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev. he said today. Baucus has been engulfed in negotiations on health care reform. The White House is actively lobbying Congress for climate change legislation on an almost daily basis. (Darren.com/News/Cap-and-Trade-Enactment-Likelihood-Fading-Utilities-ShouldntGet-Complacent-41899. Earlier this
year. with prospects for Senate success resting in large part on a small set of bipartisan negotiations he is leading in the Finance Committee. Obama is still lobbying Congress on a daily basis for climate GLG 7/27/2009 (Gerson Lehrman Group.glgroup. "Yes. but the development of such regulations keeps the heat on industry and Congress to come to a legislative solution. CLIMATE: Baucus pledges to meet late Sept. however. At the same time.
More than any other lawmaker.) has set for six committees to sign off on their pieces of a sweeping climate bill. 7/28/09. Teddy & Megan
. we'll meet it. “Cap and Trade Enactment Likelihood Fading." Baucus said of the Sept. E&E News PM.html)
Administration officials and environmental groups continue to push Congress for quick action. Mitchell. The administration is also working through the Environmental Protection Agency on a parallel strategy. Utilities Shouldn’t Get
Complacent. including the distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars in emission allowances. Implementation of such regulations would no doubt be delayed by years of litigation by industry. Baucus said he is gearing up for September. deadline for cap and trade) Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.Climate Politics Page 19 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: Healthcare First
The vote will come soon despite the push for health care Samuelsohn.) will meet a late September deadline for clearing global warming legislation despite the all-out push for a health care bill that has dominated
the congressional agenda.
.Climate Politics Page 20 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Senate
The Senate will be substantially harder than the House. Teddy & Megan
. Houston Chronicle. 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. For supporters. “Regional issues tend to blow up in the Senate. "Energy-climate overhaul an uphill battle in Congress".chron.mpl/business/6524623.” observed Frank Maisano. Mitchell.html.
20 Ellis. http://www.
Dlouhy 7/11/2009 (Jennifer A. “the largest problem is the regional nature” of the debate.com/disp/story.
but it's nowhere near a done deal." says Nikki Roy.Climate Politics Page 21 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Democrats
Won’t pass—no Democratic unity. Included in the House version is a tariff on imports from countries that don't play by the U.
The present Democratic majority doesn't stick together on global warming
21 Ellis." says Roy.DTL&type=printable.html. http://www. rules. Midwest states worry about job losses if smokestack rules change. Teddy & Megan
. "That's not remotely an option in the Senate.S. http://www. For all of its lofty intentions. WEA)
Obama hailed the package. US News & World Report.
SFC 7/12/2009 (San Francisco Chronicle. who monitors Congress for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Adding to the bewilderment is the political reality that climate change doesn't necessarily follow partisan lines. Farm groups want ag-friendly sweeteners to
promote biofuels and allow the sale of pollution credits to outside industries.
Supermajority isn’t enough to get it through Senate." 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. Mitchell. Collecting the 60 votes the Senate will need to stop a filibuster and win passage is no certainty. "Because there is such an overwhelming Democratic majority in the House. The moribund nuclear industry wants a chance to rebound. Coal states fear that generating plants will cut back on their favorite fuel.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/12/ED5618I1CC. because you have to look beneath the partisan levels. "Climate change bill faces hurdles in the senate". "These Democrats will have a hard time voting for this unless they see the
But Republicans in a serious bipartisan engagement.com/cgibin/article.sfgate. "Climate-change challenge shifts to the U.com/articles/news/energy/2009/07/10/climate-change-bill-faces-hurdles-in-the-senate.usnews. you could more or less enact the bill almost entirely on Democratic votes.
Garber 7/10/2009 (Kent. the House bill was larded with so many giveaways and complexities that several environmental groups denounced it.S. a worrisome invitation to a protectionist trade war. WEA)
the Senate presents special challenges.
she said. "Health bill now.is tuned all the way out.” Majority Leader Harry Reid . After all his arm-twisting on the F-22s. you have to decide what we’re going to focus on. and so is climate change. CQ Politics. the health care bill’s going to consume our attentions and our passion. the Guardian. but they will also need to tweak the policy." she told reporters. She insisted that the delay would not jeopardise chances of getting climate change legislation through Congress this year. and this is his best formula: Make the National Security Case for Energy Reform
Climate change efforts are being put off—healthcare is a higher priority.Climate Politics Page 22 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Healthcare First
Healthcare coverage is pushing climate off the agenda. so at some point.guardian.
Red Green and Blue . Instead. Messaging is a start.org/2009/07/23/three-ways-obama-wins-republicans-on-climate-change/. said she had scaled back plans of writing a first draft of a climate change bill before Congress goes on its August recess. "Senate Democrats push back deadline on Obama climate change agenda".” added Debbie Stabenow . climate change later". "Three Ways Obama Wins Republicans on Climate Change". when Obama is due to attend an international summit on climate change at Copenhagen. D-Ohio. WEA) At least for now. Teddy & Megan
Barack "We will do it as soon as we get back." she said. http://www. has agreed to extend by 10 days a deadline for all committees to finish their work on the climate change bill. Several senators said they need the extra month to negotiate with moderates in both parties to reach agreement on a large and complicated bill.co. With no soft power left.
Climate bill got delayed. the chair of the environment and public works committee who is spearheading the Obama environment agenda.
"I want to take this as far as we can take it. founder of LinkedIn. You can count climate change among the “priorities” now in the shadows.founder of EnergyWorks Community Relations. Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer . “Health care swallows up everything else for a while.
Palmer 7/11/2009 (Avery.
health care is the top priority for leaders on Capitol Hill and the bills intended to deal with climate change will have to wait.
Goldenberg 7/9/2009 . Boxer would not guarantee that Congress would be able to pass legislation before December. we know that the rest of America . That is partly because
climate change. 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. That wasn’t really a surprise given the way that health care has elbowed its way into the political spotlight. But the
move comes amid signs of rising opposition to the bill in the Senate from moderate Democrats as well as Republicans. And they said
“Health care is a huge. the committee will debate amendments and vote on a bill in early September. “Many of us are deeply involved in both. “I think in terms of floor time. "The more we can do the better. 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. D-Mich. Walsh 7/23/2009 . Obama will need to combine a new message with new concessions.
Sotomayor. complicated issue and critical that it be done. D-Calif. 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. Mitchell. If Jon Stewart is snoozing. 28.” said Sherrod Brown .
Climate change? Not so much. Health care is all touch-and-feel…it plays with everyone.environmental politics news site. http://redgreenandblue. energy and the environment still are considered Birkenstock and granola issues." 22 Ellis.. Although the committees can still move on energy. and the stimulus. he said. WEA)
Energy didn’t get a sniff in last night’s Obama press conference.. giving them until Sept.”
Aug. D-Nev. health care. 7.a goodly percentage of which is far across the spectrum from Stewart and outwardly hostile to climate change arguments .uk/world/2009/jul/09/congress-climate-change/print. Barbara Boxer.US environment correspondent for the Guardian (Suzanne. 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). Suffolk University Law School (Joe.
23 Ellis. Teddy & Megan
. Mitchell. Boxer tried and failed a year ago to pass a climate change bill.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. and marks an acknowledgement by the Administration of the daunting challenge of getting enough votes for the bill in the delicately balanced Senate.
25830885-7583. "Popular faith in Obama dwindles amid setbacks".Climate Politics Page 24 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Recession
Cap and trade won’t pass—recession makes it too unpopular.html.au/story/0.
Norington 7/25/2009 (Brad. The
as a most
strategically gifted politician is selling a disappointing result as a victory : we've made a down payment." Cook tells The
"He can look to getting a third to a half of what he wanted. or 80 per cent.25197. and if Weekend Australian.
Obama cannot escape the realities of the US economy. Teddy & Megan
.a cap-and-trade scheme --
missing from legislation that ultimately passes in the Senate. But if his health and climate change policies don't work. not a destination.theaustralian. meanwhile. Mitchell.
"I think the President had a terrific vision and grand plans on where to go with health and climate change.
we were not left with this budget deficit and the recession was not as deep." Obama. is trying to brush off suggestions of setback. 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.
24 Ellis.news.com. health and climate change as a journey. the Australian. http://www.00. saying it is OK with him to delay considering health care until the end of the year. rather than 60. it might have worked out. 70. WEA) He also predicts the heart of Obama's climate change plan on carbon emissions -.
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) announced on Thursday that she is delaying the bill until after the August recess. Brown. and Environment
and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif. the Hill. The legislation has an uncertain future in the Senate. 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.
Rushing 7/11/2009 (J. Taylor. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Sen.com/leading-the-news/climate-billtakes-hit-in-senate-from-china-2009-07-11.
25 Ellis. "Climate bill takes hit in Senate from China". 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.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. Teddy & Megan
. http://thehill. Both Sen. given the likelihood that Republicans will lock down against it. 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.) say they are skeptical of the climate change bill that passed the House last month. Mitchell.html.
Alexander (R-Tenn. would welcome a stronger
nuclear title in the climate bill but there are several other problems. Alexander said he would be pursuing his goal in separate legislation to boost loan guarantee funds. natural gas and other fuels as part of an "all of the above" approach. "The bill needs to be junked. increasing resources for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and more money to nuclear research and development. "Nuclear Title May Not Be Enough to Push Senate Climate Bill Over the Top". additional reporting from Allison Winter and Alex Kaplun and Darren
Samuelsohn. but it is not going to make up for the tremendous defects that occur in the House bill. told reporters this week including a nuclear title is "vital" to his support for a climate bill.a heavy coal-production state -. July 16). ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Nuclear energy incentives do not appear to be the clincher for Republican swing voters either." "Certainly our energy bill has nuclear in it and hopefully it sees the light of day.. Sen. . such as the cost of the bill. "At this point she
is not supporting a cap-and-trade bill. "We'll see.). said spokesman Robert Dillon. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.html? pagewanted=print. John McCain (R-Ariz. 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. Lisa Murkowski.)." Alexander said at a press conference this week unveiling a "blueprint" for constructing 100 nuclear power plants in 20 years.) also wants to see incentives for nuclear energy in any climate bill she would support but also more for biomass. ClimateWire. who was also thought by many to be a possible supporter of a climate change bill. said the money or free allocations flowing to special interests is "offensive. Mitchell.). http://www. But McCain has also roundly criticized many other parts of the House climate bill. Teddy & Megan
When asked if additional nuclear incentives in a climate bill would help win support from the senator from North Dakota -." Corker said.400-page monstrosity" House bill contains too many giveaways to special interests
and trade protection measures (E&E Daily." Dillon said.Dorgan simply said."
Fellow fence-sitter Sen. Lincoln spokeswoman Katie Laning Niebaum said. New York Times.
Sen.nytimes.." Sen. (R-Alaska). Bob Corker (R-Tenn. McCain said the "1. "No one can give us a clear estimate about the cost.Climate Politics Page 26 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Uniqueness: Nuclear Concessions =/= Passage
Nuclear power concessions not enough Ling 7/17/2009 (Katerine. 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). a key potential Republican supporter.
26 Ellis. which Boxer has stated is the starting point for her committee draft. Sen.com/cwire/2009/07/17/17climatewire-nuclear-title-may-not-be-enough-to-push-sena-19318. another possible supporter.
including 13 Democrats. regions such as the Midwest.Climate Politics Page 27 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: Senate Will Use Reconciliation
No reconciliation—the Senate will have to get 60 votes to block a filibuster. Mitchell.
*54 Senators. resolution: *
there were two important Senate climate change votes in April on the Senate budget
67 Senators. Teddy & Megan
. Great Plains. or South. rather than 51. Dallas Morning News. WEA)
Here are a few things to look for as the Senate deliberates the cap-and-trade energy bill as pointed out by former Bush advisor Keith Hennessey. http://energyandenvironmentblog.S. As a reminder. 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.com/archives/2009/07/why-the-energy-bill-has-faces.
Mitchell 7/2/2009 (Jim. "Why the energy bill faces a tough Senate fight".dallasnews. voted against creating fast-track reconciliation protections for a cap-and-trade bill. including 27 Democrats. meaning that supporters need 60 votes to pass a bill."
the better. “Just having the House bill passed was a big boost. “I want to take this as far as I can take it.
Palmer 7/11/2009 (Avery. very important that we succeed in this effort to enact this law in this Congress. allowing more time for the Senate to reach a consensus. Mitchell. Science and Transportation panels could hold separate markups. according to the administration. director of congressional affairs at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Meanwhile.” The Senate also has a narrow window to pass energy legislation before the United Nations climate change negotiations this December in Copenhagen. WEA) Advocates Approve
Members of several interest groups pushing for a climate change bill said the new schedule is a positive step. In addition to Boxer.” said Manik Roy. So the more we can do.
The measure will also incorporate a bill that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved in June. climate change later".” Advocates for a climate treaty say the United States needs to show progress toward enacting a new law. There’s no benefit to noble failure here. five other committee chairmen will share jurisdiction over the bill. Boxer said the Agriculture and Foreign Relations committees may draft legislative text for her to incorporate into the bill.” said Jake Schmidt.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.
28 Ellis. “It’s a very good thing. “It’s very. in which countries will try to reach a global agreement to lower emissions of greenhouse gases. which would set a renewable-electricity mandate and open more of the Gulf of Mexico to
oil and gas drilling. the more credible we are in the final negotiations.”
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. CQ Politics. "Health bill now. “The further along we are on that path. Teddy & Megan
. the Finance and Commerce. international climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.” she said. Boxer said Congress already sent a strong signal internationally with the passage of the House bill.
" Harkin said that the best way to capture carbon may be in pastures and trees. including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. has indicated interest in getting a climate change bill passed this year. coordinator of the Ag Carbon Market Working Group. Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota told Agriculture Online Thursday. you've got to make sure it's actually happening. 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. head of the Environment and Public Works Committee. “Cap. large factories and power plants that put out greenhouse gasses would be required to buy offsets.agriculture.
long favored farm programs that make "green payments" for long term practices such as planting trees and grasses. says Laura Sands. Mitchell. chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee.xml)
With President Barack Obama and Congress tackling many big issues this year -. another Californian who
heads the Energy and Environment Committee. And she's concerned about how caps on emissions might affect coal-fired power plants that supply electricity to rural areas." she said Thursday. Harkin. Californian
Boxer. who has
told Agriculture Online Thursday. Under cap and trade." 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. "The sticking point is the inspection regime. still want to get climate change legislation passed this year. Teddy & Megan
. 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. congressional leaders say” http://www.Climate Politics Page 29 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Climate Bill Inevitable
Cap and Trade inevitable – now is not key Looker. Whoever sequesters carbon." Harkin said. other congressional leaders. Besides serving on the House Agriculture Committee. Representative Henry Waxman. along with
possible legislation to cap greenhouse gasses and allow trading of offsets.Successful Farming Magazine Business Editor (Dan. Sands said. Harkin said he still has questions about how a cap and trade law would work. multi-billion dollar carbon market for farmers. "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. Herseth Sandlin is on a the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. "I think thats a very aggressive schedule. you've got to make sure they're complying. In the House. 3/13/09. education.com/ag/story. which was formed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2007. said he still has questions about exactly how a cap and trade program would work. "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. "Our number one priority right now is health care reform. 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. said he doubts that cap and trade legislation will be completed in the Senate this year.the effort on climate change could be delayed. We realize that some in the leadership of Congress have established an aggressive schedule for cap and trade. That's what two influential Democrats in Congress
Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. trade legislation will take
back seat to health care reform. How do you make sure people are actually complying?" Harkin wondered Thursday. climate change -."
29 Ellis. "If you're going to have agricultural offsets. which represents a coalition of farm leaders from commodity groups.jhtml? storyid=/templatedata/ag/story/data/1236946503706. In an e-mail message to Agriculture Online. In the Senate. has outlined a goal of getting a bill out of his committee by Memorial Day. That makes this
issue crucial for agriculture. something that advocates say has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% or more. practices that take a commitment of many years. According to published reports. But that system does not include offsets like capturing carbon in soils on farms and in forests.health care reform.
there is a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate until the end of the session. He faces an even more difficult test in shepherding the energy and climate legislation through the Senate. And we must not be prisoners of the past. In private telephone conversations and last-minute public appeals. It was a win Obama certainly needed. 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. In the end.uk/world/feedarticle/8581478) Facing a rare defeat.org/2009/07/23/three-ways-obama-wins-republicans-on-climate-change/. medical system. Teddy & Megan
. as well as to every American.
Obama recognizes as much. Mitchell. Copenhagen is just five months away. President Barack Obama put a big dose of political capital on the line and scored a major victory just when he needed one. health care. "Now my call to every senator.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 .environmental politics news site. They have a longer.S. The measure ended up passing in dramatic fashion. Moderate Democrats are looking to forge compromises to pass a measure. the victory validated Obama's governing style â€” and that could bode well for his other top domestic priority. WEA) The science says
we’re at a tipping point. "Three Ways Obama Wins Republicans on Climate Change". As Congress tackles that contentious issue. http://www. given that Democrats lack the 60 votes needed to cut off a likely filibuster. liberal critics are dug in over elements they want to see in any legislation. Congress was getting ready for a weeklong holiday break and already health care was hanging in the balance.” Associated
Press. Democrats have a comfortable House majority. including deficit spending as Obama pumps an enormous amount of money into the economy and elsewhere. Suffolk University Law School (Joe. now is the time to take these three steps. much-needed victory.6-28. He scrapped his talk on his original topic. Obama's overall ratings have slipped a bit. His political courage today will dictate whether tomorrow’s environment will benefit from an abandonment of yesterday’s energy consumption habits. This restive nation also is wary of some of his proposals. health care. Sidoti 09 LIZ SIDOTI.
Red Green and Blue . 2009 (“Analysis: Obama scores major. Obama's left flank is beating up him and his allies over the effort to overhaul the costly and complex U.Associated Press Writer. Obama
leaned heavily on House Democratic holdouts to support the first energy legislation ever designed to curb global warming. To a certain extent. Liberal groups are running ads against senators who won't publicly support a government program to compete against private insurers. While his popularity remains strong. more expensive path to meet requirements in the measure. Senate
passage is far from certain.
30 Ellis." Obama said in his weekend Internet and radio address. founder of LinkedIn. and recorded the climate bill speech shortly after the Democratic-controlled House backed the measure on a 219212 vote late Friday.founder of EnergyWorks Community Relations. the president's furious lobbying â€” coupled with a final push by allies including former Vice President Al Gore â€” carried much weight. is this: We cannot be afraid of the future. 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.co. Political capital is key to get the climate bill passed—House pressure proves. health care tops the list. If Obama wants policy reform.guardian. Obama's personal touch â€” and another dose of his political capital â€” will be required again. http://redgreenandblue.
"It goes a little in all directions. are the only likely GOP backers of the legislation at this point. who has regularly vowed to help filibuster any bill that brings drilling within the current limit of 125 miles. Bill Nelson (D-Fla. Byron Dorgan (D-N. Sen. Boxer predicted she would have at least one Republican cosponsor on her bill. though she would not name names. at least to break a filibuster.would have to reduce their emissions or buy allowances. 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. despite the concessions they might be forced into accepting. Senators will weigh a slew of potential compromises -. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif. As of today.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/07/06/AR2009070603514_pf." said Anna Aurilio. have made their case that nuclear power is the best for cleaning the skies of carbon emissions. but it would almost certainly lose the vote of Sen. when the leaders of the world's largest economies are slated to focus on efforts to slow global environmental change. 7/6/09 (http://www. 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. A trio of Democrats from the Dakotas want more funding for wind power. Major emitters of greenhouse gases -. at which point he hopes to cobble together the pieces and get the package to the floor late in the fall. Maine's moderate Republicans.
.everything from allowing more offshore drilling for oil and natural gas to increasing funding for
nuclear energy -. The battle ahead differs from many on Capitol Hill in that ideology
is considered to be less influential than geography. 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.) 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.who will determine the legislation's fate
or coal -. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. said yesterday. "Senate leaders will likely be compelled to expand the political and policy appeal of the bill to reach key moderates in both parties.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.
More evidence Washington Post. which would be traded on markets like commodities. Democrats from the Rust Belt states of West Virginia.) plans to unveil a major global warming bill immediately after Congress returns from
the August recess.that they think would inch the package closer to passage. especially after the House vote. the bill would create a "cap-and-trade" system placing the first national limit on greenhouse-gas emissions. even if they have concerns about the political impact of a “yes” vote in the final tally. Mitchell. with a Republican co-sponsor: Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif. are weighing heavily on the chamber's leaders as they push to pass some version of the bill before the end of the year. according to aides and outside activists backing the legislation.including about 15 of Reid's Democrats -. Ohio. E&E News reports that Sen. Reid has tasked a handful of committee chairs with completing their portions of the legislation by Sept. I don't think negatively. As a legislator and a chairman. is planning to introduce a climate bill Sept.) and John McCain (Ariz." said Paul W. The same senators also will likely want more funding for carbon capture and sequestration. "I am very optimistic. Reid could find himself a few votes short and desperately searching for Republican support.
Republicans. chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee.washingtonpost. This last piece of news is potentially huge." Sen. But environmental activists warn that the 1. The environmental lobby has rigorously opposed any new nuclear plants. Indiana and Michigan are pushing for more incentives to help their depressed industries shift to alternative energy sources. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). Teddy & Megan
. 18. including Lamar Alexander (Tenn. natural gas
Reid can count on the support of about 40 to 45 senators for that basic premise. Obama will be promoting the effort to limit greenhouse gases at the Group of Eight meeting in Italy on Thursday. 8. 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. gradually tightening those limits over the next four decades with a goal of reducing emissions 83 percent by 2050. Some outside activists supporting the bill are taking a wait-and-see approach. she said today….Climate Politics Page 31 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
I/L: Bipartisanship Key
Bipart key to the climate bill Washington Independent. it will
be Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins. I don't deal in hypotheticals. 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. As outlined. which is drafting its portion of the climate legislation. 7/16/09 (A Boxer-Snowe Climate Bill?
http://washingtonindependent. a controversial and still-evolving technology described by its developers as "clean coal" but derided by many environmentalists.
31 Ellis. Supporters are targeting a pool of roughly two dozen lawmakers -. chairman of the environment committee.).com/51380/a-boxer-snowe-climate-bill)
Via Climate Progress. where supermajorities of at least 60 votes are needed for practically any major piece of legislation. A Republican cosponsor could give cover to moderate Republicans — and fence-sitting Democrats — to vote for cloture. That measure might help attract moderate Democrats and some
Even after making additional compromises to win over wavering Democrats.including any business that burns fossil fuels such as oil. everything is negotiable.) said in an interview yesterday. it will be necessary to bring a few Republicans on board. "As a legislator. The technology is already slated for $10 billion in government-funded research in legislation that passed the House.
and if Obama needs more Republicans. The narrow 219 to 212 victory on June 26 in the House has given Senate backers some level of hope. acknowledging that they cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.). director of the Washington office for Environment America. If there is a GOP co-sponsor. I think positively. but several GOP senators." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.D.html)
Obama's climate-change legislation begins a daunting march through the Senate this week. But the political realities of the Senate. the two moderates from Maine. 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. director of communications and strategy for the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy. Sens.). Bledsoe.
Goldenberg 6/11/2009 . The
"I think there will be a nuclear title. a Republican from Tennessee who is the strongest proponent of nuclear power in the Senate.5bn (£11.) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev. http://www." Sen. Mitchell. calling for a doubling of the number of nuclear reactors in the US by 2030.html? pagewanted=print. Teddy & Megan
." said Joseph Romm.).
Republicans in the House of Representatives produced a spoiler version of the Democrats' climate change bill this week. and staking a claim
for the money to come from a proposed clean energy development bank. Other
Republicans have called on the administration to underwrite the $122bn start-up costs of 19 nuclear reactors. making its potential role in climate negotiations muted. Another crucial element of the Republicans' "nuclear renaissance" are two rival proposals for a "clean energy bank" now before Congress.
32 Ellis. ClimateWire. additional reporting from Allison Winter and Alex Kaplun and Darren
Samuelsohn. yes.. Republican leaders. envisages almost unlimited federal loan guarantees to encourage wind and solar power and. 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.).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.
Climate legislation will be a boon to the nuclear industry—Republicans and nuclear lobbies have hijacked it. new reactors. But what should go in it and how much impact that might have for the nuclear
industry is unclear. 100 new nuclear power plants is the place to start. whose applications are now under review by the department of energy. chairman of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee. "Nuclear Title May Not Be Enough to Push Senate Climate Bill Over the Top".nytimes. New York Times. including the former presidential candidate John McCain.US environment correspondent for the Guardian (Suzanne. told reporters earlier this week.
In the Senate..guardian. nuclear proponents hope. "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.uk/environment/2009/jun/11/us-nuclear-industry-plans-new-reactors/print. a senior fellow with Center for American Progress. 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. One version.. he said. "US nuclear industry tries to hijack
Obama's climate change bill"."
nuclear title on incentives for R&D ." Romm said. "we just have to do it the right way. Ling 7/17/2009 (Katerine. also called this week for loan guarantees for building new reactors to rise from $18.com/cwire/2009/07/17/17climatewire-nuclear-title-may-not-be-enough-to-push-sena-19318." said Lamar
Alexander. Tom Carper (D-Del. http://www.
Reid this week said he would be open to a nuclear component but. 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.. This conclusion comes after discussions with Environment and Public
Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.
"If you care about climate change . The 152-page
Republican bill contains just one reference to climate change.co. but I am not sure what else you can do for nuclear.2bn) to $38bn. he said. 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. and proposes easing controls for new nuclear plants. under consideration by the
Senate. "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.
33 Ellis. That's
anxious to see nuclear get incentives because
because Midwestern utilities mainly burn coal -. Gardner 2009 (7/7. could stall in the Senate unless it contains incentives to help the nuclear power industry build the next
generation of reactors. http://www.S. a leading greenhouse gas. Moderate Democrats from Midwestern states are especially utilities there could get slammed by greenhouse gas regulations.the fossil fuel that emits the most carbon dioxide -. Snyder 6/21/2009 (Jim.S.
As many as 20 to
A key question is whether the industry and its allies can convince enough lawmakers that nuclear power.and incentives to build nuclear plants could help them deal with the expenses and provide new jobs.com/leading-thenews/nuclear-lobby-presses-for-more-loan-guarantees-2009-06-21. Obama will include nuclear incentives to help it pass Senate. said Manik Roy." Roy said. WEA) NEW YORK (Reuters) -
The U. 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. climate bill.com/article/GCAGreenBusiness/idUSTRE56677B20090707.Climate Politics Page 33 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Cap And Trade Solves Nuclear Power
Cap and trade is a boost to nuke power regardless of extra provisions. a vice president for government outreach at the Pew Center on Global Climate
Change.reuters. a centerpiece of President Barack Obama's green agenda. http://thehill. Timothy. "Nuclear lobby presses for more loan guarantees". 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. 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. climate bill". The Hill. Concessions for nuclear could help win them over.
25 of the 60 Senate Democrats are just as concerned about what the recession is doing to manufacturing. is actually a solution to worsening global warming. Rueters.html. as they are about global warming. which is a big emitter of CO2.
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. Mitchell.
"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. and the coal and oil industries. Teddy & Megan
told reporters after a Senate hearing. "US Sen Boxer:House Climate Bill Already 'Boon' To Nuclear Pwr"."
34 Ellis." Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer.S. and the U.Climate Politics Page 34 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: Not Enough Loan Guarantees
The current bill has enough nuclear power provisions. additional incentives aren’t key Hughes 7/16/2009 (Siobhan. Mitchell. Senate doesn't need to go beyond that to encourage nuclear power. Teddy & Megan
.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story. House of Representatives. Dow Jones Newswires. The House bill is "a huge boon to the nuclear industry..
Nuclear power would be encouraged under a climate. a top
"I don't know that we need to have more than that. Senate lawmaker said.S.S.aspx?storyid=200907161530dowjonesdjonline000943&title=us-senboxerhouse-climate-bill-already-boonto-nuclear-pwr.change bill that has passed the U. D-Calif.
35 Ellis. and if they're not solvable I don't want to invest in it. Teddy & Megan
. 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.
'I'm not somebody who says nuclear is off the table no matter what because there's no perfect energy source. Inter Press Service. 2007. But we're gonna have to try a series of different approaches. that's the problem.Climate Politics Page 35 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: Obama Won’t Push Nuclear Power
Obama wants nuclear power.
'There are a whole set of questions and they may not be solvable. "Obama faces hungry nuclear industry". Mitchell. WEA)
Obama appears unlikely to throw the nuclear industry under the bus entirely. CommonDreams. 25. We just dislike the fact that it might blow up and radiate us and kill us.commondreams.. 23.org/headline/2008/12/17-4.' Obama said. 'There are no silver bullets to this issue.
'I actually think we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix..' Obama was asked again about nuclear power during a meeting with the Editorial Board of the Keene Sentinel newspaper in New Hampshire. why not? I don't think there's anything we inevitably dislike about nuclear power. Cardinale 2008 (12/17. on Nov.' Obama continued.' Obama said during the
CNN/Youtube Presidential Debate on Jul. 'But if they are solvable. however. 2007.
Jack and Nicolas. Spencer and Loris 2008 .heritage. WEA) Furthermore. economies of scale will be achieved.*research fellow in nuclear energy. Roe Institute for
Economic Policy Studies (6/19. Heritage Foundation. http://www. Mitchell. As more orders are placed. Further savings should be achieved by applying lessons learned from initial construction projects. thus lowering costs overall.cfm. it is very expensive to produce nuclearqualified components and materials because steep overhead costs are carried by only a few products. "Critics of nuclear power's costs miss the point". Today.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. Additional production will allow these costs to be spread.
36 Ellis. Teddy & Megan
assiging all of the costs of the first few nuclear plants to future plants is inaccurate.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1961. the benefit could be well worth the cost. Because nuclear plants could have an operating life of 80 years.
we have little confidence that ongoing discussions between D. and the Office of Management and Budget over these regulations will produce a satisfactory result in a timely manner. hydro. combined heat and power. the letter stated. nuclear. http://greeninc. renewable energy industry associations sent a letter on Wednesday to President Obama urging him to speed the program along. seen by Green Inc. Kate.”
37 Ellis.former Economist writer and Nieman Fellow at Harvard (5/20. “our member companies will be able to start construction of planned projects that would otherwise need to be delayed or canceled due to current capital market conditions.O. as has been a similar loan program that predates the stimulus. Mitchell.
“With access to these loan guarantees. "Renewable
Energy Industries Ask Obama to Speed Loan Guarantees". The signers represented virtually every type of clean energy — wind.E. geothermal.nytimes.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. Teddy & Megan
.” the letter continued. Galbraith 2009 .”
The letter. cited “disagreements” between the Department of Energy and the Office of Management and Budget over regulations to carry out the loan guarantees. Three months have gone by since the stimulus packaged passed. solar. New York Times Green Inc.blogs.com/2009/05/20/renewable-industries-askobama-to-speed-loan-guarantees/?pagemode=print. WEA)
Worried that an important loan-guarantee program has ground to a standstill. 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 38 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: States Solve Loan Guarantees
States are doing their part already—only strong federal action can solve.
such a financing entity should be an integral component of any climate change legislation. finance and build new nuclear plants in the United States. construction of critical transportation infrastructure. financing capability or financial strength to finance new nuclear power projects on balance sheet. on their own-particularly at a time when they are investing heavily in other generating capacity. or both.
cost of electricity from the project. continued progress requires sustained policy and political support. natural gas and electricity prices. A loan guarantee allows more leverage in a project's capital structure. Comparable federal government commitment is essential. The new nuclear power projects now in the early stages of
development will not enter service until the 2016-2020. Lexis Congressional. The high cost of energy and fuel price volatility has already compromised the competitive position of American industry. the rate of construction would accelerate thereafter.
First. U. Teddy & Megan
. New nuclear power plants are expected to cost at least $6 to 7 billion. we could see approximately 20. and for many other purposes. "Greenhouse gas emission reduction". in which project sponsors are expected to pay the cost of the loan guarantee. in turn reducing the
Second. Throughout the South and Southeast. 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. 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. government routinely uses loan guarantee programs to support activities that serve the public good and the national interest-including shipbuilding. Seventeen companies or groups of companies are preparing license applications for as many as 31 new reactors.
such a program would be revenue-neutral and would not
represent a subsidy.S.S. but in smaller numbers over a longer period of time.S. Bowman 2008 . Nine applications for construction and operating licenses are currently under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a total of 15 new plants. new nuclear plants and other clean energy projects will certainly be built. In this environment. Assuming those first plants are meeting their construction schedules and cost estimates.S. state governments have enacted legislation or implemented new regulations to encourage new nuclear plant construction. which reduces the cost of capital. nuclear industry is moving forward as quickly as we are able to license. nuclear plants in operation by 2016 or so.
The modest loan guarantee program authorized by the 2005 Energy Policy Act was a small step in the right direction.
Like all other advanced energy technologies.
federal loan guarantees provide a substantial consumer benefit. but it does not represent a sufficient response to the urgent need to rebuild our critical electric power infrastructure. That is why the U. rural electrification.000 MW of new nuclear capacity (that would be about 15 plants) on line in the 38 Ellis.President of the Nuclear Energy Institute (6/19. These first projects must have financing support-either loan guarantees from the federal government or assurance of investment recovery from state governments. to provide loan guarantees and other forms of financing support to ensure that capital flows to clean technology deployment in the electric sector. affordable housing. With the necessary investment stimulus and financing support. WEA) In terms of new nuclear plant construction. Frank L.
The public benefits associated with a robust energy loan guarantee program-lower cost electricity. Such a concept serves at least two national imperatives. we see a compelling case for federal financing support that would reduce consumer costs. electric power companies do not have the size. The states are doing their part. Mitchell. Testimony to the House Subcommittee on Energy and
one of the most significant financing challenges is the cost of these projects relative to the size.
We expect four to eight new U. In closing let me assure you that the U. deployment of clean energy technologies at the scale necessary to reduce carbon emissions-are significant. modeled on the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. student loans. and environmental controls. commercial and industrial-are already struggling with increases in oil. We know that the next generation of clean energy technologies will be more costly than the capital stock in place today. steelmaking.
Achieving significant expansion of nuclear power in the United States will require stable and sustained federal and state government policies relating to nuclear energy. In the absence of a concept like a Clean Energy Bank. market value and financing capability of the companies that will build them. transmission and distribution infrastructure. If it is structured like the loan guarantee program authorized by Title XVII of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Electricity consumers-residential.
000 megawatts (or 45 to 50 plants) by 2030. around the clock. Teddy & Megan
. at a stable price. Mitchell. immune to price volatility in the oil and natural gas markets. These plants will produce clean.Climate Politics Page 39 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
2020 to 2022 time frame.
39 Ellis. safe. reliable electricity.000 to 70. and 65.
a point that investors are watching."
40 Ellis. and that investors remain wary. as well as Merill Lynch and Morgan Stanley ("Loan Guarantees for Advanced Nuclear Energy Facilities". regulatory and litigation-related risks that are unique to nuclear power. uncertainty over the rules and questions about nuclear waste still worry investors. "Investors urge loan guarantees for nuclear plants". "The total cost of the plant. Derek.*Managing director of Export and Agency Finance Group for Citigroup.S. and residual uncertainties associated with the new. Teddy & Megan
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.pdf. combined with the higher capital costs and longer construction schedules of nuclear plants as compared to other generation facilities. Lexis. he said.
James Asselstine. Some of the more controversial aspects of new nuclear power include government support for new plants.
In a hearing of the House Science and Technology Committee. "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. including the possibility of delays in commercial operation of a completed plant or “another Shoreham”. this can be a substantial benefit for all the companies. including engineering design costs. A federal commitment to loan guarantees resolves regulatory uncertainty surrounding federal policy that would otherwise prevent investment Sands 2008 (4/28. an environmental group and nuclear research community on the future of nuclear power. 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.
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. WEA)
new licensing regulations meant to streamline the construction of new nuclear power plants. move forward with new nuclear plant commitment. lawmakers pressed six representatives of the nuclear industry. but as yet untested NRC licensing process. will make lenders unwilling at present to extend long-term credit to such projects in a form that would be commercially viable. Sachs & Co. Lenders and investors in the fixed income markets will be acutely concerned about a number of political. a nuclear investment expert told a House panel last week. http://www.energy. "Some factors.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 . of a new nuclear project. will likely require federal financial support to allow the companies and investors to
director of the investment giant Lehman Brothers. Platts Inside Energy.gov/nopr-comments/comment29. **also written with the managing
directors for Goldman. and may make loan guarantees essential to attracting them. Mitchell." Asselstine said.lgprogram. including the regulated utilities that are considering a new nuclear project. complexity. We believe these risks." Asselstine said. and large initial capital investment. such as magnitude. taxpayer.
org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1977. "Brave Nuclear
World?/COMMENTARY: Nuclear Revival? Don't Bet on It!".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. **research fellow in the Thomas A.heritage. model could create a politically tenuous dependency relationship between government and industry. continues to squabble politically about nuclear power but has offered some subsidies to the industry.Climate Politics Page 41 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: Nuclear Power Bad
Nuke power inevitable--Asia.*research assistance @ Heritage.cfm. if it is to avoid creating increased energy dependencies. Presently. Japan is working to increase this to 37 percent by 2009 and 41 percent by 2017. while the U. Germany. Finland already gets 28 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. the British model should provide a sustainable environment for nuclear power moving forward. energy-starved Asia is where a nuclear revival is more likely to begin. Because the U. Mitchell.K. while providing long-term politically stable support for nuclear power. decided to phase out nuclear energy for political reasons and now imports some of this energy. ranking fifth in the world for per capita electricity consumption. World Watch. alternatively.
41 Ellis. Christopher. "Nuclear energy: what we can learn from other nations".S.
Nuke power inevitable in Europe and Japan.President of the WorldWatch Institute (July/August. This is simply not a significant commitment for countries with populations of well over a billion and electricity demand growing at 10 percent annually. WEA)
With the nuclear construction business virtually dead in North America and Europe. however. Embracing nuclear energy as part of an effort to decrease the nation's dependency on foreign energy sources. has made it clear that it would not subsidize the industry. India and China both have ambitious nuclear plans.600-megawatt reactor.K. 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. http://www.. The British government. Roe Institute for Economic
Policy Studies (7/2. has 19 reactors that provide about 18 percent of the nation's electricity. The U. Even if their nuclear dreams are realized. Finland. neither country will be getting even 5 percent of its electricity from nuclear power in 2020. has a significant incentive to secure long-term
energy solutions. and a possible sixth reactor would increase that amount substantially. Loris and Spencer 2008 . safe and reliable form of energy.
net exporter of electricity. 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. Flavin 2006 . Heritage Foundation WebMemo #1977. ProQuest. Teddy & Megan
. the U. Indeed.K. Up to 30 nuclear plants are planned in each country over the next two decades-which sounds
impressive until you do the math. Nuclear power already provides 30 percent of the country's electricity.
Finland has begun constructing a modern 1. on the other hand. which will likely be a model used
throughout the United States. building new reactors is a must for the U.
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.
nuclear power has proven extraordinarily safe over the past four decades. Nonetheless. A partial cooling tower collapse at the Vermont Yankee plant was far less serious than the Davis-Besse incident. for the people who railed against nuclear energy in the past under the auspices of environmentalism. but exploiting fears about safety to advance an anti-nuclear agenda helps no one. and then demanding an unattainable set of stipulations to meet their conditions. Yet that's what leading media are feeding the public. numerous articles have been printed -. eh? Until you realize it's the same old story New York's WCBS-TV broke four months earlier. At the very least. This allows them to avoid being overtly anti-nuclear while advancing an anti-nuclear agenda. Many Americans remain concerned about nuclear safety. Awkwardly. But it wasn't. it was identified. affordable and emits nothing into the
The unfortunate thing is that atmosphere. the best way to reduce CO2 is to produce more emissions-free nuclear energy. the incident was portrayed as a safety failure. "Nuclear safety paranoia". Their conditions generally hinge on safety concerns. Teddy & Megan
.. The obvious contradiction has forced even ardent activists to make some accommodation for nuclear power in their anti-CO2 rhetoric. The result: stories that often portray nuclear power as inherently unsafe.
there are great.
Let's be clear. the story wasn't exactly front-page material. quickly becomes ridiculous. The Washington Post ran a front-page story about guards found asleep at a nuclear power plant.and not just by The Post. Each article included independent. The plant was never in jeopardy.
The media's continued fixation on this story suggests alarmism. and the anti-nuclear movement's updated message is calculated to play upon that anxiety.
Although nuclear power's safety record means that activists can no longer play on "China Syndrome" fears. newsworthy stories to be written about nuclear power: No one has ever died as a result of commercial nuclear power in the U.their evidence is from recycled hippie rhetoric and a misleading media Spencer 2008 . nuclear power is clean. editorialized on it in October. They should not have been sleeping. however. but no radiation was released. at best. What seems reasonable. At the Davis-Besse plant. In short: A problem arose. it promptly fired the contractors in charge of security. caused no fatalities or casualties. misstating the information used to support their positions. Heritage Foundation. Even when new. Some recent examples include incidents at the Davis-Besse plant in Ohio and the Vermont Yankee plant in Vermont. the 1979 partial meltdown at Three Mile Island.
http://www. For a news story. and bias against nuclear power at worst. with rising energy prices and growing concerns over carbon dioxide emissions. it's pretty thin gruel. So why have they been more vocal lately? Well. such reporting misleads the public about the safety of nuclear power.cfm. Non-radioactive water was spilled in the collapse.S.org/Press/Commentary/020108a. That should have been the end of the story. and that the steel cladding could have withstood pressures 125 percent above normal operations. One of the least expensive forms of energy production.Climate Politics Page 42 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: Nuclear Power Bad
Nuclear power plants aren’t dangerous --.
A handful of guards taking a 15-minute nap on company time does not fairly reflect the industry's level of safety. Mitchell. nuclear power is enjoying a comeback. An inch of steel cladding prevented the hole from opening. WEA) On January 4. Scary stuff.but with a catch. Jack. activists cite it as example of the risks posed by power reactors. The article also contained accusations that a whistle-blower had been ignored. In the months since the sleeping-guards story first aired. three decades of antinuclear propaganda have left their mark. Safety should remain a priority at nuclear power plants. third-party analysis giving credibility and legitimacy to alarmist views. When the company that runs the plant found out. Their formula includes overstating the safety concerns. USA
Today ran the story in September. the anti-nukers preach acceptance -. Although the problem was fixed and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission determined that the plant could have operated another 13 months without incident.S. history. Increasingly. and revisited it again in December. terrorists have never attacked a nuclear power plant. nor was anyone endangered. Repeatedly.Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy at Heritage (2/1. The list goes on.heritage. Their arguments are then fed to major media outlets that use them to frame nuclear-related articles. The worst commercial nuclear accident in U. safety inspections revealed a hole forming in a vessel-head. and it was solved. Some guards were sleeping on the job.
at Mr. Last year. "US energy bill aids expansion of atomic power". WEA) That is a big change." Mr. Domenici. "There should already be $25 billion to $30 billion in the loan guarantee fund. "It is very clear that this is a self-financing program.commondreams. Nussle's confirmation hearing last week. Mr. Teddy & Megan
. the government is only allowed to guarantee a volume of loans authorized each year by Congress. and Matthew L. Andrews and Wald 2007 (Edmund L."
43 Ellis. Under current law. Mr. In essence. 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.Climate Politics Page 43 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: Loan Guarantees Expensive
Loan guarantees pay for themselves. Congress limited the government to awarding just $4 billion in loan guarantees for clean energy projects during the 2007 fiscal year. New York Times.
http://www. Bush's nominee to become the White House budget director. who has been pushing the Energy Department to move much more aggressively in approving loan guarantees.org/archive/2007/08/01/2910. Mitchell.. Domenici told James Nussle. 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.
capability will be developed.Climate Politics Page 44 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: No Workforce/Manufacturing Capacity
Capability arguments are irrelevant. The supply chain will respond as market demand dictates. 02-15-7. Different companies are moving at different speeds. The more it looks like new nuclear plants will be built. as well as some newcomers to the industry. Mitchell. Teddy & Megan
. heavy-forgings for reactor components. for instance. Babcock & Wilcox recently renewed its federal accreditation for manufacturing nuclear-grade components. 14 companies and consortia have announced that they are preparing to submit license applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build up to 32 new
reactors. the more U.it will develop with the industry Howard 7. Every
major nuclear fleet operator is involved in some way. These companies are selecting technologies from two NRC-certified reactor designs. but the momentum is real.S. and two more designs that are under review by the NRC.S. we are seeing the first signs of revival in the supply chain for new nuclear plant construction. And there
is manufacturing capability overseas in Japan and France. Today. “Achieving Excellence in Human
Performance: Nuclear Energy Training and Education”. These application submittals are expected beginning in 2007. nuclear companies have already placed orders with Japanese companies for long-lead.Vice President. U. http://nei.
44 Ellis. In manufacturing. Office of the President Nuclear Energy Institute (Angie.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2007/americannuclearsociety/)
Nuclear power's place in a national energy policy"..
American reactors. Testimony to the House Subcommittee on Energy
and Resources.S. as evidenced by the U. nuclear power leadership Fertel 2005 .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. Marvin S. Currently. Mitchell.Vice President of the Nuclear Energy Institute (4/29. CQ Congressional Testimony. and to maintain America's leadership in nuclear technology development and its influence over important diplomatic initiatives like nonproliferation. more than 50 percent of 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.
strong Congressional oversight will be necessary to ensure effective and efficient implementation of the federal government's nuclear energy programs. nuclear power plant fuel depends on converted Russian warhead material. Such efforts have provided a dramatic contribution to global security. Teddy & Megan
45 Ellis.-Russian nonproliferation agreement to recycle weapons-grade material from Russia for use in
As it has in the past.
Mitchell.S.S. therefore.S. As the sole superpower.S.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final.S. is able to achieve success in its Nuclear Power 2010 program and
place several new orders in the next decade and beyond. These developments underscore the importance of maintaining the greatest integrity and effectiveness of the nuclear export conditions applied by the major suppliers. becomes more dependent on foreign nuclear suppliers or if it leaves the international nuclear market to other suppliers. will have considerable. As a consequence. Perhaps more importantly.S. They also underscore the importance of the U.Q. maintaining effective policies to achieve these objectives. then this can only further weaken the U. influence will be best achieved to the extent that the U.S. Conversely. http://www. policy and prerogatives.S. supplier and partner in the field of nuclear technology.
The health of the U. nuclear infrastructure is capable of sustaining the goals of the 2010 program.nuclearcompetitiveness. is perceived as a major technological leader. civil nuclear infrastructure will also be crucial to the success of U.S.S. if the U.S.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. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY”. U. the ability of the U. it will need to promote the health and viability of the American nuclear infrastructure. civil nuclear infrastructure will not only help the United States to build new nuclear power plants. The U. Concurrent with the prospective growth in the use of nuclear power. if the U. However. This suggests that the influence of the United States internationally could be enhanced significantly if the U. or if U. However. has and should continue to be able to influence the nonproliferation regime as a superpower in the years ahead. companies only are given subordinate roles in processing new plant orders.S.S. nuclear exports can be used to influence other states’ nuclear programs through the nonproliferation commitments that the U. to participate actively in the international nuclear market.S.S. essential that the United States have vibrant nuclear reactor. as a Significant Global Supplier effective safeguards and other nonproliferation controls through close peaceful nuclear cooperation other countries. utilities but will also enable the United States to promote
Maintaining the U.S.pdf)
The U. but this will require the resolution of a number of formidable problems.S. has so-called consent rights over
46 Ellis. regardless of how active and successful it is in the nuclear export market. It is. 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. uranium enrichment. and spent fuel storage and disposal industries that can not only meet the needs of U. requires. it will weaken the ability of the U. efforts to play a significant role as a nuclear supplier and to advance its nonproliferation objectives. if it wishes to exert a positive influence in shaping the nonproliferation policies of other countries. it can do so more effectively by being an active supplier to and partner in the evolution of those programs. to influence nonproliferation policy will diminish.S. extending international fuel cycle services.S. but will also enhance its ability to advance its nonproliferation agenda. There is a clear and compelling upsurge of interest in nuclear power in various parts of the world that is independent of U. if the 2010 initiative falters.S. Teddy & Megan
. Experts believe that the U.S. If the U. White Paper prepared for the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness May.S. in the international nuclear community. The U.S. “THE U. International confidence in the effectiveness of nuclear export controls was shaken by the disclosures of the nuclear operations of A. on-going influence on the international nonproliferation regime. Constructive U. nuclear infrastructure as well as the stature of the U. The U. should establish a high priority goal to rebuild an indigenous nuclear industry and support its growth in domestic and international markets.S. Khan. the global nonproliferation regime is facing some direct assaults that are unprecedented in nature. including arrangements for the acquisition of long lead time components and coping with anticipated shortages of experienced personnel.S. and maintaining leadership roles in supporting innovative improvements in advanced technologies. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND U.S.S. nuclear infrastructure continues to erode.S. a policy that significantly strengthens the U. aspires to participate in these programs and to shape them in ways that are most conducive to nonproliferation. the U.
Climate Politics Page 47 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
the enrichment, reprocessing and alteration in form or content of the nuclear materials that it has provided to other countries, as well as to the nuclear materials that are produced from the nuclear materials and equipment that the U.S. has supplied.
The percentage of nuclear materials, including separated plutonium, that are subject to U.S. consent rights will diminish over time as new suppliers of nuclear materials and facilities take a larger share of the international nuclear market. Unless the U.S. is able to compete effectively in the international market as a supplier of nuclear fuels, equipment and technology, the quantity of the nuclear materials around the globe that the U.S. has control over will diminish significantly in the future.
This may not immediately weaken the effectiveness of the nonproliferation regime since all the major suppliers have adopted the export guidelines of the Nuclear Supplier Group. However, only the U.S., Australia and Canada have consent rights over enrichment and reprocessing of the nuclear materials subject to their agreements. Consequently, if there is a major decline in the U.S. share of the international nuclear market, the U.S. may not be as effectivbeen in helping to ensure a rigorous system of export controls.
47 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan
Climate Politics Page 48 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Nuclear Leadership Good—Prolif (2/2)
Extinction Utgoff 2 (Victor, Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for
Defense Analyses and former Senior Member of the National security Council Staff, Survival, “Proliferation, Missile Defense and American Ambitions”, Vol. 44, No. 2, Summer, p. 87-90)
Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the
participants beforehand.8 Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum,
widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear ‘six-shooters’ on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.
48 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan
Climate Politics Page 49 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Nuclear Power Good—Reprocessing (1/2)
New nuclear construction is vital to advancing the U.S. reprocessing agenda Bowman 2006 - CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute (9/13, Frank L., Testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development", http://nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2006/bowmantestimony91306extended, WEA) This
worldwide nuclear expansion also suggests that the once-through or “throw-away” nuclear fuel cycle now used in the United States is not a prudent or sustainable course for the long-term future. Closing the nuclear fuel cycle—reprocessing used nuclear fuel, recovering the fissile materials that can produce more energy, fabricating those fissile materials into fresh fuel, and recycling that fuel into advanced nuclear reactors designed to handle these fuels without creating concerns about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—is a global imperative in the long term. This vision underpins the president’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which combines nuclear
fuel supply, used nuclear fuel management and non-proliferation policies into a single, integrated initiative.
The U.S. nuclear energy industry strongly supports research and development of advanced fuel cycle technologies, like those incorporated in the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. Given the prospect of major expansion of nuclear power in the United States and globally, it is appropriate to continue the long-term research and technology development necessary to realize this longer-term vision of a nuclear fuel cycle
optimized to extract maximum value from nuclear fuel and reduce the radiotoxicity and volume of the waste products requiring longterm isolation. Any such program must, however, have at least two defining characteristics. First, a reprocessing/recycle program must be sustainable over the relatively long period of time necessary to develop advanced fuel processing technologies and advanced reactor systems. Continuity is essential. In order to be sustainable, any such program must enjoy broad-based, bipartisan support and endorsement within the policy community and among our nation’s political leaders. That policy and political support must proceed from a clear-eyed and realistic understanding of the investment and time required to develop advanced fuel cycle technologies, which is measured in tens of billions of dollars and decades. It is not clear to the U.S. nuclear industry that the president’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or other similar initiatives now being discussed, have achieved the degree of sustainable support necessary to ensure long-term continuity and success. Second, a reprocessing/recycling program must be flexible enough to accommodate technological successes and failures (and there will be both), with clearly-defined success criteria, decision points and exit strategies.
The nuclear energy industry fully supports an aggressive, continuing effort to define, develop and finance the technology development program necessary to close the nuclear fuel cycle, including deployment of appropriate technologies that meet policy goals, in order to position nuclear
energy as a sustainable source of energy. But, again, regardless of reprocessing technologies and the fuel cycle selected, Yucca Mountain is needed for the waste by-product. The industry’s major priority, however, is the immediate imperative to address the significant challenges facing construction of the
The nuclear energy renaissance depends on the industry’s success in working with the U.S. Congress, the executive branch and state governments to address the significant challenges described above. These challenges include timely completion of the joint government-industry NP 2010 program to develop detailed designs and firm cost estimates for advanced reactors; ensuring an efficient, stable licensing
next nuclear power plants in the United States. process, and demonstrating our ability to finance these capital-intensive projects, including workable implementation of the loan guarantee program created by the 2005 Energy Policy Act.
Addressing these near-term challenges to new nuclear plant construction is, and must remain, job one. If we do not succeed with this near-term task, discussions of longer-term reprocessing and recycle strategies are largely irrelevant. If the United States does not build new nuclear power plants, the policy basis and technological rationale for a reprocessing and recycle program quickly erodes, because a single repository at Yucca Mountain is clearly capable of handling all the used nuclear fuel that will be produced
by all existing U.S. nuclear reactors.
49 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan
Climate Politics Page 50 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Nuclear Power Good—Reprocessing (2/2)
This is key to solve prolif and waste management. Spurgeon 2007 - Assistant Secretary of the Department of Energy (11/14, Dennis, Hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee, "Global nuclear energy partnership", Federal News Service, Lexis Congressional, WEA) This
cooperation will be pursued with the following objectives: Expand nuclear power to help meet growing energy demand in a sustainable manner and in a way that provides for safe operations of nuclear power plants and management of wastes. In cooperation with the IAEA, continue to develop enhanced safeguards to effectively and efficiently monitor nuclear materials and facilities to ensure nuclear energy systems are used only for peaceful purposes. Establish international supply frameworks to enhance reliable, cost effective fuel services and supplies to the world market, providing options for generating nuclear
energy and fostering development while reducing the risk of nuclear proliferation by creating a viable alternative to acquisition of sensitive fuel cycle technologies. Develop, demonstrate, and in due course deploy
advanced reactors that consume trans-uranic elements from recycled, spent fuel. Promote the development of advanced, more proliferation resistant nuclear power reactors appropriate for the power grids of developing countries and regions.
Develop and demonstrate advanced technologies for recycling spent nuclear fuel for deployment in facilities that do not separate pure plutonium with a long-term goal of ceasing separation of plutonium and eventually eliminating stocks of separated civilian plutonium.
advanced fuel cycle technologies, when available, would help substantially reduce nuclear waste, simplify its disposition, and draw down inventories of civilian spent fuel in a safe, secure, and proliferation resistant manner. Finally, take advantage of the best available fuel cycle approaches for the efficient and
Such responsible use of energy and natural resources. Seventeen nations have now signed the Statement of Principles and have become GNEP partners. Eighteen other nations and three international organizations are participating as observers, and several of these nations are expected to join as partners. The Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, Technology, Research and Development Program outlined in my written statement is designed to provide the technology advancements needed in order to make the vision of GNEP and its objectives a reality.
The secretary of Energy often remarks that there is no silver bullet to our energy challenges or to climate change. However, he is quick to note nuclear power's potential of meeting the growing demand for energy without producing greenhouse gasses. GNEP comes at a crucial time in the burgeoning expansion of nuclear power and a crucial time for the nation's energy security. It is the only comprehensive proposal to close the nuclear fuel cycle in the United States and engage the international community to minimize proliferation risks, as well as provide and benefit from cooperation in policy formulation,
technical support, and technology and infrastructure development.
Extinction Utgoff 2 (Victor, Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for
Defense Analyses and former Senior Member of the National security Council Staff, Survival, “Proliferation, Missile Defense and American Ambitions”, Vol. 44, No. 2, Summer, p. 87-90)
Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the
participants beforehand.8 Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum,
widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear ‘six-shooters’ on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.
50 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan
Most other people. Nuclear
power plants convert mass into electrical energy. there is no shortage of energy. share the same values. Those who understand energy production and its link to technological progress and who have positive humanitarian values support nuclear power. Its use improves the standard of living. even though they do not work actively toward these goals. Without it.
The United States was once the world leader in the production of useful energy. These forms of energy differ.com/node/358)
Easily usable energy is the currency of human progress.Climate Politics Page 51 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Nuclear Power Good—Poverty
Nuclear power key to check poverty Robinson and Orient 04 . our country and our world would be very different. by far.thenewamerican. “Science. The New American. 6/14. They passively support things that improve human life. Technological miracles that are only dreams today would have already taken place. Mitchell. however. and maximizes technological progress.*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. wind power and other alternatives is less because those methods cannot yet generate large quantities of inexpensive useful energy. This converted "nuclear energy" is. in how easily mankind can make use of them by means of current technology.
51 Ellis. Had that American leadership continued. Teddy & Megan
. http://www." including all physical objects. Scientists define everything that man can perceive in the natural world as forms of "energy. increases the quality and length of human life. constantly at the edge of death. the safest. Their interest in solar power. cleanest and least expensive energy source available with current technology. regression and untold human deaths will result. biofuel power.
The lamentations of the popular press notwithstanding. and of hydroelectric power. They are also in favor of hydrocarbon power derived from coal. oil and natural gas.
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. stagnation. Politics and Death”. They spend their lives in efforts to increase the quantity and quality of human life. Moreover.
Many people strongly desire to help humanity.
If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb. range between doubling and tripling in the next fifty years. L.Dr.
Thus. Note there is a threshold at about 4000 kWh per capita. One-third of the six billion people on Earth today lack access to electricity. 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. It is a composite of average education level. n4 In addition. Resources. have a life expectancy of about eighty years. n10
Water wars go nuclear Weiner in ’90 (Jonathan. and per capita income or gross domestic product. n3 Another two billion use just 1000 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year. & Environmental Law. Lexis. and educated. of course. which is barely enough to keep a single 100-watt light bulb lit. then people who are well off increase their electric consumption. prosperity. WEA)
Our global neighbors need much more energy to achieve the standards of living of the developed world. 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. Chair of the Public Information Committee of the American
Nuclear Society (Denis E. exceptions to every rule). and death. “The Next One Hundred Years”. n6 Figure 1 illustrates this for almost every nation on Earth (the data includes more than 90 percent of the Earth's population).
52 Ellis. even with substantial efficiency improvements and conservation efforts. our use of electrical energy has been growing faster than total energy usage. The alternative to development. undeveloped nations where most people have no access to electricity. 41. electricity use in the United States increased 57 percent between 1980 and 2000. n9 Even with conservation. is suffering in the form of poverty. Eric Loewen.
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. while total energy use increased just 27 percent. n8 Preventing global conflict will require even more addition of electricity. One such correlation that was done a few years ago showed that electric consumption first increases human well being.. tensions over dwindling water supplies and rising populations are reaching what many experts describe as a flashpoint. Beller 2004 . which is easily sustained with ample energy. Department of Mechanical Engineering at UNLV. p. Already in the Middle East. Above this threshold. South Africa. Land Resources & Envtl. human development increases rapidly with increases in available electricity (there are. Those who live in poverty live in the most dangerous of conditions. massive government purchases of "renewables. Estimates [*44] for future increases in energy and electricity use." n7 People in the Western world. now calls "energy apartheid. A deeper investigation into the data underlying the HDI reveals the effects of what Dr. will die decades earlier. while those on the lower left side of this graph. Teddy & Megan
. Without substantial increases in electricity generation. And in a world as interlinked as ours. one billion people have no sanitary water. such that national security requires developed nations to help increase energy production in their more populous developing counterparts. who have and use large amounts of energy. Journal of Land." and energy saving and efficiency measures. use of electricity increases rapidly as people become more healthy. and international security. Mitchell. A climate shift in that single battle-scarred nexus might trigger international tensions that will unleash some of the 60. billions of our global neighbors without sufficient electricity die decades before they should. then we
may destroy ourselves with the C-bomb. from North Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates. The UN compiles the HDI for almost every nation annually. 24 J. Energy is needed for development. This suffering creates instability and the potential for widespread violence. Pulitzer Prize winning author. mandated fuel economy. "energy star" appliances and homes.000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since Trinity. health and well being (average life expectancy). one explosion may lead to the other. the Change Bomb. a delegate to the United Nations 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. Below this threshold. wealthy. "Atomic time machines: back to the nuclear future".. disease.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. n5 which could [*43] be provided easily and inexpensively if energy were available to operate desalination and/or purification plants. health.
but actually consume a small amount of water relative to other uses in the modern world. electricity generation accounts for 3. WEA)
Power plants circulate significant volumes of water in the process of generating electricity.3 percent—less than half of the freshwater consumed by residential use (6. Of all the freshwater consumed in the United States. Nuclear power plants consume less water per unit of electricity produced than some forms of renewable energy.org/keyissues/protectingtheenvironment/factsheets/waterconsumptionatnuclearpowerplants.
Nuclear power plants have a small environmental impact and produce reliable electricity in a wide range of weather conditions. Teddy & Megan
. Geological Survey (USGS). Mitchell.S.nei.
http://www.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. "Water consumption at nuclear power plants". NEI 2008 (July.7 percent). Nuclear Energy Institute. This water continuously is returned to its source and never is exposed to radioactive material. according to the U.
53 Ellis. Nuclear power plants circulate water to cool equipment.
ice masses and the seas if they are to model climate change accurately. the researchers say. 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. tackle deforestation and adapt to the climate change already being experienced.
The researchers also point out a flaw in the nuclear energy argument. "The increasing carbon dioxide emissions merely show how most net heat is produced. so-called carbon dioxide sequestration. Carbon markets themselves will not however be sufficient to successfully tackle climate change and are needed alongside strong domestic action to cut emissions. 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. WEA)
Attempting to tackle climate change by trapping carbon dioxide or switching to nuclear power will not solve the problem of global warming. Mitchell.
Global carbon trading is our only hope at controlling emissions.
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. melting ice (33.
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. by the Prime Minister’s Special Representative on Carbon Trading. Mark Lazarowicz MP.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.egovmonitor. This report proposes action in
54 Ellis. The researchers have calculated that the heat energy accumulated in the atmosphere corresponds to a mere 6. The carbon market could provide a significant proportion of that sum. Experts Say".com/node/26497/print.the US Department of Energy and Climate Change ("Carbon trading vital to climate change
success – PM Report". 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.6% of global warming. The report makes clear that without a global system for carbon trading. the ability of countries to avoid dangerous climate change will be limited and the costs of action increased.
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. http://www. 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.5%). These calculations are actually rather conservative." Nordell explains.. The UK’s Low Carbon Transition Plan. is due to the greenhouse effect.
Their calculations suggest that most measures to combat global warming. according to energy calculations published in the July issue of the International Journal of Global Warming.
The "missing" heat.
The Global Carbon Trading report. i. Mark Lazarowicz MP said:
change is an international threat that needs international action. The evidence shows that global carbon trading can deliver substantial cuts in greenhouse gases rapidly and costeffectively. the researchers say. But the same calculations also show that trapping carbon dioxide. http://www.5%).sciencedaily. The UK Government is committed to meeting its required 34% cut in emissions by 2020 through domestic action alone.
“Cap and trade should be combined with targeted regulation. sets out the domestic actions required to meet its carbon budgets. and the missing heat may be much less.4%) and sea water (28. WEA)
A global carbon trading network will be vital to preventing dangerous climate change. and storing it deep underground or on the sea floor will have very little effect on global warming.e. natural variations in climate and/or an underestimation of net heat emissions. global warming. 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. 26%. Nordell adds.htm. while the remaining heat is stored in the ground (31. eGov Monitor 7/20/2009 . apart from emissions covered under the EU Emissions Trading System where limits on offsetting are set at EU level. Teddy & Megan
. taxation and public finance for comprehensive action. will ultimately help in preventing catastrophic climate change in the long term. during that period. "Since net heat emissions accounts for most of the global warming there is no or little reason for carbon dioxide sequestration. published on 15 July.com/releases/2009/07/090713085248.
55 Ellis. Teddy & Megan
.Climate Politics Page 55 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
developed countries at two levels .ambitious national targets and a network of linked cap and trade systems for emitters. Mitchell.
*research fellow in nuclear energy. Mitchell. Heritage Foundation. Teddy & Megan
. This means that power plants are needed to provide electricity when the wind is not blowing.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1961.
56 Ellis. **research assistance in the Thomas A.cfm. "Critics of nuclear power's costs miss the point". http://www. producing electricity only about a third of the time.heritage. WEA) First. If one is going to rely on wind and the additional power-generating capacity that is needed when the wind is not blowing.Climate Politics Page 56 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: Wind Solves
Wind fails—it requires backup generators. those additional costs should be assigned to wind power as well. Spencer and Loris 2008 . Roe Institute for
Economic Policy Studies (6/19.
wind is intermittent. Jack and Nicolas.
solar is intermittent: It produces electricity only when the sun is shining. For example. equal to 103 megawatts of capacity. WEA)
Solar energy projects are also running into trouble.
57 Ellis. Heritage Foundation.000) far outweighed their value ($19. the world's largest solar company.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1961.000– $51.*research fellow in nuclear energy.  It is therefore difficult to conclude that wind or solar power should be built at all. that have received state support from California and found that their cost ($86. Berkeley's Haas School of Business and director of the UC Energy Institute. Spencer and Loris 2008 . The general economic problems of solar power were recently described in a
study by Severin Borenstein.522 photovoltaic solar panel installations. Solar. 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.heritage. the European Union. To replace the cadmium model with a silicon-based model would quadruple the production costs. Teddy & Megan
.. http://www. Roe Institute for
Economic Policy Studies (6/19.000–$91. **research assistance in the Thomas A. may ban its solar panels because they contain toxic cadmium telluride. "Critics of nuclear power's costs miss the point". He looked at the costs of 26.cfm. recently told investors that its largest market.000). a professor at the University of California. Mitchell. lifetime costs are very low once the plant has been constructed. Inc. Like wind. Jack and Nicolas.
Other problems have arisen as well. Given the low cost needed to operate a nuclear plant.Climate Politics Page 57 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: Solar Solves
Solar is too intermittent and costly.
Block 2009 (1/30. with an enormous trade deficit. energy efficiency. To think we can somehow stabilize
that and go back to doing business as we were in the summer of 2008 . in order to create a more sustainable solution to current economic. energy. WEA)
If climate change legislation fails to pass this year. White House aides have said that the currently debated financial stimulus package would provide key first steps to reduce the country's greenhouse gas emissions. a collaboration of labor unions and environmental groups. transportation. climate change bill". said
David Foster. But Congress needs to overhaul the entire economy. "We really have created an unsustainable economic model.S. Teddy & Megan
.worldwatch." Foster said. we can't slow down and we can't stop there. Mitchell.org/node/6000.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. Ben. WorldWatch Institute.that
is the model that got us into this mess."
58 Ellis. "Growing optimism for U. "Although
The House of Representatives approved a plan on Wednesday that would provide about $100 billion of support for renewable energy. and environmental restoration projects. and climate change crises.
http://www. through a price on carbon. executive director of the Blue-Green Alliance.
passage of the stimulus bill would be extremely successful.with oil at $147 per barrel. and with a terrible global warming problem on our hands .
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.co. the Guardian. WEA) That’s a smart answer. then some halfway plan is a good fallback – you can come back in a decade and make it stronger. So far we’ve raised the
temperature less than one degree Celsius." Tipping point is coming soon where climate change will be unstoppable. If
he can’t get national health care through the Congress.
http://www. and accelerate the melting of ice. "POSITIVE FEEDBACKS AND CLIMATE RUNAWAY
THE NEED TO ACT WITHOUT DELAY". LVW climate change taskforce. for almost every other issue on earth.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. Mitchell. The Guardian.uk/?page=editorial&id=1164&catID=17. and that’s melted the Arctic." said Tony Juniper.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print. If we don’t address it very dramatically and very soon. or it will get beyond our control McKibben 7/15/2009 .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. "Environment: race against time". scientists say". WEA)
If we allow GHG emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation to continue to grow at their present rates. but the alarming thing now is the level of certainty because real world observations are feeding into the computer models. Governments must cooperate to cut industrial emissions while at the same time halting deforestation.resident scholar at Middlebury (Bill. "There really is no time for delay. the first truly timed test we’ve ever faced.lwv. Climate change is happening more rapidly than anyone expected. the warming that will follow can be expected to decrease albedo3 (reflectivity) and increase the rate of absorption of solar energy near the poles.co. increase water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere. League of Women Voters. otherwise we'll have a mass extinction and a global warming catastrophe. David.org/AM/Template. "Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change.guardian. You really want to go for two?
Timeframe = this year.guardianweekly. release stores of carbon from soils and sea floors.cfm&CONTENTID=13409. WEA)
"People have known about the links between climate and forests for some time. Teddy & Megan
. melt Arctic tundra. But global warming is different. The grave danger we face and the need to take vigorous global action to reduce GHG emissions without delay are clear.cfm? Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay. Adam 2009 (3/11. Tolman 2009 (4/30. because those feedback loops are taking the outcome out of our hands. http://www.
http://www. an environmental campaigner and Green party candidate.
ing from pre-industrial temperatures is around 2°C. Notice.vative estimate. a number of U. is about 70 ppm.cratic and Republican presidential candidates have committed them.selves to such reductions).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.
(This is actually a conser. for instance.S. Scientists are talking about that kind of reduc. nitrous oxide. as are environmental activists. Professor in the Centre for Environment and Business in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo.
Indeed. transcript of an address to the conference for a Globally Integrated Climate Policy for Canada. The incremental annual increase is currently about 2 ppm and rising.6°C room to warm. beyond that point we get into a world where the positive feedback s I’ve just discussed may develop great force.bon emissions by 2050. the actual limit for CO2 itself would be much lower than 450 ppm. but in Canada it
isn’t even on the policy radar screen at the moment (notably.tion.) The current concentration of CO2 is about 380 ppm.spheric carbon dioxide and not ‘carbon dioxide equivalent. these 450 ppm do not include chlorofluorocarbons. so the room to emit.6°C. "Positive Feedbacks.8°C. WEA) I’ll give you an indication of what we’re up against.
60 Ellis. Limited room to warm implies.com/articles/excerpt-new_urgency-thomas_homer-dixon. 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. Dynamic Ice Sheets. The estimated carbon dioxide concentration that’s likely to pro. Homer-Dixon 2007 . Mitchell. If they did.pdf. some people would put the threshold for carbon dioxide much lower. therefore. and a number of other powerful greenhouse gases. that I am talking about atmo. PhD in IR from MIT (11/14. in turn. we need to be heading towards an 80 to 90 per cent cut in car. The warming to date has been about 0. http://www.’ In other words. Very soon humankind must cap and then ramp down global carbon emissions. that we have very little room to emit. and the warming in the pipeline – even if all emissions cease right now – is about 0.duce at least 2°C warming is about 450 ppm.homerdixon. and the Recarbonization of the Global Fuel Supply: The New Sense of Urgency about Global Warming".Centre for International Governance Innovation Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of
International Affairs. so we have about 30 years left until we reach 450 ppm. Demo. This leaves us with around 0.
We have very little room to warm: the estimated maximum safe warm. Teddy & Megan
In the vacuum created by the administration's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.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.
61 Ellis.cfm. such as wind. and geothermal. "Global Warming: The Gathering Storm". Environmental & Public Utility Practice Group of the Cozen O'Connor law firm (Peter J.com/pubs/4419. National legislation is essential. State RPS
legislation.co-chairs the Energy. http://www. Teddy & Megan
Public Utilities Reports. a number of states have stepped forward with legislative and policy initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. solar. Mitchell. Fontaine 2004 ..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.
and regain control of our destiny. We must learn from the lessons of Kyoto. who is currently chair of the nonprofit group The Alliance for Climate Protection." Kerry said. WorldWatch Institute. It was the first time the Nobel laureate appeared on Capitol Hill in nearly two years.org/node/6000.worldwatch.
country is the only country in the world that can really lead the global community. WEA) Kerry. also urged Congress to place a price on carbon emissions before the Copenhagen negotiations begin. "The solutions to the climate crisis are the very same solutions that will address our economic and national security crises as well.Climate Politics Page 62 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
The impact is extinction. "Growing optimism for U.
http://www. and it's rushing at us with a speed that is unprecedented. Ben."
Although traditionally focused on foreign aid and national security." Former Vice President Al Gore testified at the hearing to support Kerry's calls for action. highlighted the growing evidence of a dangerously warming planet during its first substantive hearing of the year. and we must make Copenhagen a success. Block 2009 (1/30. we must take bold action now. climate change bill". the committee "Our
Gore." Gore said. a long-time advocate of climate change legislation. Teddy & Megan
. "In order to repower our economy. cap and trade is key to solve our economic and environmental crises. now chairs the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.S. is the one challenge that could ultimately end human civilization. Mitchell."
62 Ellis. restore American economic and moral leadership in the world. "The science is screaming at us. "There is no time to waste." Gore said.
Chad Stone. Mitchell. http://www. "CAP AND TRADE CAN FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING EFFECTIVELY WHILE ALSO PROTECTING CONSUMERS".
A Over time. Hannah Shaw.php?story_id=31496. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. this system.Massachusetts representative on the House Appropriations Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on
Transportation. When combined with vehicle efficiency and biofuel standards enacted in 2007.
63 Ellis.Climate Politics Page 63 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Ext. HR 2454 will reduce America's dependence of foreign oil by 5 million barrels a day by 2030. Stone et al 2009 . 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.org/files/3-3-09climate. would reduce total global warming emissions 83 percen below 2005 levels. 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. improved energy
efficiency. Olver 7/6/2009 .cbpp. Permits will be bought and sold on a carefully regulated market. The number of emissions permits will decrease over time.iberkshires. 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. oil refineries. This would force the economy to gradually adapt by reducing emissions through energy conservation. http://www. and Sharon Parrott. C&T Solves Warming
Cap and trade solves warming. leading to steady emissions reductions.. Electric power plants.pdf. 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.com/story. By 2050. and greater use of alternative clean energy technologies.
The carbon cap will thus unleash a wave of investment. **BA in economics and masters degree in social work from U Michigan (3/3. the number of emissions allowances would shrink in order to achieve the substantial
emissions reductions that scientists say are necessary to curb global warming. Teddy & Megan
Cap and trade is an adjustable mandate that we can target to the right level of emissions.*Chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. while the permit market ensures that cuts are made in the most economical way possible. "Letter From Olver: House Passes Comprehensive Energy Legislation". 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. Housing and Urban Development (John W. former executive director of the Joint
Economic Committee of Congress. or they can buy permits from other companies who have made these investments. combined with the bill's other provisions.
The Acid Rain Program sets a single tonnage limit or "cap" on the emissions of SO2 from all utilities. 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. 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. This problem is largely caused by the SO2 emissions from the utility industry. 2001).ndol. Teddy & Megan
64 Ellis. Those who can control SO2 cheaply can sell emissions trading allowances to those who find reducing emissions more costly.
change the earth’s climate (IPCC.500 per ton of SO2 removed. "Getting more for four". Progressive Policy Institute. to a current price of only $200 a ton—far less than estimated benefits (Carlson. the problem of estimates. 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. resisted congressional efforts to place a limit or "cap" on its emissions. a stringent environmental result was achieved at relatively low cost. which. **director of the Center for Innovation and the Environment at the Progressive Policy Institute (October 2001. citing cost concerns. ranging from $400 to $1.Climate Politics Page 64 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Ext. C&T Solves Warming
Acid rain programs prove—cap and trade is the most effective free market mechanism Swift and Mazurek 2001 . Byron and Jan. 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. By combining an emissions cap with allowance trading. Economy and Innovation at the Environmental Law
Institute. Ironically. Mitchell. http://www. 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.pdf. 2000).*director of the Center for Energy. This combined approach is far less expensive than "first generation" laws that regulate emissions from each source separately.org/documents/clean_energy_part2. 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. WEA)
acid rain loomed large on the nation’s agenda.
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
.org/issues/2009/06/no_whining. 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. 2454 is only the first arduous step toward energy transformation. A01.americanprogress. Revised 6/23/09.5 quads of energy in 2030.R. Mitchell. sequestration and reforestation provisions solve existing emissions.S. Podesta 09 – President of the Center for American Progress (John. Center for American Progress. 2009]
H. such savings will avoid about 345 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2020.
The warming bill will reduce CO2 emissions.org/press/0906waxman. hapless. and that new technologies could increase the available cost-effective savings. By 2030. over and above the savings from the Combined Efficiency and Renewable Electricity Standard. the energy efficiency provisions in H.
Although these potential savings are dramatic. ACEEE NEWS RELEASE.html.8 quadrillion Btu’s. If one-third of these funds
American consumers would save over 2. lexis]
65 Ellis.900 PER HOUSEHOLD BY 2030”.S. The bill is weak.R. these energy efficiency savings grow to 12. Cumulative energy bill savings will total more than $250 billion by 2030.Climate Politics Page 65 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Ext. and unacceptable. It reflects the enormous shift in priorities between the Obama administration and the previous one. Steve Nadel is the Executive Director of the American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). decreasing incrementally to 7 percent in 2029. Undoubtedly. and it must be improved before it passes the Senate.
Combat Global Warming.aceee. Senate passage
of similar legislation will be more difficult. a non-profit research organization. President and CEO of the Center for American Progress. http://www. including substantial free allowances to electric utilities. the equivalent of taking 57 million cars off the road for a year. including energy efficiency and wind and solar power. “H. which produce twice as much greenhouse gas pollution as regular oil. Moreover. In the short term the cap would reduce emissions by the equivalent of removing 500 million cars from the road by 2020. The bill would worsen global warming by lifting the prohibition against the federal government purchase of oil from Canadian tar sands. accounting for about 12 percent of projected U.” The Washington Times. C&T Solves Warming
The climate bill is key to solve warming—it sets a hard cap on emissions. 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.R. 2454 also provides for a number of free emissions allowances to help companies mitigate the economic impact of climate change legislation. In total. 2454 WOULD SAVE $3. No. The cap would also set a price on carbon pollution.uses efficiency and renewable electricity standards Nadel and Watson 09 – [Steven Nadel and Suzanne Watson. It would spark more clean-energy innovation and private investment in clean alternatives. House passage of H. http://www.75 percent of allowances in 2012.S. 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. PAGE ONE. including New York State. These energy efficiency savings are more than the annual energy use of 47 of the 50 states. which accounts for about 5 percent of projected U. Critics assail futile 'offsets'. there are many additional cost-effective efficiency opportunities available. “Climate bill gives billions to foreign foliage. staff writer.htm.4 quadrillion Btu's. energy use that year. energy use in 2020. 6/23/09] Despite these changes
this bill is a giant leap forward in efforts to transition to a low-carbon economy. energy use by 5.R. reflecting the costs of dirty coal-fired electricity.. 6-25/09 [Amanda. Whining. And. Increasing the energy efficiency component of the Combined
were dedicated to efficiency. 2454 could reduce U. ACEEE’s studies of energy efficiency’s potential indicate that current technologies can cost-effectively save 25-30 percent of total energy use.
These range from 43. Yes.
licenses to pollute . sell the permits to other companies that emit greenhouse gases. in effect. The permits would be.in the United States and beyond. Supporting ways to keep trees alive or plant new trees.
66 Ellis. called permits. Those companies could. they say.and potentially very valuable. wherever those trees are located. the government would reward domestic and international companies that perform approved "green" actions with certificates. Mitchell. Teddy & Megan
. Under the program. helps the effort. in turn.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", http://archives.energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.032707.Petsonk-testimony.pdf, WEA)
Congress can design the U.S. carbon market to provide carrots and sticks that encourage other countries – even recalcitrant ones - to join our efforts. Our carbon market is likely to be the largest in the world. Other nations will want access to our market – for carbon finance, and to sell us credits. Those nations' interest in gaining access to our carbon market gives Congress leverage, just as in any other market access negotiation. Below we
3. Include carrots and sticks as design elements in the carbon market. describe some "carrot and stick" options for Congress to consider, among the many potential options that could be envisioned.
China will cooperate if we act first Saiget 7/16/2009 (Robert J., Agence France Prese, "US officials confident of greater clean energy ties with China",
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hhlDMvsSsQ4WtzdW_Tpcmjb2lB-g, WEA) BEIJING —
Top US trade and energy officials said Thursday they were confident China and the United States would step up cooperation on climate change after meeting with Chinese leaders.
US Trade Secretary Gary Locke and Energy Secretary Steven Chu, both ethnic Chinese, came to China seeking to open the Asian giant's markets to US green technology while urging Beijing to set hard targets on gas emissions. "Secretary
Chu and I measured the success of this trip by answering the simple question of whether America and China can increase their cooperation in the development... of clean energy and energy efficient
technologies," Locke told reporters. "After three days of meeting,
the simple answer is yes." During the trip, China and the United States -- the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases -- announced the establishment of a joint clean energy research centre aimed at allowing scientists from both sides to work together.
The centre, with headquarters in both countries, is also intended to serve as a clearing-house for information, with key issues initially to be looked at including energy efficiency, clean coal technology and low-polluting cars. Locke and Chu met with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on Thursday afternoon, with the environment, as well as a host of trade and other issues, on the agenda. They also held talks individually with other top officials. Their visit to China comes as officials prepare for the first US-China strategic and economic dialogue, to be held in Washington next week.
67 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan
Climate Politics Page 68 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Cap And Trade Modeled
Action now is key—countries like China have signaled willingness but we have to act first. Petsonk 2007 - JD from Harvard Law School, Adjunct professor at George Washington U Law School and U Maryland Law
School, Environmental law unit of the UNEP (3/27, Annie, Testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the US House of Representatives, "Climate Change - International Issues, Engaging Developing Countries", http://archives.energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.032707.Petsonk-testimony.pdf, WEA) Thank you for asking for our views on the extent to which Environmental Defense perceives developing countries as taking, or considering taking, steps to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and the effect of U.S. and other developed countries'
Engaging developing countries in cutting their total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is essential if the world is to curb climate change. The United States is the world's largest current and historical GHG emitter. Fast-growing developing countries, however, will soon emit more than we do. Global warming can't be solved unless both the U.S. and large developing countries cut total GHG emissions. The steps Congress takes will be crucial. A number of large-emitting developing countries have taken, or are considering, steps to slow the increase in their GHG emissions: The world's second-largest emitter, China, has adopted more stringent fuel economy standards for passenger cars than has the United States. China has also adopted a renewable energy goal, and committed significant funding for renewable energy. The world's fourth largest
actions on such considerations. emitter, Brazil, has converted most of its passenger car fleet to sugar-cane ethanol. And it has reduced deforestation over 50% in the last two years, in part through conservation measures and environmental law enforcement. That's important: 70% of Brazil's emissions come from deforestation in the Amazon.
But most developing countries are reluctant to take further climate protection steps unless and until the United States does. And most are certainly not likely to take more stringent or faster steps than the U.S. does. Consequently, if the world is to reduce total GHGs, Congress must lead with workable, enforceable, sufficiently stringent steps that engage developing countries to join us – quickly - in stabilizing the climate at safe levels.
Congress must also take tough, shrewd steps to ensure that if developing nations fail to engage, neither America's environment nor her competitiveness will be jeopardized.
Developing U.S. cap-and-trade legislation affords Congress three crucial opportunities to use the power of the carbon market to meet these challenges: 1. Lead By Example When Congress enacts a climate bill, the rest of the world will be watching closely. In effect, when Congress acts, America will lead by example. Such leadership is urgently needed. The international climate treaty talks have stalled because of the unwillingness of the Executive Branch to engage. Time is running out. America's trading partners are recognizing
that the only way the United States will act to cut emissions in the narrow time window for averting dangerous climate change, is if the Congress acts. Sensible Congressional action could yield great benefits for America's environment and economy, and provide a template for the world. As Congress moves to cap and cut America's GHG emissions, there are a number of steps Congress can take that can have a significant positive effect on developing countries' consideration of, and implementation of, steps to reduce their own emissions. Taking these in coordination with other developed countries will increase their effectiveness. But Congress
by taking the lead, Congress can show all nations how to break the climate logjam and correct the mis-steps that led to the logjam in the first place.
should not wait for other nations to act. Instead,
If Congress creates a clear, enforceable U.S. carbon market that taps American innovation in favor of stabilizing the climate at safe levels, it will set the bar for other nations' actions. If instead Congress litters the program with "intensity targets" that don't cut total emissions, and with "safety valves" that are really escape hatches, it will simply tempt America's trade competitors to put the same or bigger loopholes into their programs – and drive global emissions higher. 5
68 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan
Climate Politics Page 69 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Cap And Trade Modeled
Countries like India will be too bitter too cooperate unless we send a clear signal. Foster 2007 (6/12, Peter, the Telegraph, "India snubs West on climate change",
India will not curb its greenhouse gas emissions as long as the West continues to treat it as a 'second class global citizen' with less right to pollute than the developed world, a senior Indian
on climate change, warned that
environment official has said. Pradipto Ghosh, who retired last month as India's environment secretary and now sits on a committee advising India's prime minister
the West must "get serious" about cutting its own emissions if it wanted
progress on the issue.
His comments confirm the massive gulf between the West and the world's emerging economies a week after President Bush agreed to enter UNsponsored climate change negotiations on condition that India and China also agreed to play their part. Mr Ghosh reiterated India's position that it would not compromise its continued 8 per cent economic growth to arrest global warming, arguing that it was historical polluters in the industrialised West who must make the first move. "The fact is that India has a very, very large number of poor people who are living in conditions of which people in the West can have no conception unless they have visited India's villages and urban slums. "The goals of addressing climate change cannot supersede our goals of maintaining our current rates of GDP growth and poverty alleviation programs, as was agreed by everyone at Kyoto," he told The Telegraph in New Delhi.
At the heart of India's position on climate change is the notion that India - whose population is predicted to reach 1.5bn by 2050 - must be allowed to pollute on a per capita basis equally with the West. That would imply drastic cuts in emissions in developed countries if the world is meet the target of keeping global warming within the generally agreed 'safe limit' of two degrees, as set out by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"The prime minister [Dr Manmohan Singh] has said that while pursuing our policies of development and poverty alleviation, we will ensure that our per capita emissions will never exceed developing countries," Mr Ghosh added.
"This is our challenge to the West. 'You do the best you can, and we'll match it'. If the West thinks that
India will subscribe to any long-term solution that is not based on per capita emissions then it is very misguided." His remarks emphasise the divide which will face developed and developing nations when they meet in Bali, Indonesia in December to start negotiations on a new climate change agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012. Despite claims of a climate change 'deal' at the G8 summit last week, the meeting only served to increase Indian irritation at being treated as "petitioners not partners" at the global top table. India's prime minister let it be known the G8 decision to delivere their final communiqué before meeting with the G5 countries - India, China, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa - had made him question the worth of even attending the summit.
Empirically, the strongest international projects grew out of a strong domestic stance in the US. Bodansky 2001 - Woodruff chair in international law at the University of Georgia, former climate change coordinator and
attorney-advisor at the Department of State, JD from Yale, AB from Harvard, M. Phil from Cambridge University, (Daniel, National Interest, "Bonn voyage: Kyoto's uncertain revival", http://www.iddri.org/Activites/Conferences/bodansky.pdf, WEA) Lesson 3: "America first" It is almost a commonplace that successful
foreign policy must grow out of domestic political consensus. Certainly this is true in the United States with respect to environmental issues, where virtually every successful international regime has had its roots in U.S. domestic law. The most spectacular success —the Montreal ozone agreement— grew out of the U.S. regulation of chlorofluorocarbons, the chief culprit in the destruction of the ozone layer, beginning with a ban on aerosol spray cans ill the late 1970s.Other relatively successful international regimes —for example to limit oil pollution from tankers, to regulate trade in endangered species, and to control dangerous pesticides and chemicals— also built on U.S. domestic efforts, rather than attempting to force the United States to
change its ways through the pressure of an international regime.
69 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan
to take action." Pachauri said. more expensive energy technology. Although China recently emerged as the leading emitter."
70 Ellis. who also spoke at a public briefing Wednesday afternoon convened by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Despite broad criticism from across the world. the International Energy Agency in Paris predicted that China would pass the United States in emissions of carbon dioxide in 2009.asp. Mitchell.S.nytimes. The United States is responsible for some 22 percent of current greenhouse gas emissions. emissions are four times greater than China's on a per capita basis. Pegg 2008 (2/1. And many U. Feb. said been polluting for much longer. Pachauri told members of the House Select Committee on
Energy Independence and Global Warming. a spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry..” she said. China derives nearly 70 percent of its energy from coal-fired power plants. for leadership … [but] the perception round the world is that the U. WEA) -
The head of the United Nations scientific climate panel spoke with U. combined with another briefing on Tuesday by the country’s leading climate expert. but its soaring consumption of coal has rapidly increased the country’s emissions. Environmental News Service. Later this year." said Pachauri. adding that developed countries have responsibilities for global warming “that cannot be shirked. India and other developing nations. Bush and his administration have rejected mandatory limits on greenhouse gases.com/2007/02/07/world/asia/07china. including the United States.R.html?pagewanted=print. "We really don't have a moment to lose. lawmakers Wednesday. encouraging them lead the world in cooling the overheated planet. “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. trailing only the United States.”
Ms. Jiang’s comments.Climate Politics Page 70 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Cap And Trade Modeled
US action key to getting countries like China on board. developed nations that have
Jiang Yu. China is the world’s second largest emitter of the greenhouse gases contributing to climate change. In December.S. leadership on critical global issues. Yardley 2007 (2/7.
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. leadership.S." said Rajendra Pachauri.
China has not disputed the scientific rationale behind global warming or denied the potential harm it could cause. adding that strong action would "undoubtedly reestablish confidence in U. Officials also argue that China remains a developing country without the financial resources or technological prowess to make a rapid shift to cleaner.S.ensnewswire. "It is essential for the U. Jim. http://www.S. 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. The IPCC chairman said that view is misplaced.S. The massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions needed to avoid serious disruptions to Earth's climate system are impossible without U. many of them equipped with substandard pollution controls.
http://www. it issued a report warning that climate change posed a serious threat to the country’s agricultural output and economy. "U. "China Says Rich Countries Should Take Lead on Global Warming". China is expected to release broad policy goals on how it can reduce emissions and respond to global warming. Dr. IPCC. Lawmakers Urged to Lead Global Warming Battle".com/ens/feb2008/2008-02-01-10. China had been expected to surpass the United States as late as 2020. U. Action now key to get other nations on board—our current signal threatens overall leadership.S. Last November. Chinese officials have long noted that China’s per capita emissions remain well below the averages in wealthier countries. has not been very active in this area.S. lawmakers remain reluctant to commit their nation to deep cuts without similar obligations from China. New York Times. WEA) BEIJING. "The
rest of the world looks to the U. 6 — economy. J.S. President George W. Teddy & Megan
” CITY-C Edition. If the house defeats the bill. such as coal-fired electric plants. The US is home to the most entrepreneurial and innovative private sector in the world. buildings. High polluters.
71 Ellis. send a strong signal that the US is serious about negotiating a new global deal in Denmark this December. Mitchell. it will be years before Congress returns to the subject. The legislation aims to cap greenhouse-gas emissions at 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. With this signal we can develop the technology to keep global warming within manageable limits. setting mandatory caps on sectors responsible for 87% of US greenhouse gas emissions including electric power. landscapes and working patterns. But there is much more to President Obama's push for a new energy plan than the desired results for long-term global warming. A portion of the money collected by government auctions of permits would go to offset consumers' higher energy costs.
Warming bill sends international signal of leadership Lash 09 – [Jonathan Lash. and increasing targets through 2050. By putting a
price on greenhouse gas emissions. and other major polluting countries will never come to the table over carbon emissions unless the United States leads by example. “National: Tackling climate change: Comment: This bill will change the face of US industry – and give
the leadership the world awaits”. And business leaders insist that the legislation will simply impose a huge new energy tax without any social benefit. Businesses would need to pay for permits for each ton of carbon emitted. the United States has grappled with the unproductive consequences of its dependence on foreign-supplied energy. as well as its practical attempt to reduce pollutants. Teddy & Megan
. Meanwhile. There is symbolic value in this vote. For three decades. The heart of the bill
is its "cap-and-trade" provision for carbon emissions. and heavy industry. 6-26/09 [“Editorial: A big step against climate change. This nation generates a disproportionate amount of the polluting greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. My institute's analysis shows that it is the strongest climate bill ever to come before Congress. None has been more important than this. power sources. oil and gas. and its provisions to help finance developing country adaptation to climate change. Pg. Acesa sends a vital message to businesses and investors that markets for low-carbon products and services are the future. Let's start with the fact that the
US has never had a coherent. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the measure would cost each U. This plan envisions new industries and jobs devoted to cleaner domestic energy. Almost as important are the bill's
With the months to the UN Copenhagen summit counting down. could also purchase capacity from low polluters. This legislation offers the promise of a new way forward.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. And the planet continues to heat at an accelerating and dangerous rate. Inq
Opinion & Editorial. Lexis Nexis. 6/26/09] The US House of Representatives will vote today on a bill that would change the face of America's factories. The Environmental Protection Agency projects it will cost the average household about $100 per year. the world urgently awaits US leadership.
international implications. some of the revenue would be
Concerns about the cost of the legislation for consumers appear to be exaggerated. India. lexis]
If the United States is going to be the world leader in fighting global warming.
spent on clean-energy research. I have been involved in a dozen pieces of landmark US environmental legislation over the last 30 years. comprehensive energy policy. household about $175 annually by 2020. the Copenhagen negotiations would collapse. 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.S. The Guardian – Final Edition. A18. The concrete greenhouse gas targets and additional carboncutting measures in this bill. Some environmentalists complain that this bill has been watered down to the point where it won't have any impact on carbon emissions. China. it needs to walk the walk. EDITORIAL. The bill sets out a long-term road map to shift the world's biggest economy on to a low carbon path. and that the American clean energy and security act (Acesa) would provide one.
72 Ellis. China Daily 7/17/2009 ("China-US climate teamwork evolving".Climate Politics Page 72 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
China Key To Solve Warming
China cooperation is key to make emissions reductions effective." Chu said.com. "One of the most important things is mutual cooperation.chinadaily. which both China and the US have in abundance. as best we can and as many things as we can. Both were visiting China for the first time as part of the Obama administration. Teddy & Megan
Cooperation between China and the US is crucial in meeting the climate change challenge." Locke said. http://www.cn/china/200907/17/content_8439207. 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. to share. Mitchell. "The US and China have what it takes to meet the world's energy challenge." Chu said there is much the countries can do. 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. 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 objective of the planned joint clean energy research center. he said. 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.htm. "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. the technology. including improving technology to reduce carbon emissions and increasing energy efficiency.
and has authored or co-authored numerous books on environmental sciences. "Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change. WEA)
Studies have shown that global climate change can set-off positive feedback loops in nature which amplify warming and cooling trends.guardian.sciencedaily. a UC Berkeley professor in the Energy and Resources Group and in the Ecosystem Sciences Division of the College of Natural Resources. Mitchell. have co-authored a paper entitled: Missing feedbacks. may be off by nearly 2.
http://www. asymmetric uncertainties. and so on. Adam 2009 (3/11. which appears in the May.based on research by the DOE's Climate Change Resarch Division and the National Science Foundation
(5/22. and is an Associate Adjunct Professor in UC Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group. also releases carbon into the atmosphere.0 degrees Celsius because they only take into consideration the increased greenhouse gas concentrations that result from anthropogenic (human) activities. Now. the researchers were able to estimate the amounts of carbon dioxide and methane. two of the principal greenhouse gases. 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. David. that were released into the atmosphere in response to past global warming trends.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print.
Also increases feedback mechanisms to cause runaway warming. She and John Harte.” said Torn. http://www. In the Amazon this happens on a more localised scale but the result. Science Daily 2006 . In their GRL paper. and the underestimation of future warming. Harte has been a leading figure for the past two decades on climate-ecosystem interactions. 2006 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters (GRL). the Guardian.
Torn is an authority on carbon and nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems. resulting in additional atmospheric greenhouse gas loading and additional warming. scientists say". then when our anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming. Torn and Harte make the case that the current climate change models. further increasing carbon dioxide and methane emissions. WEA) Positive feedback Amazon dieback is one of the key positive feedbacks brought about by global warming.com/releases/2006/05/060522151248. Teddy & Megan
.” said Margaret Torn. “If
the past is any guide.co. and on the impacts of anthropogenic activities on terrestrial ecosystem processes. who heads the
Climate Change and Carbon Management program for Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division. Their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. it will alter earth system processes. Combining their estimates with standard climate model assumptions. 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.Climate Politics Page 73 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Continued warming causing feedbacks—this amplifies warming beyond control.
73 Ellis.htm. increased forest death. which in turn brings about more global warming. they calculated how much these rising concentration levels caused global temperatures to climb. Using as a source the Vostok ice core. “The results indicate a future that is going to be hotter than we think. These are typically runaway processes in which global temperature rises lead to further releases of CO². including the highly praised Consider a Spherical Cow: A Course in Environmental Problem Solving. "Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century".
"Renewable energy". 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. WEA)
The threat of a global climate disaster is no longer up for debate. cap and trade leads to sequestration technologies.chair of the World Future Council (3/6. How to meet that challenge. were extremely weak and inadequate."
74 Ellis. that's too late. the agreements reached in Bali. These methods increase the storage of carbon in vegetation and soils (called sequestration). Lexis Congressional. or by promoting soil-improving agricultural practices. who headed the panel. Jagger 2008 .pdf. Vice President Al Gore. Many carbon sequestration efforts carry ancillary
Carbon Sequestration A benefits—wildlife and biodiversity are promoted through reforestation. Carbon can be reduced simply by reforesting or planting trees. 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". "Getting more for four".Climate Politics Page 74 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: Current Emission Levels Too High
Even if current emission levels are too high. Other methods are under development as well. while dealing with the already devastating consequences of floods. In its final report. which shared the
Nobel Peace Prize in October with former U. Bianca. The majority of scientists are in agreement. http://www. and soil erosion reduced with conservation agriculture practices. Testimony to the House Select Energy Independence and Global
Warming Committee. droughts and rising temperatures. notwithstanding all this sobering
information. **director of the Center for Innovation and the Environment at the Progressive Policy Institute (October 2001. Teddy & Megan
. However. Swift and Mazurek 2001 .*director of the Center for Energy.org/documents/clean_energy_part2. "What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. Progressive Policy Institute.
It’s not too late but if we don’t act in the next couple years we’re screwed. Economy and Innovation at the Environmental Law
Institute.ndol. Governments have previously been reluctant to accept this reality.S. Byron and Jan. "If there's no action before 2012. CQ Congressional Testimony. 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. And the time to answer it is running out. remains the great unanswered question." said Rajendra Pachauri. Mitchell.
but it was never ratified by the Senate.latimes.".Climate Politics Page 75 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: G8 Solves
G8 agreements are worthless without Congressional follow-up.story. LA Times 7/10/2009 ("Global warming: The heat is on the U.S. WEA) Such
international pacts are usually meaningless without the backing of Congress.com/news/opinion/la-ed-summit102009jul10. It would fulfill Obama's G-8 promise by meeting the 2050 goal.0. President Clinton. Mitchell. http://www. 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.
after all. Teddy & Megan
or a combination of quantity control and a tax. Cap and trade policy is meant to create a market for CO2 emissions. There is no leakage of consumption benefits to others who do not pay the price for private goods. and adverse health affects. and as Paul Krugman argues. where given emission rights are traded at a positive price. http://www. It is better than outright quantity control and better in many ways than a tax.php/news/178536?printable=story. Therefore. When property rights emerge and are enforced. it can allow the use of that resource either by direct regulation of CO2 emissions (quantity control). There
are two types of goods which we consume: private goods and public goods. markets will arise for those goods. Vijay K. since benefits of public goods can not be completely appropriated by persons who may be willing to pay the price. WEA) Let me first discuss why government has to intervene by legislating CO2 emissions. Businesses that object to paying for emission rights want to be free riders.standard. For example.net/live. it is effective in achieving international cooperation. it would also benefit those who do not pay for the goods.professor emeritus of economics at Cleveland State University and adjunct professor of economics at Weber
State University (7/16. The public is paying for their use of the resource by tolerating depletion of air quality. Private property rights can not be defined and enforced for public goods. and it is the government that enforces and allocates those rights for all of us. it implies that government has to be assigned the property rights. all of us must be willing to pay the price to obtain clean air. Therefore. and clothing." Since government has the property right to the resource clean air on behalf of Americans. because it removes uncertainty about the level of CO2 emissions. people who pay the price have property rights to those goods and their benefits.
76 Ellis. cars. Also in a democracy. Therefore. Private markets for the goods will not emerge. national defense is provided by the government because it is a public good. Hence.Climate Politics Page 76 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: Free Market Solves/Government Control Bad
Government intervention is necessary in the context of warming because air quality is a public good that private markets can’t address. changing tax levels is time consuming if quantity goals are not met. and our taxes support its provision. Mathur 2009 . Mitchell. If goods are provided.price. property damages. there is no incentive for individuals to buy the goods and hence there will not be any supply of the goods. Clean air is a public good and air pollution is a "public bad. Private goods benefit those who pay the price for those goods. allows the market and its price mechanism to allocate
rights. food. or a tax-price per unit of CO2 emissions.. Standard-Examiner. Teddy & Megan
. public goods have to be provided collectively. for example. "Cap and trade a sound market principle". Self-interest of Americans demands that we all breathe clean air because our life depends upon it. or capping the quantity of emission rights and creating a market to regulate the allocation of rights (cap and trade).
a senior policy analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation and the sole American testifying at the July 8 hearing.
77 Ellis. or the nature of the response. Frankel 2008 . Jeffrey A. But to avoid running afoul of the WTO.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1)
Addressing concerns about competitiveness and the relocation of investments to foreign markets. • Measures to address leakage to non-members can take the form of either tariffs or permit-requirements on carbon-intensive imports. Harpel Professor of Capital Formation and Growth at the Harvard Kennedy School (6/9. • Independent panels of experts. what industries are involved and what is their carbon content. “Peacocks and Passions in Senate Climate Debate”. glass. “The whole point of cap-and-trade is to constrain the supply of energy and therefore drive up its price. “and that will have adverse effects throughout the economy.intensive major industries -. rather than being applied unilaterally
carbon-intensive products will conflict with the WTO.”
Government trade adjustments solve carbon leakage.” he said. steel. not politicians. "OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING THE LEAKAGE/COMPETITIVENESS ISSUE IN CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY PROPOSALS". http://www. July 19th 2009. they should not take the form of subsidies to domestic sectors that are considered to have been put at a competitive disadvantage. 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.rather than penalizing industries that are further removed from the carbon-intensive activity.
Brookings Institute. 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. which is heavily exposed to carbon prices. Zeller. if the measures are designed sensibly.”Such arguments failed to impress Ben
Lieberman.. http://www.” Mr. should be responsible for judgments as to findings of fact -.aluminum.
or by non-participants. Mitchell.edu/events/2008/~/media/Files/events/2008/0609_climate_trade/2008_frankel. “We see ongoing investments there.pdf. Matthes suggested that the latter had not happened in Europe.James W. “We can’t see any significant relocation of investment — even in industries like the iron and steel industry. Mr.Editor at New York Times (Tom Jr. Europe proves. Teddy & Megan
. Lieberman said. Editor and writer for The New York Times covering alternative energy and
green business. such as firms that use inputs produced in an energy-intensive process.nytimes. and perhaps iron and chemicals -. WEA) ABSTRACT:
We are likely increasingly to see efforts to minimize leakage of carbon to non-participants
to address concerns on behalf of the competitiveness of carbon-intensive industry. cement.. what countries are entitled to respond with border measures.Climate Politics Page 77 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: Carbon Leakage
No leakage or MNC shift. 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. 7/19/09.what countries are complying or not.brookings. and deservedly so. paper. Import penalties should target fossil fuels and a half dozen or so of the most energy.com/2009/07/20/business/energy-environment/20iht-green20. against countries that are not doing so.
if not years.
78 Ellis. normally it takes a federal
with the Clean Water Act's Section 404 requirements. history would greatly expand the EPA's power.4 years to complete a NEPA review. it could take 5. WEA)
Having EPA bureaucrats micromanage the economy. all in the name of combating global warming. before a shovel can break ground.cfm. Along
For instance.Climate Politics Page 78 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: EPA Regulation Solves
EPA management fails. http://www.heritage. Teddy & Megan
. the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to file environmental impact statements for EPA review before moving forward with projects. Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2407. Mitchell. According to the Government Accountability Office.6 years for a project to jump through all the normal environmental hoops.
construction project an average of 4.*senior policy analyst in Energy and the Environment for the Heritage Foundation. Though the Administration recently enacted a stimulus bill and touted "shovel ready" construction projects to boost the economy. the red tape and permitting delays are almost unfathomable. "Five Reasons the EPA Should Not Attempt to Deal with Global Warming".org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2407. EPA regulations would essentially assure that a great deal of such economic activity would be held up for months.
**research assistant in the Thomas A. Granting the authority for one of the largest and unprecedented regulatory undertakings in U. Beyond the costs of such actions. would be a chilling shift to a command-and-control system in which EPA officials regulate just about every aspect of the market.S. Loris and Lieberman 2009 . Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (4/23.
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.
79 Ellis. Great Britain. 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. Most of these models
project a global warming trend that amounts to about 7 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years. environmentalists and even scientists. Germany. 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.htm. Canada. Korea. Russia.com/releases/2008/04/080402100001. they compare the output of the models against observations for present climate."
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. France. 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)." said Reichler. and the best models are now capable of simulating present-day climate with accuracy approaching conventional atmospheric observations. WEA)
The accuracy of computer models that predict climate change over the coming decades has been the subject of debate among politicians. Teddy & Megan
http://www. and the United States. "We can now place a much higher level of confidence in model-based projections of climate change than in the past. "Coupled
models are becoming increasingly reliable tools for understanding climate and climate change. working group one of the IPCC released its fourth global warming report.sciencedaily. 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. Earlier this year. Scientific opinion on climate change
In the study. Given the significance of climate change research in public policy.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. Of course. To this end. "Climate Models Look Good When Predicting Climate Change". the study's results also provide important response to critics of global warming.
Climate Politics Page 80 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Climate change is anthropogenic Tolman 2009 (4/30.org/AM/Template. and natural gas). population growth. soot. Mitchell. and agricultural practices are changing the composition of the atmosphere (increasing the
concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs. and sulfates) and changing the surface of the land.
The large climate changes that have been observed in the past 30 years cannot be accounted for unless the effects of human activities are included. http://www. oil. League of Women Voters. "POSITIVE FEEDBACKS AND CLIMATE RUNAWAY
THE NEED TO ACT WITHOUT DELAY".lwv.cfm&CONTENTID=13409.
80 Ellis. Teddy & Megan
. LVW climate change taskforce.cfm? Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay. including melting large areas that have been covered by ice and snow. WEA)
Burning fossil fuels (coal. deforestation.
recalcitrance of everyone from China’s Central Committee to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
http://www. Obama and the rest of the world’s political class are still using the dated science and its now stale conclusions. and we need it now. A particularly common obfuscation from rightwing pundits is the "revelation" that global temperatures have been declining since 1998. at least if we want a planet “similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted. We need a fire extinguisher.
Oceanographers reported – incredulously – that we’d managed to make the oceans 30% more acidic. Teddy & Megan
. scientists noticed that the Arctic was losing ice at an almost unbelievable pace. yet their comprehension of climate science hasn't improved.latimes. A Nasa team headed by James Hansen reported that the maximum amount of carbon the atmosphere can safely hold is 350ppm.”
They misinterpret short-term statistical blips—our overall climate theory is still intact. The Guardian. LA Times 7/10/2009 ("Global warming: The heat is on the U. It wasn’t just Arctic ice.0. the message was clear: we don’t need to buy an insurance policy to reduce the threat of future warming.resident scholar at Middlebury (Bill. "Environment: race against time". The cyclical El Niño phenomenon and heavy greenhouse gas concentrations combined to make 1998 the hottest year in recorded history. http://www. As we head toward the crucial Copenhagen talks slated for December.4746209. almost to the week.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. But politicians haven’t caught up. who look at average temperatures over time rather than year-to-year data. at about the same time methane levels in the atmosphere began to spike. It’s easy to understand why: reaching a deal that would meet even that 2 degree target is incredibly hard.
81 Ellis. and global warming had gone from future threat to present crisis.co.story. McKibben 7/15/2009 . Mitchell. Such statistical blips are properly ignored by most climatologists. and much faster than expected. Clearly we’d passed a threshold. apparently as a result of thawing permafrost. WEA) But
two years ago. outstripping the climate models by decades.
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.uk/?page=editorial&id=1164&catID=17.guardianweekly. Surveys of high altitude glaciers showed they were uniformly melting. even as carbon emissions during the intervening 11 years have risen.” Since we’re already at 390ppm. This hardly debunks the climate change theory. WEA)
The clamor from global-warming deniers has heated up as the nation gets closer to taking action.com/news/opinion/la-ed-summit102009jul10. And the last decade was on average the hottest ever recorded.". 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.
Those observations changed everything – and they produced what is almost certainly the most important number in
research group in Santa Rosa. Arctic sea ice returning with a vengeance after a record retreat last summer. it is mostly good old-fashioned weather.
“The current downturn is not very unusual. a scientist at Remote Sensing Systems. Calif. a year after it was in the opposite warm El Niño pattern.com/2008/03/02/science/02cold. 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. along with a cold kick from the tropical Pacific Ocean. It is no wonder that
some scientists. Andrew C.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print. So what is happening?
According to a host of climate experts. 1991-92. but with a long-term warming trend clear nonetheless.” he said. and 1998. which is in its La Niña phase for a few more months. Revkin 2008 (3/2. “Earth’s ‘Fever’ Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way.. and a sharp drop in the globe’s average temperature.
“Temperatures are very likely to recover after the La Niña event is over. the communications director for the Republican minority on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "Skeptics on Human Climate Impact Seize on Cold Spell". Teddy & Megan
.. opinion writers. 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.” read a blog post and news release on Wednesday from Marc Morano. less ice and rising seas should heat-trapping greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and forests continue to accumulate in the air.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.
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. including some who question the extent and risks of global warming. New York Times. paralyzing blizzards in China.nytimes.
82 Ellis.” said Carl Mears. 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. Mitchell. He pointed to similar drops in 1988.
com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/07/16/john-moore-one-world-government-and-global-warmingclimate-change-whatever. the terms are irrelevant.
http://network.nationalpost. Teddy & Megan
A major talking point amongst the skeptics is a certain indignation over how “global warming” became “climate change”. we dispute the cause. The general theory has been roughly the same for 150 years. 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. National Post. Some people think this was a marketing move by the international forces of socialism to protect our Coke-like franchise.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.”
83 Ellis. Mitchell.aspx. "John Moore: One world government and global warming/climate change/whatever". Moore 7/16/2009 (John. Actually.
000 years ago. and those that operate on Earth’s carbon cycle. Mitchell. The positive ones are self-reinforcing. a leading cli. 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. We have a fairly good understanding of the former and not such a good understanding of the latter.Climate Politics Page 84 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: Negative Feedbacks
Feedbacks are NET positive. If we melt the rest of Antarctica. He just shrugged and said. ‘we sug.back situation. in turn. Teddy & Megan
. This is one of the punch lines of my presentation today. They went on. ‘[we] produce an independent estimate of the potential implications of the positive feedback between global tem. because it’s the most vulnerable. Brovkin. Our climate has both positive and negative feedbacks. The Greenland ice sheet will probably be the first to melt.’ Let’s turn to the issue of
In other words.ide to the extent it did in the past. we’re talking about billions of tonnes of carbon. which have already been susceptible to wide-spread burning. which absorbs less carbon from the atmosphere. Homer-Dixon 2007 . If we melt Greenland entirely.mate scientist at Stanford. these
dynamic ice sheets.homerdixon. As the climate warms. Dynamic Ice Sheets. Scientists are also concerned about the potential release of more carbon dioxide from forests: just yesterday researchers reported evidence that.mote warming by an extra 15% to 78% on a century scale over and above the IPCC estimates. and sea levels were four to six metres higher than they are right now. and Cox carried out a comprehensive assessment of the feed. we get another five metres. During the last interglacial period 125.com/articles/excerpt-new_urgency-thomas_homer-dixon.
84 Ellis. As the permafrost melts it releases large quantities of methane – a very powerful greenhouse gas that. we get an additional fifty or so metres. after that in Antarctica.peratures and greenhouse gasses.7 They wrote. and beetle mortality is lower during the winter. PhD in IR from MIT (11/14.pdf. Also.gest that feedback of global temperature and atmosphere CO2 will pro. In a paper published last year in Geophysical Research Letters.est. bark-beetle populations reproduce through two generations during the summer. Both these changes mean that beetle populations become much larger overall. If we melt the West Antarctic ice sheet. Scheffer. when temperatures were roughly what they’re going to be at the end of this century. as the climate has warmed. "Positive Feedbacks. As you likely know.ment.
researchers focused specifically on carbon cycle feedbacks. about the implications of such a develop. I mentioned
there are two general kinds of feedback: those that operate more. http://www. much of Greenland melted. we’ve lost wide swaths of pine forest in British Columbia and Alaska – huge areas of trees – to bark-beetle infestation. and the saturation of ocean carbon sinks. And then there’s the matter of pine bark beetles. higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are acidifying the oceans. Professor in the Centre for Environment and Business in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo. The Greenland ice sheet is the second largest mass of ice in the world. the drying of peat bogs in Indonesia. Warming has produced much more vigorous winds closer to Antarctica. a change could reduce populations of molluscs and phytoplankton that absorb carbon into the calcium carbonate of their shells. If these larger populations cross the Rockies and get into the boreal forest that stretches from Alberta to Newfoundland. One carbon feedback that worries scientists involves the melting of the permafrost in Siberia. The Southern Ocean around Antarctica is no longer absorbing carbon diox. and the Recarbonization of the Global Fuel Supply: The New Sense of Urgency about Global Warming". the Canadian boreal forest has gone from being a carbon sink to a slight carbon emitter. where warming produces a change in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. ‘well. 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.or-less directly on temperature. These winds have churned up the sea and
brought to the surface deep carbon-rich water. the forest will be susceptible to fire that could release astounding quantities of carbon dioxide. such as the ice-albedo feedback. and if they kill that for. WEA) Let me now say a little bit more about some other feedbacks. I asked Stephen
earlier that Schneider. transcript of an address to the conference for a Globally Integrated Climate Policy for Canada.Centre for International Governance Innovation Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of
International Affairs. causes more warming. and Northern Canada. Alaska.
which I talk about in my latest book. scientists have known that cyclic variations in the amount of sunlight reaching the earth trigger glacial-interglacial cycles. and the Recarbonization of the Global Fuel Supply: The New Sense of Urgency about Global Warming". WEA)
In examining data recorded in the Vostok ice core.’ In my future research I want to explore the larger social consequences of widespread fatalistic denial. So. This kind of psychological resistance points to something I think we need to confront directly: a process of denial of evidence that is quite powerful in some parts of our society and in some individuals. if we try to adapt.bonization of the fuel system. Professor in the Centre for Environment and Business in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo. So. However. So the final position. and recar. we’ll still need to aggres.sively mitigate our output of carbon dioxide.’
85 Ellis. It’s basically a pollution problem that is not so serious. Science Daily 2006 . there’s climate change. ‘there’s nothing we can do about it. but then one simply says. 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. widespread melting of snow and ice. these three arguments used by sceptics have been largely put to rest. I send them scientific papers and reports on the latest climate research.
of denial. PhD in IR from MIT (11/14.sciencedaily. too. but we can deal with it. is what I call fatalistic denial: one basically accepts that the problem is real and that it’s going to hurt a lot.dence becomes overwhelming.homerdixon. 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. They’re saying.6 The first is existential denial. where one denies the actual existence of the phenomenon.based on research by the DOE's Climate Change Resarch Division and the National Science Foundation
The most com. Homer-Dixon 2007 . Mitchell. and invariably the evidence in these reports makes absolutely no difference to their point of view.5 This research is pretty well definitive. of course. the magnitude of warming and cooling temperatures cannot be explained by variations in sunlight alone. people tend to move away from existential denial and start engag.sequences of the problem are going to be particularly serious. as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures. large rises in temperatures are more the result of strong upsurges in atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane concentrations set-off by the initial warming. Dynamic Ice Sheets. http://www. I think there are three stages
The third argument concerns radiation from the sun.com/articles/excerpt-new_urgency-thomas_homer-dixon. ‘okay.Centre for International Governance Innovation Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of
International Affairs. http://www. Sometimes I engage in an amusing exercise just to see how detached from reality they can actually be. Solar radiation theory is inaccurate. icesheet dynamics. But existential denial is hard to sustain when the evi.’ The evidence is also increasing. as is now the case with climate change. and rising global average sea level.htm.Climate Politics Page 85 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: Solar Radiation Cuases Warming
Sunlight variation doesn’t explain warming.pdf.ing in what I call consequential denial.com/releases/2006/05/060522151248. This is essentially the position taken by a lot of climate change sceptics now. their authors are just stuck in denial in the face of insurmountable evidence. Let me go on to quickly give you a sense of the three issues that I talked about before: positive feedback. transcript of an address to the conference for a Globally Integrated Climate Policy for Canada. 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.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. "Positive Feedbacks. Teddy & Megan
. We can adapt as necessary. Instead. once it becomes impossible to support even consequential denial. 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. I think they could be astonishingly bad. in which they deny that the con. "Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century".
WEA) The first argument concerns the long-term trend of Earth’s average surface temperature. transcript of an address to the conference for a Globally Integrated Climate Policy for Canada. and Hughes released a paper that estimated average global temperature for the last millen. Bradley. Professor in the Centre for Environment and Business in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo. methodology. except for some – and I use this word deliberately – crazies out there. I think the National Academy of Sciences report dealt with the hockey stick issue. which is why it was widely labelled the ‘hockey stick’ graph. 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. Their graph famously showed a sharp uptick over the last half-century. Mann.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. The panel released its results last year.pdf. overall.nium. saying that. You are probably familiar with this debate. while some questions remained about the methodology. Dynamic Ice Sheets. "Positive Feedbacks.2 These
86 Ellis. Teddy & Megan
.com/articles/excerpt-new_urgency-thomas_homer-dixon. They cobbled these proxy measures together to get a long-term record of the planet’s temperature. It has been one of the most contentious pieces of evidence used to support the claim that we are experiencing an abnormally warm period. the National Acad.emy of Sciences in the United States created a panel to examine the Mann et al. it’s off the table now. In response to criticism of the statistical methodology used to cobble these records together.Centre for International Governance Innovation Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of
International Affairs. PhD in IR from MIT (11/14. 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. and it certainly made Earth hotter than anytime in the last 400 years. http://www. In 1999. it has been covered in the pages of the Globe and Mail.3
and Jones in 2003 to provide a temperature record from the years 200 to 2000 AD.homerdixon. Homer-Dixon 2007 . Mitchell. and the Recarbonization of the Global Fuel Supply: The New Sense of Urgency about Global Warming".
There has been an enor. transcript of an address to the conference for a Globally Integrated Climate Policy for Canada.4 The satellite record actually shows tropospheric warming – in fact. http://www. The argument was originally made by John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville. 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.com/articles/excerpt-new_urgency-thomas_homer-dixon.Centre for International Governance Innovation Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of
International Affairs.homerdixon. "Positive Feedbacks. Teddy & Megan
. Mitchell. as we would expect from glo.bal warming theory. Dynamic Ice Sheets.pdf.mous debate about an apparent discrepancy between data from satel. stratospheric cooling. it shows both tropospheric
warming and. PhD in IR from MIT (11/14.Climate Politics Page 87 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: Satellite Data Proves No Warming
Recent reviews of satellite data discrepancies have discredited skeptics. Professor in the Centre for Environment and Business in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo. Once these errors are corrected. the discrepancy disappears. WEA) The second argument concerns satellite data. and the Recarbonization of the Global Fuel Supply: The New Sense of Urgency about Global Warming".
87 Ellis.lites that show no warming in the troposphere and data from groundlevel instruments that show warming. Homer-Dixon 2007 .
species extinction. much of Bangladesh. But the inertia of ice sheets is not our ally against the effects of global warming. we may be able to manage a staged retreat from the coasts. Director @ NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Prof. increased forest fires. Note that the solid points represent equilibrium conditions—with enough time for the oceans. submerging large parts of the Delmarva Peninsula. when sea level was about eighty feet higher. this would raise sea levels by 15 m (50 ft). practically the entire nation.cfm&CONTENTID=13409. The open point. labeled Projection for 2100. practically the entire state of Florida would be under water. http://pubs. Eighty feet! In that case. A rise in sea level. several small island states (e. India would lose the land of 150 million people.g. A 50-ft rise would drown many large coastal cities and can aptly be called “catastrophic”.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen. That would be a calamity for hundreds of cities around the world. Philadelphia. LVW climate change taskforce. When the atmosphere last had a concentration of 560 ppm. The best straight line
points has a slope of 20 m/°C (37 ft/°F).35 Florida. indeed. Massive ice sheets
last time that the must be softened and weakened before rapid disintegration and melting occurs and the sea level rises.1 yards) every twenty years for centuries. @ Columbia U. rose one meter (1. 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’s history reveals cases in which sea level. ice. New York. and vegetation to fully respond. and (2) water runs into the oceans from glaciers melting on land.pdf)
How much will sea level rise with five degrees of global warming? Here too. twice what it
was in 1750. our best information comes from the Earth’s history. most of them far larger than New Orleans. Fifty million people in the US live below that sea level.. Teddy & Megan
Earth was five degrees warmer was three million years ago.org/AM/Template.cfm? Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay. A critical question is: How rapidly will the ice melt? If we are lucky and the melting is slow enough. Sci. Earth Institute.34 If just the Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets melt. Global mean temperature three million years ago was only 2-3ºC higher than it is today while sea level was 25±10 m (80±30 ft) higher.nasa. once ice sheets began to collapse. League of Women Voters.giss. China would have 250 million displaced persons. crop yield losses.32 As GHG concentrations and temperatures rise.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. WEA)
Of all the threats posed by global warming—more severe droughts and floods. which shows a projected temperature of about 18ºC and a sea level rise of 1 m in 2100. "POSITIVE FEEDBACKS AND CLIMATE RUNAWAY
THE NEED TO ACT WITHOUT DELAY". Other places would fare worse. the Maldives and the
Marshall Islands). http://www. with their major cities on coasts and their dependence on ports for international trade. “THE THREAT TO THE PLANET”. Bangladesh would produce 120 million refugees. 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.lwv. the spread of diseases. necessarily. New York Review of Books. 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. begins slowly.
drawn through the solid
That kills hundreds of millions Hansen 6 (James. the United States would lose most East Coast cities: Boston.36 and other low lying areas. Washington. sea levels also rise for two reasons: (1) Seawater expands as it warms.
88 Ellis. and Miami. Mitchell. is shown in Figure 2. more intense hurricanes. there was no Greenland ice sheet and considerably less ice in Antarctica. about 7 million years ago. based on earth’s behavior for the past 40 million years. 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. Earth and
Env. and sea level rise—the last poses perhaps the most obvious threat to modern industrial societies. It may require as much as a few centuries to produce most of the long-term response.
health. and public health costs.
The concern of the European insurers is reflected in their estimates of coming economic losses. 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. covered the
Stockholm UN Conference on the Environment in 1973 and addressed the Davos World Economic forum in 1998 ("Boiling point". The world's largest insurer-Munich Reinsurance-has said that within several decades. rich against poor. The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) has projected that climate damages will amount to $150 billion a year within this decade. Britain's biggest insurer projected that. But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates—or even shrinks? In that case. They are refusing to insure known storm corridors and selling the risk off to the public. 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. they aligned themselves with a coalition calling for the largest initial cuts (20 percent below 1990 levels)--the Alliance of Small Island States. Hundreds of millions—billions—of
people around the world have pinned their
hopes on the international market economy. crop failures.S. insurers have been economically defensive and politically invisible. p. “Outer Limits to America’s Turn Inward”. and communications infrastructures. those losses will amount to $300 billion a year. Economic downturn causes global nuclear war Mead 92 (Walter Russell.longtime editor and reporter for the Philadelphia Bulletin Washington Post and Bostong Globe. Mitchell.wattpad. Summer. And two years ago. 30)
If so. climate change could bankrupt the global economy by 2065--from property damage due to sea level rise and increasingly severe storms and floods. unchecked. They are keeping silent
By contrast. China. Russia. Gelbspan 2004 . and political capital on the climate threat. countries whose stability is threatened by rising sea levels and increasingly intense storm surges. http://www. newspaper advertising. They and their leaders have embraced market principles—and drawn closer to the west—because they believe that our system can work for them. from Jamaica to the Philippines. politically. New Perspectives
89 Ellis. 9:3. President’s Fellow @ World Policy Institute @ New School. Insurers in this country have withdrawn coverage further and further inland from coastlines. we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North.com/28668-Boiling-Point-by-Ross-Gelbspan-Excerpt. destruction of energy.
most U. The European insurers have also spent large amounts on public education. In the early rounds of the climate talks. The big European insurers have been politically proactive.Climate Politics Page 89 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Climate change kills the insurance industry and the overall economy. WEA)
The responses of the insurance industry have been equally schizophrenic. losses in the travel and tourism industries. Teddy & Megan
percent by 2050 in Asia and by 30 percent in Latin America before 2080. then a concentrated and effective response to human-caused extinctions is essential. @ SUNY Buffalo. No matter what the effort or sincerity of intentions.. he added. “The Expendable Future: U. To Wilson. Were he to write today he would likely add a note of dire urgency. Pol.
90 Ellis. Associate Prof. human-caused extinctions are likely to be of far greater concern.” Harvard biologist Edward O. yet creation is beyond our powers….R. Complacency in the face of this terrible dilemma is inexcusable. 14)
when compared to all other environmental problems. Sci.” David Ehrenfeld succinctly summarizes the problem and the
need for a solution: “We are masters of extermination. Biodiversity loss outweighs nuclear war Tobin 90 (Richard. As frightful as these events might be. no other form of environmental degradation “is anywhere so significant as the fallout of species. Extinction is the permanent destruction of unique life forms and the only irreversible
In fact. we really have no way of turning back. noting that humans will be impacted by the loss of biodiversity. or even nuclear war.” Norman
Myers observes.Climate Politics Page 90 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Warming destroys ecological resilience—it increases water. ecological change that humans can cause. The chapters that follow evaluate that response in the United States. “From the standpoint of permanent despoliation of the planet.S. Pachauri said. and threatens 20 to 30 percent of the planet's plant and animal species.S." Pachauri said.com/ens/feb2008/2008-02-01-10. agricultural. Wilson reasons that they can be repaired within a few generations. the depletion of energy supplies. 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. Mitchell. noting that the IPCC
estimates some 1.asp. Pegg 2008 (2/1. Teddy & Megan
. climate change could wreck havoc with ecosystems.5 billion people in the developing world are likely to be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change by 2020. If scientists are correct in their assessments of current extinctions and reasonably confident about extinction rates in the near future. and biodiversity stress. WEA) It is the world's poor who are "most vulnerable" to the adverse impacts of climate change. the worst thing that will happen to earth is not economic collapse. Wilson is less modest in assessing the relative consequences of human-caused extinctions.” Ehrenfeld wrote these words in the early 1970s. Lawmakers Urged to Lead Global Warming Battle". http://www. p. "U. "Once this kind of damage takes place. extinction species can never be replaced.
"This clearly has major implications for food security worldwide. Environmental News Service.ensnewswire. Furthermore. The panel also estimates agricultural yields will drop by some 50 percent in some African countries. J." said Pachauri. Politics and
the Protection of Biological Diversity”.
WEA) There is one group of creatures for whom global warming is a boon. or increase in drug-resistant strains--may underlie these range expansions. 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. Of
all of the systems of nature. allowing them to live longer at higher altitudes and higher latitudes.' said Andrew P. We share diseases with some of these species. terrestrial plants. climate change is fueling the spread of a wide array of insect-borne diseases among populations. Dobson. and entire ecosystems all over the planet. [this] report was the first to study dozens of diseases in both humans and nonhumans. It expands the range of insects. In 2002. vegetation. The greatest impacts of disease may result from a relatively small number of emergent pathogens. one of the most responsive to temperature changes is insects.' 'This isn't just a question of coral bleaching for a few marine ecologists. pollution. Epidemics caused when these infect new hosts with little resistance or tolerance may lead to population declines. and Eastern oyster disease. Teddy & Megan
As the Boston Globe reported: 'Researchers have long accepted that global warming will affect a wide range of organisms. and plants. the numerous mechanisms linking climate warming and disease spread support the hypothesis that climate warming is contributing to ongoing range expansions. Richard Ostfeld. http://www. Warming accelerates the breeding rates and the biting rate of insects. bacteria. a Cornell University biologist. covered the
Stockholm UN Conference on the Environment in 1973 and addressed the Davos World Economic forum in 1998 ("Boiling point". fungi. The accumulation of evidence has us extremely worried.
'We are seeing lots of anecdotes and they are beginning to tell a story. birds and humans. especially for generalist pathogens infecting multiple host species.'
91 Ellis. Nonetheless. Mitchell. and parasites-as well as in such a wide range of hosts including corals. animals. As a result. oysters.' 'The most detectable effects of directional climate warming on disease relate to geographic range expansion of pathogens such as Rift Valley fever. The implication is a future of more widespread and devastating epidemics for humans. 'We don't want to be alarmist.' 'What is most surprising is the fact that climate-sensitive outbreaks are happening with so many different types of pathogens-viruses. dengue. nor just a question of malaria for a few health officials--the number of similar increases in disease incidence is astonishing. species. While climate change scientists have studied a handful of human diseases. a team of researchers reported that rising temperatures
are increasing both the geographical range and the virulence of diseases. It accelerates the maturation of the pathogens they carry. Factors other than climate change--such as changes in land use.com/28668-Boiling-Point-by-Ross-Gelbspan-Excerpt.wattpad.longtime editor and reporter for the Philadelphia Bulletin Washington Post and Bostong Globe. professor at Princeton University's department of ecology and evolutionary biology and one of the authors.' wrote lead author Drew Harvell.' added another member of the research team. The risk for humans is going up.Climate Politics Page 91 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Warming Bad—Disease (1/2)
Global warming fuels disease spread through pathogens and insects. 'It's a much more scary threat than bioterrorism. but we are alarmed. such as those that followed tree pathogen invasions in North America during the last century.' The researchers reported that the climate-driven spread of diseases will 'contribute to population or species declines. it’s comparatively a bigger threat than bioterror Gelbspan 2004 . 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.
Climate Politics Page 92 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Warming Bad—Disease (2/2)
And diseases will cause extinction South China Morning Post. said Joshua Lederberg of the Rockefeller
the possibility of a virus deadlier than HIV
"Nature isn't benign. 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. Abundant sources of genetic variation exist for viruses to learn how to mutate and evade the immune system. it could happen tomorrow. It is a tragedy waiting to happen. Mitchell.
There is a much more pressing medical crisis at hand . "It can come from a rare animal or from anywhere and can mutate constantly. Teddy & Megan
. Fifteen years ago. AIDS. he says. "An airborne virus is a lively. It could happen anytime in the next 20 years . South China Morning Post. disease-carrying animals and insects are forced into areas of human habitation." he said. Dr Ben-Abraham said:
92 Ellis. 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". it affects one person and then there is a chain reaction and it is unstoppable.
University in New York.which turns internal organs into liquid . at a recent conference. the flu epidemic that has now affected 200. And as new "mega-cities" are being developed in the Third World and rainforests are destroyed.theoretically. The survival of the human species is not a preordained evolutionary programme. He added that the problem was "very serious and is getting worse".one he believes the world must be
alerted to: . the Ebola outbreak which killed more than 100 people in Africa last year. but Dr Ben -Abraham said history has already proven his theory." That may sound like a far-fetched plot for a Hollywood film. complex and dangerous organism. infect humanity at a large scale and imperil the survival of the human race. mysterious viruses would. deadlier than HIV. 1/4.000 in the former Soviet Union . few could have predicted the impact of AIDS on the world. it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about. Ebola has had sporadic outbreaks over the past 20 years and the only way the deadly virus . for the first time. according to Dr Ben-Abraham. lexis)
Despite the importance of the discovery of the "facilitating" cell. Imagine. if it was closer to home: an outbreak of that scale in London. If there is no cure.they are all. the "tip of the iceberg".could be contained was because it was killed before it had a chance to spread." He cites the 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreak as an example of how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence. humanity could face extinction because of a single virus. 96 (Kavita Daswani. If this makes Dr Ben-Abraham sound like a prophet of doom. New York or Hong Kong." he said. then he makes no apology for it. "This raises the very real possibility that lethal.
Where the atmosphere is configured to have high pressure and droughts. Ethiopia and Egypt trade threats over the Nile. Turkey. Farther south and east. more gully washers. "Do you think all the people below will just sit there? No. Sudan. The climate will be wetter in some places. In northern China. state water authorities shut off irrigation pumps to large parts of the valley. "As the air gets warmer. At the edge of the Quelccaya Glacier. are drying. And in a world as interlinked as ours. Syria and Iraq bristle over the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. And what do you think will happen when they go to places where people already live?" The potential for conflict is more than theoretical. one explosion may lead to the other. the models predicted. 270)
If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb. They act as mammoth storehouses. the edges slowly melt. gently feeding streams and rivers. then we
may destroy ourselves with the C-bomb. Changing weather patterns will leave millions of people without dependable supplies of water for drinking. green orchards on brown hills displays the alchemy of irrigation. In wet or cold seasons. a senior researcher at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. Stephen Schneider.
The glaciers are melting.000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since Trinity. drilling ice cores and measuring glaciers. 1 billion people lack access to potable water. But. Even farther
Soon. tensions over dwindling water supplies and rising populations are reaching what many experts describe as a flashpoint. He found remarkable consistency: Sometime before 2050. siphoned by seven states before dribbling into Mexico. Patagonia and the U.Climate Politics Page 93 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Warming Bad—Water Wars
Warming causes massive droughts ---. the once-mighty Colorado River is looking sickly. Farms below are dependent on that meltwater. Already. "You are going to intensify the hydrologic cycle. drought has spawned warlords and armies. These will not be small droughts. p. Teddy & Megan
. "It will certainly cause movements of people. 800." According to the IPCC. Lima. there will be more water in the atmosphere. want to believe this is a passing dry spell. he said. pours himself a cup of tea and says the future is clear. Pulitzer Prize winning author. "And it will intensify floods. South Australia. global warming will mean long. drier in others. "Global warming will intensify drought. the Southwest will be gripped in a dry spell akin to the Great Dust Bowl drought that lasted through most of the 1930s." he says. the runoff helps feed the giant capital. "mechanistically. this is different. Its reservoirs. "There is an emerging situation of climate refugees. The spacing of tree rings suggests there have been numerous periods of drought going back to A. you will get
more rain. At Stanford University. initially increasing the runoff. the Mideast. a multitude of rivulets seep from the edge of Quelccaya to irrigate crops of maize. the water flowing through irrigation canals built by the Incas. a growing stack of studies conclude. In Somalia. But the atmosphere's temperature is rising fastest at high altitudes. but this year is one of the driest on record. there will be migration from rural areas to cities and then the U. The United Nations has said water scarcity is behind the bloody wars in Sudan's Darfur region. For example. He has watched the Quelccaya Glacier shrink by 30 percent in 33 years. that means a drying out of areas such as southern Europe. Down the mountain. Organization says.
93 Ellis. “The Next One Hundred Years”. He has spent more time in the oxygen-thin "death zone" atop mountains than any other scientist. and when.washingtonpost. In dry and hot seasons. It's crazy to think they won't go anywhere. Mitchell. the glaciers grow with
Much of the world's fresh water is in glaciers atop mountains. but
gradually getting smaller and smaller. Richard Seager. For the first time." Global warming threatens water supplies in other ways. there will be more desperate measures. North Africa. another city built in a desert. . where a quilt of lush. 170 miles away. the largest ice cap in the Peruvian Andes. These projections clearly come from a warming forced by rising greenhouse gases. it comes down is the big uncertainty. But where. forcing farmers to dig wells. A climate shift in that single battle-scarred nexus might trigger international tensions that will unleash some of the 60. the World Health
downstream. hydroelectric dams rely on the flow to generate power. Already in the Middle East. editor of the journal Climatic Change and a lead author for the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Seager predicts that drought will prompt dislocations similar to those of the Dust Bowl." Farmers in the Central Valley." he said.D.S. Southwest. Lake Mead and Lake Powell. as Mexico dries out.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/19/AR2007081900967. leaving accusatory rings on the shorelines and imperiling river-rafting companies.
Water wars go nuclear Weiner in ’90 (Jonathan.000 feet.puts millions at risk and leads to water wars Washington Post 7 (Doug Struck. looked at 19 computer models of the future under current global warming trends. the Change Bomb. from North Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates. many will disappear
"What do you think is going to happen when this stops?" Thompson mused of the water.S.html)
As global warming heats the planet. huge cities have grown up on the belief the mountains will always give them drinking water. “Warming Will Exacerbate Global Water Conflicts”.. 8-20. dry periods." he said. irrigation and power.
http://www. They thought a wet 2006 ended a seven-year drought. Where the atmosphere is configured to be wet. Ohio State University researcher Lonnie Thompson sat in a cold tent at a rarified 17. That's settled science. 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.
Daley 7/14/2009 (Beth. in the Seacoast region
A lot of the problem has to do with timing. New U. said Mack. Similar worries are on the minds of Massachusetts and other New England water scientists. Warming Causes Water Scarcity
Climate change increases global water scarcity. Boston Globe. At the same time.
could be ten percent less by 2025 than they are today.
94 Ellis.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2009/07/global_warmings_timing_problem. About half of the water that recharges the region’s aquifer is from spring snowmelt. But now.html. a study shows that parts of even drenched New England may be facing water shortages as the world warms and demand increases. USGS hydrologist Thomas Mack estimates that summer stream flows.Climate Politics Page 94 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Ext. instead of snow. is expected to fall in the winter. That means the aquifer is filling up earlier in the spring. Teddy & Megan
http://www. 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. "Global warming's timing problem". But global warming is causing the snow to melt earlier by around two to four weeks.
Seacoast region. which helps feed groundwater aquifers. warmer temperatures could increase evaporation and lengthen the growing season where water is sucked up by plants. Mitchell. more rain.boston. allowing it to be plentiful to residents for summer lawn watering and other uses. WEA)
Evidence is growing that climate change is exacerbating water scarcity problems around the world.S.
” said Jeff Wells.” said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz. the Boreal Forest houses 22 percent of the total carbon stored on the world’s land surface. the Senior Scientist at the International Boreal Conservation Campaign (IBCC). resulting in deep organic soils that are thousands of years old. Gelbspan 2004 . Alaska. 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. This is largely because in boreal climates.”
95 Ellis. Canada’s Boreal region is a life-support system for the planet because of its key role in carbon storage. Officials attributed the spread of the insects to unusually warm winters.
Forests prevent extinction Pew Charitable Trusts 7 (Press Release. It is our hope that the Canadian government will reduce emissions from tar sands development. Nearly 90 percent of the organic carbon found in Canadian soils occurs in Boreal and Tundra ecosystems. an initiative of the Pew Environment Group. The map shows several carbon hotspots distributed across Canada.” With 50 percent of the world's remaining original forests stretching across Canada. is one of North America’s largest stores of carbon. of course. covered the
Stockholm UN Conference on the Environment in 1973 and addressed the Davos World Economic forum in 1998 ("Boiling point". encompassing 12 percent of the nation’s land area.” said Dr. David Schindler. built up over thousands of years. 8-12. Canada has the largest area of peatlands in the world.wattpad. “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. In Canada.” 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.pewtrusts. including roughly a third of the Boreal region. We should do everything we can to ensure that the carbon in this storehouse is conserved. “It’s
similar to a bank vault containing one of the world’s most valuable and most influential resources for impacting climate change. “It’s an internationally important repository for carbon. Teddy & Megan
. 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. “The world recognizes that tackling global warming involves both reducing
emissions and stopping deforestation and forest degradation. a Senior Scientist at Woods Hole Research Center. an explosion in the population of tree-killing bark beetles is spreading rapidly through the forests. with significant concentrations in northern Ontario and Manitoba. the deadly bark beetles had spread throughout an area of British Columbia nearly three-fourths the size of Sweden--about 9 million acres. or permanently frozen ground. a Professor of Biology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. Globally. The map released today illustrates the vast Boreal peatlands that stretch from Quebec and Labrador westward to the Mackenzie Valley. As of late 2002. continue taking steps to protect the Boreal and recognize its tremendous value as a global carbon storehouse.” Boreal Soils Rich in Carbon The third map of the analysis
depicts the carbon stored in Canadian Boreal soils. Mitchell. Obviously. storing at least six times as much carbon per hectare
carbon storehouse is due to three key factors: as forested mineral soils.org/news_room_detail.
turning them into tinder for the fires that blanketed the area around Los Angeles.aspx?id=32032)
Boreal Forest is to carbon what Fort Knox is to gold. the colder temperatures reduce decomposition rates.Climate Politics Page 95 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Climate change kills global forests through bark beetle spread. This globally significant
Canada’s Boreal Forest Includes the World’s Largest Peatlands Peatlands are recognized worldwide as highly important for carbon storage. WEA)
The risk. 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.longtime editor and reporter for the Philadelphia Bulletin Washington Post and Boston Globe. Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Canada Program. “Boreal Forest is World’s Carbon Vault”. The maps released today
document where and how these vital carbon reserves are distributed across Canada. Canada’s Boreal Region is LifeSupport for Planet
“Clearly. “The carbon frozen into Canada’s permafrost. Vast Permafrost Areas are Key to Carbon Storage Permafrost. the growing tar sands destruction and associated carbon emissions in Alberta will seriously hamper Canada’s ability to meet its commitment under Kyoto. Scott Goetz. noted. 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.
http://www. http://www. is not confined to humans. the Boreal is the largest land reservoir of carbon on Earth. occupies about 25 percent of the world’s and 50 percent of Canada’s total land area.com/28668-Boiling-Point-by-Ross-Gelbspan-Excerpt. Russia and Scandinavia just below the Arctic.
Turns all systemic harms globally.
96 Ellis. A poor. Melting glaciers will trigger mountain floods and lead to water shortages in South Asia and South America. assistant director-general
of the World Health Organization. unprecedented droughts will occur.chair of the World Future Council (3/6. Testimony to the House Select Energy Independence and Global
Warming Committee. Reduced rainfall will aggravate water and food insecurity in Africa.000 people currently die each year from the impacts of warming. WEA)
When the floods have subsided. Lexis Congressional. hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries will lose their homes as well as the land on which they grow their crops. Jagger 2008 . by the end of the century. Gelbspan 2004 .com/28668-Boiling-Point-by-Ross-Gelbspan-Excerpt. increased heat stress. Bianca. http://www. '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. Ban Ki-moon said: "Climate change will affect developing countries the most. CQ Congressional Testimony. Those who are most vulnerable are also the most at risk from this threat.longtime editor and reporter for the Philadelphia Bulletin Washington Post and Boston Globe. low-lying country like Bangladesh will find it much harder to cope with sea level rise than a rich region like Florida. Teddy & Megan
.Climate Politics Page 96 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Warming Bad—Systemic Death/Poverty
Turns systemic death. and the warming-driven proliferation of allergens. Mitchell. covered the
Stockholm UN Conference on the Environment in 1973 and addressed the Davos World Economic forum in 1998 ("Boiling point". 182 million people in sub-Saharan Africa alone could die of diseases and epidemics directly attributable to climate change. 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." If current trends are allowed to continue. And then there is the threat of disease and epidemics: according to Christian Aid.' said Kerstin Leitner.wattpad. WEA) About
Mitchell. 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. America can develop new technologies. increase its exchange rate flexibility.but it also sowed some of the seeds for our current economic problems.
Public Utilities Reports. goods.
China should shift from export-led growth.Climate Politics Page 97 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: Trade Turn
Cap and trade checks EU trade retaliation Fontaine 2004 . Teddy & Megan
. including cooperation on high-tech products. We have special working groups that are in talks with the U.cfm. Growth predicated on ever increasing Chinese exports being consumed by debt-laden Americans provided years of prosperity -. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said on Wednesday. The reduction of global warming gas emissions called for under the Kyoto Protocol will increase electricity prices and therefore the cost of goods." Locke said.S. much like the Acid Rain Trading Program. Locke. U. the United States and China's There are concerns and deep structural issues that must be addressed. he said. WEA) BEIJING. "U." Chinese commerce ministry spokesman Yao Jian told a press conference on Wednesday. it's a separate issue as how to interpret the trade surplus. "For all our areas of agreement. July 15 (Reuters) -
The trade imbalance between the United States and China is not sustainable. Lieberman
Even under the relatively modest goals of the McCain bill.
http://www.S. side on promoting trade balance and cooperation on high-tech products. Locke said in remarks prepared for a speech to the American Chamber of Commerce. and the two countries have a joint responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. and open its markets more. Palmer 7/15/2009 (Doug. electricity prices will increase due to the internalization of the costs of the cap and trade system. who will visit Beijing and Shanghai."
The United States is China's second-largest trade partner after the European Union. Trade tension non-unique.co-chairs the Energy. and avoid the risk of a damaging trade war with the EU. 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.. If the United States continues to resist global pressure to reduce its CO2 emissions.reuters. In this way. "China is trying to promote trade balance.-china trade imbalance not sustainable-Locke".S. 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. policy-makers.
China's big surplus in its trade with the United States has become a global concern. pointing out that China mainly exports labour-intensive products.S. The EIA analysis
points out one fundamental conclusion. "Of course."
among them is a bilateral trade imbalance that simply can't be sustained.S. trade surplus does not necessarily mean trade benefits.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSPEK303347. and accounts for 18 percent of China's total exports and imports. To avoid this negative outcome. the United States would blunt any effort by the EU to impose trade sanctions on U. plans to promote clean energy technology as one area in which U.pur. industry can find opportunities in China. http://www. WEA)
By adopting some form of national legislation that begins to internalize the costs of global warming. "Global Warming: The Gathering Storm". "Chief
trade relationship has to evolve.S. In a globalised world today. Environmental & Public Utility Practice Group of the Cozen O'Connor law firm (Peter J. regain its credibility in the global deliberations over how to combat global warming.com/pubs/4419.
do exist some issues in our bilateral trade relations. Rueters." Yao said.
The Financial Times' John Gapper says the
Davos was different this year. ChinaStakes 7/16/2009 (Chinese business news. valued around $3. Ultimately.com/2009/7/china-warns-us-carbon-tariff-will-invite-retaliation. however. saying Obama has ignored lessons from the Depression era. the secretary-general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. President Barack Obama's pronouncements on trade. the United States can't cut through this thicket by itself. then.S. Rather." added Angel Gurria. 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. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao backed Putin. Obama aside . Michael A. in an article published on the OECD's website. "Gloomy Portents for Global Trade".
Protectionism up now—World Economic Forum meeting proves. The World Bank also projects a contraction--the first decline in global trade since 1982. As a result. Democrats are pushing for "Buy American" provisions to be included in President Barack Obama's proposed stimulus package. progress on the international front will depend mainly on cooperative action. WEA)
China has also come under criticism for protectionism. Teslik 2009 .
98 Ellis. for keeping a fair and open market was the consensus reached between leaders of the two countries at the G20 meeting in London.S. Over time. too. climate legislation. particularly among the leaders of emerging economies. and several big banks cancelled the glitzy parties they have traditionally hosted at the summit. particularly as major developed economies seek to implement stimulus packages to boost their domestic economies.David M. 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.S. Pleas for economic openness rang out at this year's summit.S.
the short-term trade outlook isn't particularly rosy. CFR's Jagdish Bhagwati questioned U. http://www. its trade measures don't unnecessarily aggravate the external relationships that will be needed to get that done. Council on Foreign
Relations. compared to an expansion of 4.3 billion. no one country's industries will be unfairly disadvantaged. WEA)
Amidst the worst economic crisis in decades. The concern for policymakers. trade competitors all impose new and similar climate costs on their energy-intensive industries. U.org/publication/19674/. the only solution to the competitiveness problem is global climate action. Congress should make sure that in crafting U. Egypt's
party scene.chinastakes. Locke said that China could not close its markets. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned against reliance upon intervention and protectionism to cure economic ills.org/publication/18429/. face strong protectionist pressures. "China Warns US: Carbon Tariff Will Invite Retaliation".. American enterprises say that China encourages the development of local enterprises by restraining foreign energy companies from entry into the Chinese market. http://www.cfr.S. WEA)
In the long term. prototypal "Davos Man"--the international captain of finance whose prominence and significance has risen meteorically in recent decades--seemed humbled.1 percent in 2008. Mitchell. such as excluding foreign companies from bidding on a recent wind power project. French leaders. Trade policy could emerge as a flashpoint in the weeks and months to come. 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. Lee Hudson. Levi 2009 .assistant editor and economics writer for CFR. The International Monetary Fund estimates global trade will contract 2. saying such policies could backfire (Guardian). the World Economic Forum's annual mega-summit in the Swiss Alps found itself at a crossroads.
http://www.html. But if major U. In a recent op-ed. 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.Climate Politics Page 98 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: Trade Turn
China is already acting protectionist in the energy sector. 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. If we win our modeling claims then you do not have a protectionism turn. Since the United States has few sticks to
bring to the climate negotiating table. saying world leaders must remain vigilant (Xinhua) in their efforts to curb trade protectionism. rebates will vanish. "Trade and Climate Change". though. CFR. "We will only make the crisis worse if we succumb to the lure of protectionism and petty nationalism. Significant threats loomed for free-trade hawks well before Davos.8 percent in 2009 (WSJ). trade minister echoed concerns (Reuters) about protectionism. Mr. most of the rationale for the U. degree from Harvard (1/30.cfr. Many of the financial sector's major players skipped the summit altogether (Bloomberg). as did India's (Reuters).
Climate Politics Page 99 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
99 Ellis. Mitchell. Teddy & Megan
This week China reported that the government now requires stimulus projects to use domestic suppliers when possible. Mitchell. banking. potentially destroying well-paid American jobs in the export sector. Other countries may follow suit. This effect. Unsurprisingly. Seductively. have recovered from its current moribund state. These require recipients of money
But trade experts warn that protectionism remains a serious worry. And on June 6 the delegates at
the Federation of Canadian Municipalities passed a resolution calling on “local infrastructure projects. The World Bank said on June 22nd that world-trade volumes. America sits at the center of global markets for technology.economist. Now China and Canada are imposing their own protectionist regulations. China’s export restrictions are not new either.2% for China this year. but also by increasing employment at exporting firms.Climate Politics Page 100 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: Trade Turn
Trade wars inevitable because of the Buy America provision.Jun 25th 2009 (“Duties call. as well as protection from global competition.cfm?story_id=13903045)
DESPITE the periodic sighting of green shoots elsewhere in the economy. But America and the EU argue that by hindering their export. and China restricts their exports on the grounds that they are exhaustible resources. “Buy America” promises workers they can have it all — cheap goods from China.a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. which complained to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) about China’s restrictions on the exports of nine minerals. Teddy & Megan
. Many markets no longer have national boundaries but global reaches. a professor at Dartmouth College.
Protectionism now—World Bank statistic prove Economist 09. and textiles) financed by the stimulus bill to be made in America.” The tragic losers of “Buy America” are free trade agreements and potential job growth in the American
economy. http://blogs. John Veroneau.
Of particular concern are the so-called “Buy China” requirements added to China’s stimulus package this month. far above other industrialized countries. including environmental projects such as water and wastewater treatment projects. Trade creates jobs not just through investments of foreign companies at home. If Ron Kirk. When international markets expand. But real life just doesn’t work that way. a former American deputy trade representative. reeling from a drastic collapse in global demand (see chart). coke. magnesium and manganese. America grows. [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. cement. That’s why “Buy America” hurts employment. These are important raw materials for the steel industry. If the case proceeds to the stage where a formal WTO panel is formed to decide on its merits. demonstrates that he is actively enforcing the agreements already in place. the
landscape of global trade remains resolutely bare.” Rueters. will shrink by nearly 10% this year. find that firms that trade goods employ over 40% of the American workforce. They conclude that approximately 57 million American workers are employed by firms that engage in international trade.com/great-debate/2009/06/19/starting-a-trade-war-with/)
When Congress inserted “Buy America” protectionist provisions that required some goods (such as steel. it is unlikely to have that effect. 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. though less obvious. and advertising — to name but a few. even though in February it promised to treat foreign companies equally. and the first decline in trade since a small dip in 1982. our government invited a trade war with important economic partners. America and the EU are not resorting to imposing fresh barriers of their own in this dispute. a trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. China is unfairly favouring domestic industries. jobs — and also wages —shrink. by which time trade will.com/businessfinance/displaystory. with luck. The latest salvo was fired on June 23rd by America
Depression. 2009 (“Starting a trade war
with “Buy America”. together with economists Bradford Jensen and Peter Schott. equipment manufacturing. “Buy America” is shorthand for fewer jobs as other countries retaliate. That may be too sanguine. True.June 19th. oil from Canada. Andrew Bernard. he may get “the authority to negotiate Doha and other accords”. When barriers are erected to trade. In reality. America’s new trade representative. a think-tank. finance. it could drag on for several years. tempers are fraying as governments struggle
and the European Union. Furchgott-Roth 6/19 Diana Furchtgott-Roth. fashion. says that the case against China may also help the cause of open trade in other ways. for that matter. Jeffrey Schott. In practice. That would be the sharpest fall since the
to find ways to protect their own. is far more significant. from China’s mammoth fiscal expansion to choose domestic suppliers “unless products or services cannot be obtained in reasonable commercial conditions in China”
100 Ellis. among others. The Chinese $585 billion stimulus
package has resulted in a World Bank growth forecast of 7. including bauxite.reuters.” http://www. believes the case against China is a
The WTO (World Trade Organization) came into existence. Two precedents can be cited: sea turtles and stratospheric ozone.” and the 2001 Doha Communiqué that sought to start a new round of negotiations declares: “the aims of . and to the contrary were misguidedly up in
Another important precedent was the Montreal Protocol on stratospheric ozone depletion. at roughly the same time as the Kyoto Protocol. not only exported products (Article XX). must be mutually supportive. It says that the Parties should “strive to implement policies and measures. The drafters of each treaty showed more consideration for the other than do the rank and file among environmentalists and free traders. the migration of production of banne
101 Ellis. Is this an obstacle to the application measures against them at the border? I don’t see why it has to be. http://www. The big significance was a path-breaking ruling that environmental measures can target. most international experts would have said that import barriers against carbonintensive goods. Frankel 2008 . The WTO regime is more respectful of the environment than was its predecessor.. be acceptable under international law? Under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). which contained trade controls.
arms over this case.subject.12 and (2) if major countries had remained outside. as always. they could not use import barriers in efforts to affect how goods are produced in foreign countries. The United States was in the end able to seek to protect turtles in the Indian Ocean. provided it did so without discrimination against Asian fishermen.” The UNFCC features similar language. as embodied in electricity or in goods produced with it. The controls had two motivations13: (1) to encourage countries to join.. although countries could use import barriers to protect themselves against environmental damage that would otherwise occur within their own borders. Harpel Professor of Capital Formation and Growth at the Harvard Kennedy School (6/9. would necessarily violate international agreements.
Brookings Institute. Article XX allows exceptions to Articles I and III for purposes of health and conservation.brookings..
But things have changed. whether tariffs or quantitative restrictions. Jeffrey A..James W. The true import of a 1998 WTO panel decision on the shrimp-turtle case was missed by almost
The everyone. respectively. Environmentalists failed to notice or consolidate the PPM precedent. to non-discrimination (Articles I & III).edu/events/2008/~/media/Files/events/2008/0609_climate_trade/2008_frankel. the controls would have minimized leakage.
emissions in other countries. The Preamble to the 1995 Marrakech Agreement establishing the WTO seeks “to protect and
preserve the environment. Teddy & Megan
.pdf. open and non-discriminatory trading system.. "OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING THE LEAKAGE/COMPETITIVENESS ISSUE IN CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY PROPOSALS".. so-called Processes and Production Methods (PPMs).Climate Politics Page 101 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: WTO Checks Trade Wars
WTO is down with trade restrictions in the environmental context. and acting for the protection of the environment .. Mitchell. but also partners’ Processes & Production Methods (PPMs) -..”
Kyoto Protocol text is equally solicitous of the trade regime.WOULD TRADE CONTROLS OR SANCTIONS BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE WTO? Would measures that are directed against CO2
Not many years ago.to minimize adverse effects…on international trade. GHG emissions are PPMs. A notorious example was the GATT ruling against US barriers to imports of tuna from dolphin-unfriendly Mexican fishermen. WEA) V . succeeding the GATT..
com/story.400 per household by 2030. the American Clean Energy and Security Act (a.R. jobs based on clean energy and energy efficiency depend on American resources and cannot be shipped overseas.reuters. 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. 2454. the most important one yet.000 per household per year by 2030.a. as outlined in this bill. "Letter From Olver: House Passes Comprehensive Energy Legislation".. 10
percent of the SEED (State Energy and Environmental Development) program is set aside for transportation programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. which are estimated at over $4.php?story_id=31496. Dollar for dollar. investments in a clean energy economy create four times as many jobs as investments in the oil and gas industry.7 million American jobs over the next two years alone. this is the perfect opportunity to make significant investments in industries that will become the base of a new American economy. according to an updated analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). and engineers. the American Clean Energy and Security Act". and in many ways. could save approximately $1. which raised the average American household's energy costs by $1. will create 1. http://www. The Center for American Progress estimates that the transition from foreign oil to clean American energy. Rueters 6/24/2009 ("Updated Energy Savings Analysis of H. 2454. Retrofits will employ building specialists and construction workers while burgeoning solar and wind industries will need machinists. Teddy & Megan
. Less than two months later we approved a budget containing unprecedented support for mass transit and energy innovation.100 between 2001 and 2007. WEA) The federal energy
efficiency provisions included in H.R. And according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.000 jobs by 2030.
http://www. This is a welcome change from the Bush administration energy plan. And unlike other jobs.
102 Ellis. Olver 7/6/2009 .k. 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. 70 percent of which will go to Advanced Energy Research and 30 percent of which will go to "Energy Innovation Hubs" at universities. In addition.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.Massachusetts representative on the House Appropriations Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on
Transportation. Waxman-Markey). the improved efficiency standards the bill creates for appliances. Changes to ACEEE's analysis come from an updated assessment of savings from a number of provisions.
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. ACES represents the next step. Mitchell. The bill also changed the distribution of R&D funds.
Efficiency mandates in the cap and trade bill solve any cost concerns. and power plants will create 770.
As our nation faces high unemployment and an ailing auto industry.050 per household by 2020 and $4.com/article/gwmCarbonEmissions/idUS363785493920090624. Housing and Urban Development (John W. Six months ago we passed an economic recovery act with investments in smart infrastructure and sustainable job creation. buildings. laborers. as well as changes to the bill made in a Rule's Committee version of the bill released
yesterday. We have passed legislation to green our schools and preserve 2 million acres of wilderness. These estimates do not take into account savings from energy
efficient appliances.iberkshires. factories.
http://www. the reductions in carbon pollution required by the legislation will cost American families less than a postage stamp per day. reduce harmful carbon emissions.S. 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.com/articles/14962.
households between $80 and $111 per year. 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. 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. Teddy & Megan
. "CAP AND TRADE CAN FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING EFFECTIVELY WHILE ALSO PROTECTING CONSUMERS".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.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. 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. 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. chairman of the Apollo Alliance. **BA in economics and masters degree in social work from U Michigan (3/3. which equals 22 cents to 30 cents per day. "House Passes Landmark Climate Change Bill. Mitchell. Bishu 7/17/2009 (Deswta.S.-based nonprofit Green For All. In addition.050 cumulatively and produce more than 300. The U. and Sharon Parrott. That claim is misleading because it focuses on just one aspect of the Administration’s cap-and-trade proposal. green jobs here at home and help revive America’s long suffering manufacturing sector.” Green For All CEO Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins said in a statement. a well-designed cap-andtrade program also raises substantial revenue that can be returned to consumers to offset the effect of higher energy costs on their budgets. the 27 nations of the European Union have operated a cap-and-trade system since
103 Ellis. “The
American Clean Energy And Security Act is a giant leap forward to establish energy security. which was a driving force in securing green job training funds in the The bill includes a $860 million allocation to the Green Jobs Act. 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.” Let’s quantify it—the most official studies cite the cost to consumers at 30 cents a day. "House Passes Landmark Climate Change Bill. CBO calculates that the legislation will cost the average household less than 50 cents per day. Ethiopian Review.ethiopianreview. called the bill a significant step forward in creating a more equitable and secure country. That is what the President’s proposal would do.” said Phil Angelides. Chad Stone.*Chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Now Heads to Senate".
http://www. households up to $1. in addition to raising the cost of using “dirty” energy. households by 2020. Now Heads to Senate".
Budget Office projected an annual cost of $175 for U. WEA) Oakland.ethiopianreview.pdf. Calif. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.and create millions of green jobs that will put our citizens back to work and get our economy back on track.com/articles/14962. with the result that no significant “tax increase” occurs.org/files/3-3-09climate. A separate analysis from the Congressional
Prefer our evidence—indicts of the proposal ignores offset mechanisms that blunt any economic impact. Ethiopian Review. Stone et al 2009 . “This legislation
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. WEA) • Protect consumers from energy price increases. former executive director of the Joint
Economic Committee of Congress.cbpp.000 jobs by 2020. It ignores the fact that. According
to estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency.
104 Ellis.Climate Politics Page 104 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
2005. Teddy & Megan
Jackson said. She said the agency based its figures on the assumption that approximately 40 percent of auction revenues would be returned to consumers through rebates.” she said. John Shimkus (R-Ill. or 27 cents to 38 cents a day—even though the measure is incomplete. and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood offered the Obama administration’s support for the legislation. Teddy & Megan
. he looks forward to working with this committee . EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. while the
committee’s Democratic leadership has indicated that the final product is likely to be a balance between auctions and allocations.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. NRG’s Crane said his company would not support the bill if it was all auction. “Though [President Obama] has
called for 100 percent auction. 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.) has said this aspect of the bill was left openended so committee members and interested parties like USCAP could weigh in. EPA modeling tends to err on the conservative side and overestimate costs.” said Jackson. Ranking member Joe Barton (Texas) accused the majority of “trying to buy votes” in the process of determining how to give away allowances. Jackson said the administration is willing to collaborate with Congress to develop an allocation and auction scheme. Energy Secretary Steven Chu. “Nothing is free. Mitchell. Bill coauthor Ed Markey (D-Mass. “Three important players in this issue. The Obama administration has said it wants 100 percent auction. but the administration believes there will be only “modest impacts. But this approach has rankled Republicans on the committee. Jackson was asked
the EPA had been able to estimate the costs of the bill to American households—$98 to $140 a year. 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. which will be a highly contentious issue going forward.” During another panel session..” If anything.” LaHood told reporters following their testimony. Grist News. that represent the president. believe the principles laid out in the bill are very strong and are principles the president and his team can work with. “The EPA’s economic analysis shows that there are no harbingers of huge job loss in this bill.. “As biz leaders call for a climate bill.
105 Ellis. 4/23/2009 (Kate Sheppard.) alleged that the lack of specifics is an “intentional move to deceive us so we can’t do the cost-benefit analysis. and believes that these allowance questions can be addressed.” she continued.
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. electricity customers will face what Jeffry Sterba. 4/30/2009 (Nicholas Ballasy. but beyond that I don’t think there’s any specifics agreed upon. more climate friendly energy sources. not sell them. and electric utilities told lawmakers that if they were given the allowances. “Well. who leads the District of Columbia's Public Service Commission." said Glenn English. "Auction is not a good idea. 4/23/2009 (Dina Cappiello. it
Edison Electric Institute. said it is not yet “clear” what the government is going to do with the revenue made from auctioning carbon permits. "Revenues
associated with pricing greenhouse gases would be returned to the very consumers who would be at risk for paying higher energy prices. I think there’s a general consensus we ought to return as much of it as possible
to rate payers. which represents 42 million consumers in 47 states. Mitchell. which is comprised of more than a dozen organizations.” he said. “Obama’s ‘Cap and Trade’ Plan Likely Will Raise Energy
Prices. 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 not be legislation that is designed to raise revenue. however. The alliance further said that cap and trade is like a distribution of wealth program." said Richard Morgan. told CNSNews.
106 Ellis. 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. “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. they could protect consumers from higher energy prices. called would be a windfall for shareholders. Teddy & Megan
. as proposed by
President Barack Obama. The providers say the best way to keep the electricity sector from passing on the cost of reducing greenhouse gases is to initially give away allowances to emit pollution. Representatives for rural cooperatives." he said.. Bingaman said. CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. It should be something that is trying to achieve its objective of reducing carbon emissions in the country and that alone. 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.” Auctions increase consumer spending AP. “Well. Bingaman. "We would discourage the committee from going down that road.. Says Senate Energy Chairman”)
The Climate Equity Alliance. electricity providers warned Thursday."
If the allowances are sold.Climate Politics Page 106 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: C&T Kills Economy – Auctions
Current bill leads to auctions CNS News. . ranging from the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). These higher prices would be
the result of legislation that would put a price on the gases linked to global warming. They said that if Congress decided to give them to the producers of electricity.com that cap and trade is designed to increase energy costs so that consumers invest in alternative (or green) energy sources. utility commissions. When asked if he had an idea about how the revenue should be distributed.
The United States has already dropped in solar-cell manufacturing behind Japan. L/N)
Under the third option. 18:2.S.
Much of the groundwork has been laid. a bipartisan cap-and-trade bill. And the sun will set on those that fall behind. this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. The countries that lead in inventing and deploying clean-energy technologies will be the great powers of the 21st century. which tripled production in 2007. the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. save the country". reached the floor of the U.democracy.S. Teddy & Megan
. U. such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems. and House lawmakers are readying similar bills for action in 2009. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global
stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. The decisions the president makes in his first crucial months will determine the course of U. but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would
have tremendous advantages. Spring.newsweek. But quick action is needed.
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.S.S. the Climate Security Act. including a global nuclear exchange. Mitchell. most recently. Nine of the world's 10 largest photovoltaic manufacturers are in Europe or Asia.
http://www.President of the Environmental Defense Fund (1/31. First. threats of regional hegemony by renegade states. In 2008. "Save the planet.
107 Ellis. China. Nuclear wars Khalilzad 95 (Zalmay. Fred. Germany and. a majority of senators voted to continue the debate. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself. technological leadership for decades to come. such as nuclear proliferation. Washington Quarterly. Krupp 2009 .Climate Politics Page 107 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Cap and trade is vital to overall supremacy—we’re falling behind in the most important sector. and low-level conflicts. Finally. Senate. Second. the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -. Though it fell victim to Washington gridlock in the end. Newsweek. enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers.S. free markets. On balance. WEA) A switch to
a low-carbon energy economy would create 5 million new jobs—from the boardroom to the factory floor—that cannot be outsourced. RAND Corporation. restoring strength and confidence to the American economy. “Losing the Moment? The United
States and the World After the Cold Water”.com/id/177439/output/print. U. and the rule of law. Presidential leadership can now ensure passage of the strongest possible law. That is the energy and economic policy America and the world need now. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival. economy—and the planet.
" Kazuo Asakai. bemoaned the fact that the administration would send a small.." The president's response to the EU
of Republicans. Gelbspan 4 ." Margot Wallstrom." Her fears were well founded.editor and reporter for the Philadelphia Bulletin Washington Post and Boston Globe. as the WSSD approached. mainly from European countries. the Europeans continued to pursue a policy to slow global warming. Bush refrain from attending. That split over the climate crisis would be reflected in growing divisions between the United States and the rest of the world. centered on plans both to boost renewables and to revive what was al-ready quickly becoming a moribund Kyoto process. grasslands. a number of countries. Mathews. Chretien vowed that Canada would proceed to ratify the protocol. 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. 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. the delegates finally agreed on the role of energy in future development. Bush opened a gaping rupture between the United States and Europe on an issue of paramount importance to the Europeans—global climate change. Most tellingly. however. in the international community.W. it has rippled throughout the political. called Bush's decision "very worrying. who is president of the Carnegie
Bush administration's behavior—on this and other fronts—may well have far-reaching diplomatic." Swedish prime minister Goeran Persson was sharply critical of Bush. telling reporters that Bush's position was a heavy blow to the international effort to curb global warming. leaders of countries in Europe and elsewhere declared that made clear a month before the summit what its position would be. oil.S. the EU is no longer a junior partner. a top official in the Japanese embassy in Washing-ton. this doesn't do it. decision on Kyoto could become a turning point in trans-Atlantic relations. when Bush refused to attend the 191-nation summit—despite the presence of an array of world leaders. T. 2001. to demonstrate their concern. 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. [The Kyoto treaty] is very serious and important. "It is not in the United States' economic best interest. In an article in Foreign Policy. the world's biggest single emitter of greenhouse gases. as well as climatic. The ratification by the European Union followed a declaration. put the issue of renewable energy near the top of the world's sustain-ability agenda. In preparing for the summit. The letter made it clear that to the EU.S. the biodiversity treaty. 2001.wattpad. "Japan will be dismayed and deeply disappointed. and business arenas—pitting nations and industries against each other and even setting the federal government against many states. but it's also about international relations and economic cooperation. consequences. intransigence. she asserted
. 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." Persson said. a strong proponent of aggressive climate policies. noted that the Bush administration turned its back not only on Kyoto but also on four other major international compacts: the International Criminal Court." After a week of deadlocks and multiple drafts. exposing deep differences within the auto." she said. Not only did George W. http://www. President. an agreement "leading to real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is of the utmost importance . the ban on antipersonnel land mines.. Business Council for Sustainable Energy. The European diplomats were particularly stunned by the fact that the administration had
. the White House would try to "keep global climate change off of the agenda" at the Johannesburg meeting. But the United States
Development (WSSD). a month after his inauguration. including a skeptical Jean Chretien. Bush announced on March 13. Mitchell. But near the end of the meeting. 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. 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. it required no deadlines or timetables for action. That relatively uncompromising position set the tone for a major conference in Johannesburg two years later. Endowment for International Peace. Within a month of taking office. just weeks earlier. that he would no longer seek to regulate such power plant emissions.. the EU voted to ratify the Kyoto Protocol." Despite U.Climate Politics Page 108 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Ext. and within the business world as well. In the run-up to Johannesburg. Ironically. President George H. because it would have sent an extremely strong signal if the U. It is also an issue that is resonating here at home. he reversed his campaign promise to cap emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants. between Washington and many U. and despite the fact that a predecessor summit in 1992 in Rio had been attended by his father. 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." Regardless of the substance of any proposal by the Bush administration. "If we're truly looking to change patterns of investment. Climate Kt Leadership
Inaction on climate threatens overall leadership. memo. "It will have a tremendous impact . President George W. Bush withdrew the United States from the Kyoto Protocol because." she wrote in a March 6. eighteen months earlier. told the Washington Post. Christine Todd Whitman. and the Biological Weapons Control Treaty." according to Helmut Sonnenfeldt.com/28668-Boiling-Point-by-Ross-Gelbspan-Excerpt) Although
the battle over the climate issue is most vividly illustrated by the relentless resistance of big coal and big oil within the United States. as well as from
conservative members of the Republican Party.
"Economically. "We have lost an opportunity to move forward substantially on renewable technologies internationally. the United States.. In refusing to support these compacts." That prediction was realized in September. Bush. in the words of the president's press secretary. challenged Bush to find the "political courage" to tackle the climate crisis." said Michael Marvin.S. "Sometimes people think this is only about the environment. But failed to inform them of its plan before announcing it to the media
was unequivocally dismissive. and European commissioner Margot Wallstrom warned that the pressure was now on the United States. lower-level delegation to Johannesburg in an effort to "narrow the scope of the discussions. and insurance industries.S. "Mr. Nine days after his announcement. In November 2000. executive director of the U. In 2002. a European affairs specialist at the Brookings Institution.S. Under pressure from lobbyists in the coal industry. diplomatic. Noting Bush's promise to provide an alternative plan to the Kyoto mechanism. But the final resolution endorsed such unsustainable technologies as clean coal and large-scale hydropower. Chretien said he would listen to an American proposal but "was not waiting for it. As Senator James Jeffords (I–VT) made clear. covered the Stockholm UN
Conference on the Environment in 1973 and addressed the Davos World Economic forum in 1998 ("Boiling point". this is a credibility issue for the U. Bush's EPA administrator. Their agenda." EU spokeswoman Annika Ostergren told Reuters News Service. Jeffords. Bush received a stern letter from the fifteen-nation European Union condemning his action. prime minister of Canada. Bush's withdrawal from the Kyoto process created the impression that Bush "[is] hawkish. a Vermont Republican turned In-dependent who chaired the Senate's environmental panel. 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. acting through the Saudi Arabian and Venezuelan delegations." wrote Jessica. The letter. the European Union environmental commissioner. including then treasury secretary Paul O'Neill.
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. to demonstrate their wish to change. signed by European Commission president Romano Prodi and Swedish prime minister Goeran Persson. pushed through a resolution that would maintain coal and oil as the world's primary fuels. The consequences of the
"The U. The Bush
reach of international governance institutions. Teddy & Megan
. but not to scrap the whole protocol. It has a larger population than the
108 Ellis. allies when.S. state and city governments. "The EU is willing to discuss details and problems. unilateralist and may appear in some areas isolationist.S. had stuck with the Kyoto protocol. Six days after receiving the letter from the EU. She demanded a tight limit on the use of so-called carbon sinks—forests. Mathews. The demonstrators' anger at the United States was noted by several foreign leaders. "The European Union urges the United States to reconsider its position. "We need to appear engaged. led by the EU. to step up to the challenge. the United States was ignoring the accelerating integration of Europe. and other forms of vegetation that absorb carbon—for countries to meet emissions reduction targets.
109 Ellis." she wrote at the end of 2001.S. Climate change is the leading edge of an increasing number of problems that are truly global in scope. the world's single superpower must acknowledge that its power no longer translates . position on climate change. into a community of Western democracies and Third World dependents ready to fall into line behind U. not to mention its legitimacy and capability as a world leader. Mathews wrote. . and approximately equal gross domestic product. 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. which is epitomized by the U. leadership. posture. 'America's interests.S. are better served by [participating] in shaping rules and procedures rather than in sulking outside the tent. political or military supremacy.S.S. Though Europe cannot challenge U. Her conclusion: The current U. Teddy & Megan
.Climate Politics Page 109 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
United States. Mitchell. And these issues create a need for new rules that "nibble away at the edges of national sovereignty"—a trend that runs directly counter to the neo-nationalism of the Bush administration. a larger percentage of world trade. could well result in the loss of Americas position as global political leader. .
110 Ellis.cfr. Teddy & Megan
. industries that use lots of energy and whose goods are traded globally have some reason to be nervous
about a cap-and-trade system. CFR. and chemicals toward unregulated (or less regulated) competitors abroad.David M. 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. emissions cap. Nonetheless.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 . in principle. http://www. 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. But the devil is in the details--and the current bill gets the details
wrong. economic growth will still be able to power a vibrant and internationally competitive economy. Most companies will see at most limited changes in how they function day to day. meaning that robust U. reasonable. The
climate bill. aluminum.S. Mitchell. WEA)
Concerns about the possible competitive impact of climate regulations have been grossly exaggerated.org/publication/19674/. Michael A. "Trade and Climate Change". That approach is. cement. addresses that by providing rebates to firms in those sectors to blunt the cost. known as Waxman-Markey. The macroeconomic impact of smart climate policy will likely be small.S.
Krupp 2009 . Congress passes comprehensive. Newsweek.S. mobilize the market to find the quickest and cheapest way to reduce emissions. and
111 Ellis. he could strike a definitive blow for the forces of change: "America will cap its global-warming pollution. assuming oil averages roughly $50 a barrel. for instance.newsweek. That might seem too much to manage all at once.
contains 8. Fred." To make good on this promise.S. and for making more efficient use of energy. The winners won't be only the obvious players—solar-cell companies and wind-turbine manufacturers. waiting for Congress to provide certainty that this new commodity—carbon reductions—will have enduring value. to meet all these challenges. copper wiring. Those companies are just the tip of a giant iceberg. WEA) The new administration will face three closely linked problems—a badly damaged economy. concrete foundations and steel towers. and unlock the immense amounts of capital needed for America's innovators and entrepreneurs to remake this $6 trillion industry.President of the Environmental Defense Fund (1/31.
would allow American business to make the transition gradually.—and. customers and jobs. Obama must attack them together. Hundreds of millions of
dollars of venture capital have already flowed into the emerging technologies for capturing energy from the sun.
http://www. A cap
heat and biofuels.
A carbon cap would also create vast new demand for low-carbon energy solutions.S. he must ensure that the U. wind. ball bearings. A carbon cap would unleash America's greatest strengths—its spectacular capacity for innovation.S. "Save the planet. not the paper one that went up in flames this past fall. The right policy to confront climate change is also the best policy to achieve energy independence and enduring national security. global—manufacturing. The supply chain behind each of these renewable technologies winds its way through the heart of U.000 pieces. companies to profit from reducing that pollution. geothermal
Hundreds of billions more are poised on the sidelines.000 parts—including bolts. Each wind turbine. Mitchell. but the three are best dealt with together.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. The
right policy to protect our planet is also the best policy to revitalize the U.com/id/177439/output/print. In other words. save the country".
make those 8. Companies and workers
a comprehensive cap-and-trade bill would deliver immediate benefits in new demand. 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. its entrepreneurial spirit and the immense power of its markets and workforce. indeed. Teddy & Megan
. With seven words. the biggest business in the world. a dependence on imported oil and a rapidly deteriorating environment. striving to do no less than transform the world's energy economy. economy—the real economy. world-changing climate legislation that establishes a declining cap on carbondioxide emissions and creates a market for U.
7 Program-that emissions to year 2000 levels by 2015. http://www. Obviously.8 in 2010 (about $33 per household per month). no market penetration of new low-emission technologies (despite billions of federal R&D spending). 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.7 to 8. 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. Teddy & Megan
. and will further reduce the bill's costs by independently contributing toward the bill's modest goal of reducing CO2
112 Ellis.cfm. EIA predicts average electricity prices will increase under the bill
from 6.0 in 2020 (about $108).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. By changing this single assumption from EIA's analysis MIT found that monthly costs to the average household would be only $15 to $20. no significant fuel-shift to natural gas (despite this market's historic unpredictability). Mitchell. Also. EIA assumed. from 6.com/pubs/4419.
Public Utilities Reports. "Global Warming: The Gathering Storm".4 cents per kilowatt-hour to 6.co-chairs the Energy. Fontaine 2004 . and no continued federal and state emission reduction programs. such programs are likely to continue.pur. and from
to 9. Environmental & Public Utility Practice Group of the Cozen O'Connor law firm (Peter J. unrealistically..1 in 2025 (about $200).
Climate Politics Page 113 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
113 Ellis. Teddy & Megan
and solar. At least 70 nuclear plants would have to be built in the next decade just to replace those that are projected to be closed. attracted $71 billion in private investment last year. 6/24. In total. reports the Worldwatch Institute. This is virtually inconceivable. 6 –Christopher. lexis)
A second myth is that nuclear is now gaining worldwide acceptance.000 megawatts. Vol.
Global nuclear capacity stands at 372. 19. Meanwhile.
114 Ellis. “Nuclear industry spins new mythology”.
more than 124 reactors have been retired by the commercial nuclear industry since 1964.5 per cent in 2007. but its growth rate is lower than any other energy source. A recent Time magazine article. the nuclear industry attracted nothing. global nuclear power capacity grew by less than 2. Twelve have been under construction for 20 years or more. Is Nuclear Viable?. 34 nuclear reactors were being built worldwide. pg. Proquest)
Globally. reports that the American nuclear industry is so unattractive that it is unable to attract private investment. By the end of 2007. 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. compared to 27 per cent for wind energy. that it is experiencing a kind of renaissance. President of World Watch Institute (“Brave Nuclear World?/Commentary: Nuclear revival? Don’t bet on
it!”. While the red-hot renewable industry. reducing capacity by 36. Growth was just 0. 08 (Paul. The reality is quite different. 12. Teddy & Megan
.800 megawatts. Meanwhile. a figure equivalent to
just one-tenth of the new wind power installed globally that year. because more than half the world's nuclear power plants are over 20 years old.000 megawatts in 2007. Mitchell.Climate Politics Page 114 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Nuclear Power Decreasing
Nuclear power is dead – growth is slow and leveling off Hanley.
Global nuclear power decreasing now Flavin. July/august. The Star Pheonix (Saskatoon. nuclear power is more likely to decline than to increase in the coming years. Saskatchewan). given that only 14 are now under construction.
In Japan this is called "the dream energy.
115 Ellis.S. the myth of Midas and of Faust. Fear of total nuclear death is the source of the violence of our time. Mitchell. pg. Thus. American scientist Glenn Seaborg succeeded in isolating plutonium. nuclear energy came to the world. No civilized nation would use them on the cities of an adversary. This lethal legacy is about to become out of control. We face the extinction of our species." It is a dream of unending wealth
and power.Climate Politics Page 115 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Nuclear Power Bad – Extincion
Nuclear power risks extinction Oda. Splitting the atom created extremely toxic by. has admitted to the world at large that nuclear weapons are obsolete. Aerospace Defense Command. we left a lethal legacy to our children and future generations.products and released tremendous power. 292-293) General Charles Horner. an element whose nucleus can be split. and now that the Cold War is over. Out of guilt. the scientists felt there had to be some peaceful use. 2000 – Lecturer at the United Nations NGO Forum and Women of Vision Conference in Washington. At that moment something happened to us.C. Teddy & Megan
. as well as founder
of the organization Plutonium Free Future (Mayumi. After more than fifty years of the Nuclear Age. some way to redeem the horror they had created. John Bradley. But we all know that small bands of fanatics or terrorists might. D. Children have been living under the fear of the possibility of not being survived by anybody. In 1941. Until we remove the thorn of plutonium from the world. that wound of violence will fester and never heal. we are truly facing nuclear terror. head of the U. A thorn of violence stuck in the flesh of our Earth and started to infect us. “From Nuclear Patriarchy to Solar Community” from “Learning to Glow”. Decades of research led finally to fuel reprocessing and prototype fast-breeder reactors that forever produce more fuel than they use. ed. an alchemy transmuting common lead into unlimited quantities of gold. the oldest dream of mankind. just as King Midas inadvertently sacrificed his daughter to his greed. Gaining
the power of gods.
pg. And I think that with based on a misunderstanding status for nuclear power at that time that led to a different -. China. 07 .S.last couple of decades trying to retrieve the remnants of that program. While the Bush proposal includes taking the spent fuel back to the United
not clear that that process can be undertaken with no cheating.
It is instrumental in denying the right to build nuclear weapons to all but a handful of countries. L/n.I sort of see that theme emerging again and
themes that are strangely reminiscent of that -. Teddy & Megan
.Climate Politics Page 116 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: Nuclear Power Leadership
U. Nuclear Power is not the answer. it is only a matter of time before someone steals enough plutonium to make an adequate nuclear weapon.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 -. stating that it will use them preemptively even against non-nuclear nations. it has offered dozens of countries nuclear technology and access to nuclear power fuel. President Eisenhower
had a well-intentioned unfortunate initiative and that his "Atoms for Peace" proposal and it was well. eight nation-states-Russia. Britain.
116 Ellis. SUBJECT: CAN NUCLEAR ENERGY GO BEYOND THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005? June 18. and Pakistan-possess their own nuclear arsenals.how to use them. and by encouraging it on our terms we would have a better role. 134135)
In light of terrorist attacks using conventional weapons. rday) MR. France. it is Thus.not totally analogous but should carefully examine what we do in introducing -. 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.former deputy director of the U. KEENY: I'd just like to add one point. PANEL II OF A COUNCIL ON
FOREIGN RELATIONS SYMPOSIUM. And -.fast -. Then we proceed into the age of nuclear terrorism.
In the context of promoting nuclear energy.S Arms Control and Disarmament agency (Spurgeon. I think we should -.intentioned and was based on a thesis that nuclear power would be so commonplace that it had to be accepted as a worldwide phenomenon. India.
States. 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) -. which can then be separated by
reprocessing and converted to fuel for nuclear weapons.
Turn . Meanwhile.not necessarily stay under our control because I think -. nuclear leadership fails – overall nuclear hypocrisy makes prolif and terrorism inevitable Caldicott. The fission process makes plutonium. 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.(inaudible) -. the United States.(off mike) -.(off mike) -because we're going to have to subsidize it. Mitchell. with the world awash in plutonium and highly enriched uranium. The United States has adopted three contradictory stances at the same time: It is aggressively forging ahead to build more nuclear weapons.
These really poor undeveloping countries can't afford the capital costs of any kind of nuclear program. Going back half a century.(inaudible). 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. 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen.expanding nuclear leadership increases tech transfer – this increases prolif Keeny. even as there is much hand-wringing at the United Nations about the possibility that Iran and North Korea may be developing nuclear weapons. Israel.
the more they will want to control the fuel cycle. Teddy & Megan
. 2008 . “The
Geopolitics of Energy: From Security to Survival”. Higher energy and carbon prices will make nuclear power a more attractive option in national energy strategies. Caldicott. 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. Nuclear Power is not the answer) Adding to the danger.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. it's others who do that.aspx)
pricing carbon at a cost that will drive investment.000 megawatt nuclear reactor manufactures 500 pounds of plutonium a year. As the new president MahmoudAhmadinejad of Iran. 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen.
Ironically.Vice President and Director for Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution (Carlos. 117 Ellis. We are not the ones developing atomic bombs. Nuclear Power is not the answer. as well as the risk of materials and technology getting into the hands of terrorists.edu/papers/2008/01_energy_pascual. and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons largely from uranium enrichment facilities. Israel developed a very large nuclear arsenal from plutonium created in a reactor specifically designated for that purpose. In addition to Iran and North Korea. Many countries are angry about the paternalism and arrogance
are suspicious of our nuclear activities? . As the global nuclear industry pushes its nefarious wares upon developing countries with the patent lie about "preventing global warming. pg. 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). http://www.brookings."! Hugo Chavez of Venezuela displayed similar feelings when he said recently. new technology and conservation to control its emission – will drive another existential threat: the risk of nuclear proliferation. Mitchell. which is now actively developing uranium enrichment facilities. It is only a short step from uranium enrichment for energy to the production of highly enriched uranium suitable for atomic bomb fuel. India
created a nuclear arsenal from heavy water nuclear power plants. 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen. Nuclear energy provides the perfect cover for nuclear weapons development by militarizing states. January. nuclear
power plants offer the perfect cover. 141142) As for those nations currently vying to add nuclear capability to their arsenals.
displayed over the years by the nuclear-haves. a situation that will further destabilize an already unstable world. Nuke power causes terrorism and prolif Pascual. The risk of breakout from civilian power to weaponization would increase dramatically. A 1. "It cannot be that some countries that have developed nuclear energy prohibit those of the third world from developing it. high oil and gas prices and the actions that must be taken to address climate change – namely. normally ten pounds of plutonium is fuel for an atomic bomb. A crude atomic bomb sufficient to devastate a city could certainly be crafted from reactor grade plutonium. and the more reliant that countries become on nuclear power. this chapter will look at three of the nuclear-haves who built their
nuclear weapons arsenals using various components of the nuclear fuel cycle.. "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.. nuclear power plants are essentially atomic bomb factories. said recently when referring to the United States. suitable for bomb fuel." collateral consequences will include the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
When plutonium is extracted from spent fuel commercially. greatly reduces the physical quantity of
waste that must be permanently stored. it is argued. and it would open the door to a so-called "plutonium economy" in which breeder reactors would run on the recycled fuel. Kicking the Carbon Habit:
Global Warming and the Case for Renewable and Nuclear Energy. As for the stretching of nuclear fuels. while in some ways complicating the whole situation by creating more streams of different radioactive materials that all have to be specially handled. 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. Teddy & Megan
. is too radioactive to be readily handled by a criminal gang. 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). 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. partly to create an impression that the disposal problem is solved. 6 – Senior news editor for the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (William. left alone. Spent fuel from reactors. pg. Extraction of re-burnable uranium and plutonium from spent fuels. however.Climate Politics Page 118 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: Reprocessing Solves Prolif
Reprocessing makes prolif and terrorism more likely Sweet. producing more energy than they consume. 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. partly to stretch fuel resources. Mitchell.
118 Ellis. 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.
the 3. while they withdraw less water.D. actually consume more. Makhijani. Newer technologies. consumes around 7. The nation’s oil. natural gas. notably water resources. Nuclear power plants create weapons usable materials . coal.plutonium in current designs.913 gallons of water for every MWh of electricity it generates. if new power plants continue to be built with evaporative cooling.*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).000 Georgia homes.250 Waste from nuclear power contaminates water resources. for example. enough to service more than 196. care of construction. Advanced power plant systems that rely on re-circulating.400 MW Sherer coal facility consumes as much as 9. June.. 4 . but actually “consumes” (primarily as lost water vapor) 33 million gallons per day from the local supply. in engineering (specialization: nuclear fusion) from the
University of California at Berkeley (Arjun. they contribute even more to the nation’s water scarcity.3 billion gallons of water each day. This staggering amount is equal to the entire country’s water consumption in 1995. roughly equivalent to all the water withdrawals for irrigated agriculture in the entire United States.President of IEER. Closed-loop systems also rely on greater amounts of water for cleaning and therefore return less water to the original source.
119 Ellis.000 gallons of water per minute. the Department of Energy warned that consumption of water for electricity production could more than double by 2030. In 2006. 07 . One nuclear plant in Georgia. Thus. to 7.246 Older. less efficient plants can be much worse. and all traditional plants lose water through evaporative loss. from mill tailings to spent fuel. they accounted for almost 40 percent of all freshwater withdrawals (water diverted or withdrawn from a surface. or the equivalent of 17 Olympic-sized swimming pools every day. and nuclear facilities consume about 3. require massive supplies of water to cool reactor cores and spent nuclear fuel rods.pdf)
If projected electricity demand is met using water-intensive fossil fuel and nuclear reactors. http://www. for instance.249 With electricity demand expected to grow by approximately 50 percent in the next 25 years. in particular. 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. while modern power plants may reduce water withdrawals by up to 10 percent.ieer.
continuing to rely on fossil fuelfired and nuclear generators could spark a water scarcity crisis. America will soon be withdrawing more water for electricity production than for farming.html)
Nuclear power brings its own severe vulnerabilities
that are not related to climate change or the severe
routine pollution often associated with coal mining and oil production. Teddy & Megan
. are very long-lived and threaten essential resources. substantial amounts are lost to the local water table entirely. Because much of the water is turned to steam. Coal plants also use water to clean and process fuel. “Atomic Myths. Radioactive Realities: Why Nuclear Power Is a Poor Way to Meet Energy Needs.S. energy policy (Benjamin and Chris. Mitchell. Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). http://www. even though the details of accident mechanisms and accident probabilities vary with design.org/dev/uploads/Renewing%20America_NNEC_Final.248
Nuclear reactors.or ground-water 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.3 billion gallons per day. closed-loop cooling technology convert more water to steam that is vented to the atmosphere. and degree of independent oversight and regulation. withdraws an average of 57 million gallons every day from
the Altamaha River.newenergychoices. These vulnerabilities relate to: Nuclear
weapons proliferation: Nuclear power technology has a large overlap with nuclear weapons technology. holds a Ph.244 In 2006. Perhaps the most
important—and least discussed—advantage to a federal RPS is its ability to displace electricity generation that is extremely waterintensive.org/pubs/atomicmyths.” 2004. In Georgia. a national nonprofit organization committed to reforming U. Nuclear waste management: Wastes associated with nuclear power. Conventional power plants use thousands of gallons of water for the condensing portion of their thermodynamic cycle.245 A conventional 500 MW coal plant. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. Severe accidents: Severe accidents on the scale of Chernobyl can occur with nuclear power plants.
BECK: If I — if I
look at this — I mean. do the exact opposite of what it sets out to do. BECK: Well. because that would hurt us competitively and we'd lose business here. This is an exportation of labor. I agree with that. the policy may. And not only that.. they're saying it's not going to cost us anything. BUCKNER: How does it work for the federal. BUCKNER: Yes. It will shift our production overseas. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR: How are you doing? BECK:
Well.. oh. “Will Cap-and-Trade Cripple U. BECK: Not even that.foxnews. but also. we're going to even it out across the country.BUCKNER: You slide it in on a Friday. It is the
economics of it." They're going to take the markets. http://www.Professor of Organizational Leadership at Columbia University (David. What happened? Labor left America. but we are seeing unsustainable ideas happening here. I am. if it doesn't cost anything. Production?”.
120 Ellis. they're saying that prices have to be inherently increased so that will be an incentive to not produce products. quote. you go on vacation — they go on vacation after this. BECK: David. they're gone for a week. And everyone will follow. most likely. and next week is a holiday.. "cause domestic production to shift abroad.And so. Labor unions exercise their right to petition for greater salaries and they got them.2933. it's actually saying for these states that it wouldn't work independently. According to the EPA — EPA. I have — I have to
tell you. "Well. India and China aren't raising their labor costs. They're not running around going.. BUCKNER: No.. I mean. I don't — I don't know if it's in two months. without capand-trade rules because they can make their products cheaper there. we need to give more money to our people. DAVID BUCKNER. Why? BUCKNER: So. We increased minimum wage. the — it's not an environmental plan. I think we are witnessing the destruction of our country. I'm good. would you? BECK: Yes. Teddy & Megan
. I really do. too? But how does it work nationwide if it doesn't. We don't know whether it can ever resolve that. and we can't convince them to do it." I mean. Copenhagen in December. you know — I mean. Fox News. That's what concerns me.00. So. What they don't recognize here is that we're not seeing the full
picture. "But it won't cost you anything. two years or 20 years. the ones that get hurt.." It can't be. There is no way in which the increase in costs in America will ever remain — will keep us productive and keep us competitive. BUCKNER: You slide in on a Friday night so it doesn't hit the news cycle until Monday. You saw when our labor costs went up. this is from the governor of Virginia. I don't think I could design anything like this. "You're right. so they won't feel the public wrath. So. And the reality of it is. (CROSSTALK) BUCKNER: Because it's going to be — well. Here's
what they'll do. BUCKNER: We are seeing the cannibalization of capitalism.S. is what he's saying. 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. And it's not just about politics. it went to India and China. 6/29/09.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. 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. that we — that China and India — we can't go to." Why would that happen? When those companies take their businesses overseas. the arguments on both sides are intellectually and economically dishonest.529487. 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. There is not economic honesty in the dialogue. the president said that we have to act first. On the other side.html) Cap-and-trade might not only hurt American competitiveness. Mitchell. for America to say we can solve the global changes. We are seeing — even these environmental bills with no science and no way to pay for them — fully validated. it loses the thrust of the legislation. That will actually increase greenhouse emissions.. they're going to will wind up in countries.. It can't be. They won't. we're going to take the cost on us. I don't know if you are as pessimistic as I am. we just — we have to get this passed as a nation. how long does it take — I mean.com/story/0. On the one side. where is it. but we could never pass it just as a state. June 29th 2009. 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. we're going to shift — it's a redistribution. On the flip side of it. they're saying. The thrust of the argument is the increase in talks. BECK: So. talked about this and he said.
noting James Inhofe." Sen. The Wall Street Journal was equally honest.S. the G8 could only manage to set a target of reducing carbon emissions worldwide 80 percent by 2050. In no time they’ll create derivatives. businesses. The cap and trade plan does not meet that test for me." DA can’t solve warming.reviewmessenger. large cap-and-trade carbon securities market. most of the investment banks have already created carbon trading departments. speculators overwhelmed the oil futures market.
December. In fact. 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. Here’s what I believe we need to do to protect our environment and make us less dependent on foreign oil: . appearing before the Senate Environment Public Works Committee. By failing to reach an accord on shorterrange targets. 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. 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. the Obama administration faced setbacks to impose cap-and-trade legislation on the United States and on the world. then establish a market in which allowances for CO2 emissions would be bought and sold on a financial exchange. Don’t’ get me wrong. That speculation drove the price of oil from $60 to $147 a barrel and gasoline to more than $4 a gallon. Supporters call it a “market-based solution.Ph. Review Messenger. “G8 falls
flat on Carbon Ban”. They are ready to go. no". "Dorgan: Reduce CO2. July 17th 2009. http://www. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. India.com/index. US Senator D-ND. line and sinker.grandforksherald. India and the developing countries go along." Meanwhile. But it has to be done the right way.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.China and India need to take action as well Corsi. 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. swaps and more in that new market. actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the global climate. "I am encouraged that Administrator Jackson agrees that unilateral action by the U.. I’m willing to cap carbon to address the threat to our environment. In Italy. http://www. Just last year. all without any impact on climate.
July 17th 2009.Climate Politics Page 121 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
C&T Can’t Solve Warming
Cap and trade can’t solve warming. this cap and trade plan will be the answer to their prayers. under tight questioning from Oklahoma's Republican Sen. The American public paid the price for it. Inhofe said. I support capping carbon emissions. Teddy & Megan
.five other actions are more preferable Dorgan. Staff reporter for WND. I have little confidence that the large financial markets are free or fair enough to trust them with a new. I’m not! For those who like the wild price swings in the oil futures market. and I don’t support it. Meaningful emission reductions can only occur if China. Mitchell. 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. acting alone through the job-killing Waxman-Markey bill would impose severe economic burdens on American consumers. cap and trade. yes.” I think it is the wrong solution. But given recent history. and every day they were trading 20 to 25 times more oil than was being produced. "With China and India recently issuing statements of defiant opposition to mandatory emissions controls. will be all cost for no climate gain. in Political Science from Harvard (Jerome R. confirmed that
an Environmental Protection Agency chart did show that unilateral U. Then the same speculators forced the price back down and made money in both directions. and other developingcountry polluters – to backtrack from their own commitment to numerical targets they had planned to announce [at the G8 meeting]. I like free markets. “Cap and trade” is an approach that would have the government set caps on carbon emissions from certain sources.US Senator (Byron. Grandforks Herald. as part of far-Left climate change agenda the Obama administration has bought hook. 6/17/09. and families.com/event/article/id/126797/group/Opinion/)
I’m in favor of taking action to reduce CO2 emissions and to protect our environment. 6/17/09. D. So. But I don’t support the “cap-and-trade” plan now being debated in the Congress.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1997:g8-fallsflat-on-carbon-ban&catid=19:guest-opinion)
biomass and other renewable energy.Even as we continue to decarbonize the use of fossil energy. . biomass and other sources. we need to build a transmission system that will let us produce renewable energy where we can and move it to the load centers where it is needed. we need to move toward using electricity to fuel our transportation fleet. Teddy & Megan
. which is our country’s most abundant form of energy. we should move aggressively to maximize the production of renewable energy from wind. We have the greatest wind energy potential of any state.To move all of that new energy. solar.To fully reap the benefits of cleaner energy and reduced dependence on foreign oil. . .
122 Ellis. geothermal. And we have large deposits of coal. Mitchell. North Dakota and the nation have a lot at stake in this debate. We have the ability to produce large quantities of oil. 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.We need to set an ambitious Renewable Electricity Standard along with longer term tax incentives for the production of wind. We have the ability to produce a large quantity of biofuels. solar.I propose we use the majority of the revenue from a plan that caps CO2 to provide refunds to those who would otherwise experience increased energy costs.
Politics and baseball have a great deal in common. However. given its support by some environmental groups and a number of European governments. in the end. still pushes forcefully for a cap-and-trade scheme. and global financial systems clearly point in a different direction. 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. if the U. political resistance. To the contrary. Two. have failed to meet their targets. 2/3/09 (William. Under cap-and-trade.5 percent. with daily price shifts as great as 70 percent. in 1997. Roll Call. A cap-and-trade system is very
unlikely to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions — and more likely to introduce new. continue the present approach that relies on higher efficiency standards. Given its impact on the European Union.” More than a decade ago. while America’s carbon dioxide emissions only increased 2. While well-intentioned.S. would attract speculation and new financial derivatives. putting us at risk for another crisis. and lets a new market sort out the messy job of determining the prices of emissions. Volatility like the kind experienced in the ETS would translate into much more volatile energy prices. However. Between 2000 and 2006.com/news/31397-1.3 percent. http://www. such volatility doesn’t threaten economic stability. creating direct incentives to develop and use less carbon-intensive fuels and more energy-efficient technologies.” But here’s the catch. But the Clinton administration never even sent the Kyoto treaty to the Senate for approval. Even more regulations cannot eliminate most of cap-and-trade’s inherent price volatility or the incentives for its participants. the EU emissions jumped by 3. Japan.Climate Politics Page 123 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
C&T Can’t Solve Warming
Can’t solve warming – too many daunting problems.rollcall. Going forward. the United Nations. Eleven years have elapsed. Another factor is the “offset” permits that European “transition” economies. the incoming administration and Members
of the 111th Congress will have to carefully weigh all the serious options being proposed to reduce carbon emissions. for example. issues emission permits to covered industries and creates a market for trading permits. Roll Call. Mitchell. based on the Kyoto protocols covering most of Europe. to break a deadlock and gain support from Russia and other developing nations that were effectively exempt from reducing their emissions. the prices for ETS permits are highly volatile. proposing a 2012 target for the U. new auto technology and lower emission technology. The core idea is that businesses that can cut their emissions targets most cheaply will do so and sell permits to those who cannot. drafted the Kyoto Protocol. President Bill Clinton.com/news/32007-1.rollcall. mandate a cap-andtrade system. can sell to other ETS members. and it’ll destroy the economy Shapiro. But basic economics punctuated by the developments now gripping the U. The treaty imposed deep cuts in emissions for developed countries. These regimes may offer the path of least current.S. “The Real Choice Between Cap-and-Trade and CarbonBased Taxes”.
One reason is that major emitters such as Germany simply exempt many of their facilities generating greenhouse gases. looked at the consequences and blinked. leaving everyone better off. Teddy & Megan
. they have increased energy costs. emissions under the ETS have actually
increased by 10 percent. voters should be thankful we passed. that was 7 percent below 1990 levels. Since the entire
global permit market only currently amounts to some $60 billion. Washington
our economic growth was much stronger. but still allowed to sell “excess” permits to us and Europe. including governments.
Can’t solve warming – cheating is inevitable O’Keefe. once we set aside those offsets. the government sets an annual “cap” on greenhouse gas emissions.Co-Founder of the U. unsettling everyone’s markets and undermining investment. In the first two years of the EU cap-and-trade system. Three. gives away or auctions permits to produce those emissions. the debate will largely boil down to the last two choices. One. The system also has failed to establish a stable price for carbon — a goal widely considered a prerequisite for any effective climate change effort. some U. themselves exempt from caps. it seems that some politicians have already made up their minds before real debate has even begun. reduces that limit over time. American voters have heard this before. 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. my former boss. legislators are currently pushing to impose a similar emissions scheme here in the States. The best way to do both is to give up cap-and-trade and learn to love carbon-based taxes. arguing : “I tried [a carbon tax] once. the increased costs under cap-and-trade will be hidden in the added costs of goods
123 Ellis. Burned by the political firestorm over his proposed BTU tax in 1993. trillion-dollar risks for the financial system. with strong support from Vice President Al Gore.S. Though both policies will raise the price of energy. These are the main reasons why the father of climate-change politics. President-elect Barack Obama is committed equally to fighting climate change and restoring economic growth. there’s little if any evidence that the ETS has had any effect at all on emissions in Europe. Despite all of these environmental and economic failings of the EU cap-and-trade system. According to a new report by the Government Accountability Office. It didn’t work for me. were to join Europe — and China as well — in cap-and-trade. A carbon tax system would apply a stable price to carbon. In that respect. a system that sets a limit on emissions. cap-andtrade systems are riddled with daunting problems. the major Kyoto signatories. http://www. impose a carbon tax. As last Thursday’s House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing illustrated. traded on financial markets. The Clinton/Gore administration made the same promise but. Al Gore now prefers carbon-based taxes over cap-and-trade. And the volatile prices for the permits themselves. To achieve that. “This is like déjà vu all over again.S. Head of the Economic Advisory Firm Sonecon and
Undersecretary of Commerce in the Clinton Administration. According to a recent study in Nature.5 percent per month. to evade or manipulate the system.html)
We all have a moral imperative to get climate policy right. And since it’s unlikely that politicians will opt to maintain the status quo. it’d be a different story entirely. The clearest illustration of the problems with cap-and-trade is the European Trading Scheme. permits prices moved up or down by an average of 17. Climate Task Force (Robert. In the words of Yogi Berra. The Democratic Congressional leadership supports cap-and-trade. 1/15/09. “Time for a Fresh Debate Over America’s
Climate Policy”. (That’s even more significant when you account for the fact that
Not only have the EU emissions policies missed their objectives.) has three options. toward a carbon-based tax program with most of the revenues recycled in forms of tax relief. This was the approach then-Vice President Al Gore proposed at the climate summit in Kyoto. Chief Executive Officer at Marshall Institute.S. stunted economic growth and spawned cheating in the carbon trading system. and in that time almost all EU nations.
Good public policy makes for good politics. options. the government policies responsible for higher prices under a carbon tax are clearly visible to consumers. And
there’s no convincing evidence that cap-and-trade will work or that it would work as well as a carbon tax. more transparent one. Obama indicated he would oppose government programs that don’t work. So before America’s leaders drag the public through a decade-old debate “all over again. objective. there’s less chance of accountability. as such. the resulting increased prices could be offset by reducing the payroll tax. opaque system over a simpler. It requires an elaborate bureaucracy to operate. cap-and-trade is intended to stabilize energy prices and provide incentives to develop new technologies. putting more money into the hands of workers. cap-and-trade spawns vested interests that will lobby hard to protect their interests and preserve the system. On top of that. In reality. These taxes add to the cost of emission-producing energies and. leaving voters vulnerable to further exploitation of financial instruments. There are serious doubts whether it will accomplish either. Mitchell. A carbon tax. That means this policy will advantage average Americans rather than Wall Street traders while still discouraging carbon emissions. places a price on carbon and then allows the market to respond. In theory.” Congress should take a fresh. Teddy & Megan
. In his inaugural address. And the advantages of a carbon tax are good public policy. the option favored by an increasing number of economists and analysts. Given the current economic pain and disruption generated by the financial sector meltdown. and careful look at all of our policy
to date. understand why so many continue to favor a more complex. it’s difficult to
enriching traders and promoting the kind of lobbying that’s inevitable with cap-and-trade. it’s a stealth tax. create incentives to find alternatives without
In contrast to a CO2 trading market. administer and enforce it. And unlike a direct tax. Without transparency.Climate Politics Page 124 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
July 18th 2009.
http://blog. 7/21/09 (“A Baker’s Dozen of Reasons to Oppose Cap and Trade”. there are many against this bill. cause electric bills
and fuel prices to sharply increase.
10. This letter made three declarations: ■ 1.heritage.
125 Ellis. and other countries are key The Foundry. There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity have in the past. "Beware the consequences of cap-and-trade". and carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life. Mark Warner and urge them to vote against cap-and-trade. now or will ever cause catastrophic climate change. Leading scientists acknowledge that computer models can’t predict climate.)
No impact to warming – average rates are natural and CO2 emissions aren’t out of control Hartman. Mitchell.S.com/news/2009/jul/18/beware-consequences-cap-and-trade/)
As far as scientists supporting cap-and-trade to stop global warming. In conclusion. Teddy & Megan
. and be highly susceptible to fraud and corruption in a time when Americans can’t afford it. sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change. in an International Conference on Climate Change. ■ 2.org/2009/07/21/a-baker’s-dozen-of-reasons-to-oppose-cap-and-trade/)
There’s no environmental benefit. I
challenge The Tidewater News to obtain and reprint an article written in 2008 by Eric Creed entitled “The Greatest Hoax Ever Perpetrated. 13.tidewaternews. In short those few who earn the money to pay the taxes can‘t afford to perpetuate this hoax. 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. and none of the changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability. 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. I suggest all concerned taxpayers contact U. The Foundry. and there has been no net global warming since 1998. more than 500 scientists closed the conference with what is referred to as the “Manhattan Declaration”: Global climate has always changed and always will. On Dec. a hundred scientists
wrote a letter to the secretary-general of the United Nations.000 years.doesn’t low temperatures. It will kill American jobs. 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. On March 4. Jim Webb and Sen. 7/18/09 (Ed. 2007. Sen. July 21st 2009. independent of the actions of humans.
http://www.Climate Politics Page 125 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
C&T Can’t Solve Warming
Cap and trade won’t solve warming. 2008. ■ 3. 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. Recent observations of the phenomena such as glacial retreats. cap-and-trade is wrong because it’s a massive new energy tax.” He covers much information refuting the global-warming mantra.
In fact.cfm. http://www. Mitchell.
**research assistant in the Thomas A. if any. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (4/23.heritage. the EPA. Teddy & Megan
.2 degrees Loris and Lieberman 2009 .*senior policy analyst in Energy and the Environment for the Heritage Foundation.1 to 0.
126 Ellis.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2407. 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 . Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2407. environmental benefit. WEA) The extraordinary perils of CO2 regulation for the American economy come with little. "Five Reasons the EPA Should Not Attempt to Deal with Global Warming". strongly suggests that a 60 percent reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2050 will reduce global temperature by 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2095.
S. but because “it’s the best we can do. energy system until cost-effective and reliable alternative energy sources are developed. Mitchell.”.S. international cooperation remains a major stumbling block to addressing global climate change. is how to accomplish that goal.
and-trade system is the best approach. the renewable electricity standard. shutting out many qualified minority. or RES. Nonetheless.html) The U. ACES contains dangerous provisions that could lead to widespread lawsuit abuse. but what we got with
127 Ellis. Politico. “Waxman-Markey bill: 'this isn’t the
best of U. This bill is not the best we can do. ACES does not do a good job of ensuring those alternatives will be available. nor does it adequately preempt state and regional greenhouse gas programs. Act was deeply flawed. And by applying the Davis-Bacon Act. 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.com/news/stories/0709/24837. will add costs and distort the workings of the carbon market the bill would establish. A feasible cap-and-trade system might work. First. It does not fully and permanently protect America’s 27 million small businesses from being forced to comply with costly standards. Third. of course. Fred Krupp. If the objective is to allow the market to work to find the lowest-cost solutions.Climate Politics Page 127 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
C&T Fails – Warming
Even if they win all of their arguments. Teddy & Megan
. along with many of the other mandates in the bill.S’. A few months ago in The Wall Street Journal.” This may be the greatest indictment issued against the legislative branch since Joseph Welch questioned Joe McCarthy’s sense of decency. Fourth. Chamber of Commerce strongly supports comprehensive legislation to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases while providing for a strong American economy. or ACES. made the argument that a “well-designed” cap-
the American Clean Energy and Security. Chamber Representative. the bill will result in diminished competition. among other weakness.S. Second. The bill fails to equitably allocate credits to the refinery sector. 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. 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. based on a failing European model that they themselves are looking to abandon.politico. and here are four quick reasons why. and nonunion businesses from the entire market. by far. 7/13/09. Chamber Of Commerce (William.the current version of cap and trade will fail – carbon fuels are inevitable and international cooperation is more important Kovacs. July 13th 2009. president of Environmental Defense Fund. The question. Furthermore. small. http://www.U. carbon-based fuels are and will remain for decades the backbone of the U. picking technology winners and losers is not the way to go about it.
proposing a 2012 target for the U. once we set aside those offsets. putting more money into the hands of workers. with daily price shifts as great as 70 percent.
But basic economics punctuated by the developments now gripping the U.5 percent. It requires an elaborate bureaucracy to operate. cap-and-trade spawns vested interests that will lobby hard to protect their interests and preserve the system. reduces that limit over time. Going forward. The system also has failed to establish a stable price for carbon — a goal widely considered a prerequisite for any effective climate change effort. have failed to meet their targets. The clearest illustration of the problems with cap-and-trade is the European Trading Scheme.com/news/31397-1. voters dioxide emissions only increased 2. These taxes add to the cost of emission-producing energies and. trilliondollar risks for the financial system. there’s little if any evidence that the ETS has had any effect at all on emissions in Europe.) Not
only have the EU emissions policies missed their objectives. the resulting increased prices could be offset by reducing the payroll tax. 9 (Robert. given its support by some environmental groups and a number of European governments.
new auto technology and lower emission technology.S.
Cap and trade fails – evasion and manipulation Roll Call. 2/3 http://www. based on the According to a recent study in Nature. And since it’s unlikely that politicians will opt to maintain the status quo. The treaty imposed deep cuts in emissions for developed countries. One. Eleven years have elapsed. my former boss. cap-and-trade is intended to stabilize energy prices and provide incentives to develop new technologies. the major Kyoto signatories. increasing number of economists and analysts.
never even sent the Kyoto treaty to the Senate for approval. arguing : “I tried [a carbon tax] once. it’d be a different story entirely. the debate will largely boil down to the last two choices. they have increased energy costs. leaving voters vulnerable to further exploitation of financial instruments. and lets a new market sort out the messy job of determining the prices of emissions. Another factor is the “offset”
up or down by an average of 17. The core idea is that businesses that can cut their emissions
targets most cheaply will do so and sell permits to those who cannot. stunted economic growth and spawned cheating in the carbon trading system. the option favored by an
administer and enforce it. In contrast to a CO2 trading market. Two. it’s difficult to understand why so many continue to favor a more complex. the increased costs under cap-and-trade will be hidden in the added costs of goods and services. the prices for ETS permits are highly volatile. “The Real Choice Between Cap-and-Trade and Carbon-Based Taxes”. Burned by the political firestorm over his proposed BTU tax in 1993. There are serious doubts whether it will accomplish either.S. issues emission permits to covered industries and creates a market for trading permits. permits prices moved
permits that European “transition” economies. In the first two years of the EU cap-and-trade system. the government policies responsible for higher prices under a carbon tax are clearly visible to consumers. Washington has three options. but still allowed to sell “excess” permits to us and Europe. for example. Though both policies will raise the price of energy. some U. still pushes forcefully for a cap-and-trade scheme. emissions under the ETS have actually increased by 10 percent. To the contrary. Between 2000 and 2006. toward a carbon-based tax program with most of the revenues recycled in forms of tax relief.5 percent per month.3 percent. One reason is that major emitters such as Germany simply exempt many of their facilities generating greenhouse gases. unsettling everyone’s markets
128 Ellis. if the U. According to a new report by the Government Accountability Office.com/news/32007-1. gives away or auctions permits to produce those emissions. opaque system over a simpler. And unlike a direct tax. (That’s even more significant when you account for the fact that our economic growth was much stronger. On top of that.
Kyoto protocols covering most of Europe. Given the current economic pain and disruption generated by the financial sector meltdown. Without transparency.html) More than a decade ago.
A cap-and-trade system is very unlikely to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions — and more likely to introduce new.S. A carbon tax.Climate Politics Page 128 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: C&T Solves Warming
Won’t solve warming – EU system failed O’Keefe. Given its impact on the should be thankful we passed. mandate a cap-and-trade system. Despite all of these environmental and economic failings of the EU cap-and-trade system. Roll Call. That means this policy will advantage average Americans rather than Wall Street traders while still discouraging carbon emissions. political resistance. that was 7 percent below 1990 levels. Three. in 1997. cap-and-trade systems are riddled with daunting problems. leaving everyone better off.
In theory. However. legislators are currently pushing to impose a similar emissions scheme here in the States. a system that sets a limit on emissions.html) While well-intentioned. create incentives to find alternatives without enriching traders and promoting the kind of lobbying that’s inevitable with cap-and-trade. Chief Executive Officer @ Marshall Institute. These regimes may offer the path of least current. President Bill Clinton. Mitchell.rollcall. with strong support from Vice President Al Gore. Under cap-and-trade. were to join Europe — and China as well — in cap-and-trade. continue the present approach that relies on higher efficiency standards. there’s less chance of accountability. “Time for a Fresh Debate Over America’s Climate
Policy”. impose a carbon tax. as such. while America’s carbon
But the administration European Union. Teddy & Megan
. The Democratic Congressional leadership supports cap-and-trade.” But here’s the catch. more transparent one. It didn’t work for me. themselves exempt from caps. such volatility doesn’t threaten economic stability. In reality.rollcall. can sell to other ETS members. 9 (William. the government sets an annual “cap” on greenhouse gas emissions. Japan. drafted the Kyoto Protocol. This was the approach then-Vice President Al Gore proposed at the climate summit in Kyoto. and in that time almost all EU nations.
Volatility like the kind experienced in the ETS would translate into much more volatile energy prices. it’s a stealth tax. the EU emissions jumped by 3.S. to break a deadlock and gain support from Russia and other developing nations that were effectively exempt from reducing their emissions.1/15
http://www. the United Nations. and global financial systems clearly point in a different direction. Since the entire global permit market only currently amounts to some $60 billion. places a price on carbon and then allows the market to respond.
And the volatile prices for the permits themselves. Mitchell.
129 Ellis. including governments. putting us at risk for another crisis.Climate Politics Page 129 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
and undermining investment. Even more regulations cannot eliminate most of capand-trade’s inherent price volatility or the incentives for its participants. would attract
speculation and new financial derivatives. to evade or manipulate the system. Teddy & Megan
. Al Gore now prefers carbon-based taxes over cap-and-trade. These are the main reasons why the father of climate-change politics. traded on financial markets.
130 Ellis. we will avoid encouraging new building and development in low-lying coastal plains.
The world wouldn't lose its wetlands due to rising sea levels. The real impact would be on man-made structures.
might even prefer it. the problem is not great. 200 years. is miniscule compared with the storm surge of a powerful hurricane like Fredrick or Camille. and their interface will be rich with competing organisms.
The problem is not sea levels per se. What about low-lying islands? As previously noted. Actually. The point here is that we live on a planet where the climate has been changing constantly for the past billion years. Six inches per century is slow. The massive problems inflicted by Hurricane Katrina on the city of New Orleans and the communities of the Gulf Coast in 2005 underscore that point. but if it continues for the next five hundred 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. infrastructure that can withstand the severe weather events that we know are going to continue. is that they invest today in
is to inform developers and industries of the potential climate risks and rewards in Alabama. and remind us that normal hurricane risks are amplified as our cities grow and our people seek waterfronts on which to live and play. A dike would be expensive. which would have to be abandoned or moved inland. America should stop encouraging high-risk waterside building through government-financed flood insurance. over 100 years. Prof.000 Tuvaluans. spreading disease. Coastal areas threatened today will be threatened in the future. halting economic activity. or even 50 years.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.500 Years”. 160-161)
A continued slow rise in sea levels is probably the biggest problem for humans likely to arise from a moderate global warming. John Christy. But if they were. 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. if one is able to survive the storms. and water systems. say. as they have so many times in the past. I am very frank in pointing out the dangers of beachfront property along the Gulf Coast. Director of Global Food Issues @ Hudson Institute. but the storm surges from huge tropical cyclones that have hit the country every three to four years in recent decades. poisoning soils. and beach combers. Teddy & Megan
. but perhaps it will need to be done. which will continue. p. among other actions. improvement in storm water drainage systems and avoiding hurricane-prone coastal development. President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project and
Distinguished Research Professor @ George Mason. building a dike around Bangladesh may not be a bad idea anyway. Mitchell. or even longer? If we are wise. emigration does not present insurmountable problems. and horseshoe crabs—not to mention sand fleas. and it would have to be done with great sensitivity to the coastal wetlands. roads. The amount of land involved would be trivial. biting flies. and inflicting massive amounts of physical damage on buildings. How many buildings near coasts are built with the expectation that they will last 100 years." 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. coastal forests. since there are only about 11. whether or not sea levels are rising. The main point I stress. We expect a continued abundance of the corals. Alabama state climatologist. this is a smaller problem than the alarmists have claimed. Tougher zoning for low-lying
areas and tougher building codes for areas within reach of storm surges make sense. recently testified before Congress: One of my duties in the office of the State Climatologist
A sea level rise of 6 in. it would cause significant coastal changes. Still. bridges. will be very slow and thus give decades of opportunity for adaptation. the floods of salt water often stay for weeks. Even here. At the very least. However. mosquitoes. The wetlands and their species would simply move slightly upslope. “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1. to state and local agencies as well as industries. the Tuvaluans do not appear to be threatened by rising sea levels. And. The sea level rise. These investments include extending floodway easements. and Dennis.
the article was a compendium of many researchers' previous work and therefore included little that was scientifically new. 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. 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. Everything else being equal. that's a major scientific disease vector.g.Climate Politics Page 131 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: Disease Spread
Climate plays a tiny role in disease spread Michaels 4 (Patrick. Politicians. Rather. given a small change in climate. 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. some diseases will spread somewhat and others will recede somewhat. Politicians. p. genetic
engineering and sanitation. Teddy & Megan
variation has made it challenging to associate climate warming with disease prevalence or severity.
131 Ellis. Think about technology. “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists. After all. and the Media”. In fact. Environmental Sciences
@ UVA. edition of Science contained a review article by Drew Harvell of Cornell University and six coauthors titled. "Climate Warming and Disease Risks for Terrestrial and Marine Biota. 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. We found no unequivocal examples of natural changes in severity or prevalence resulting from directional climate warming per se. Difficulty in separating directional climate change from short-term
controversial... Mitchell. Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies @ Cato and Prof. Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies @ Cato and Prof. Whether [vector-borne disease] expansions are due primarily to climate change or other anthropogenic influences (e. The paper is filled with caveats
like those. and the Media”. antibiotics. Here are some excerpts: Associations between climate and disease do not necessarily imply causation... 187)
The plain truth is that climate plays an extremely minor role in the transmission of pathogens. Environmental Sciences
Scientific studies prove there is no clear relationship between warming and disease spread Michaels 4 (Patrick." As a review. 2002. Change in climate is so small by comparison that it is nearly irrelevant. “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists. p. as is predicting future distributional changes in disease prevalence. as scientific writing should be when it is about something as nebulous as how climate might potentially affect disease. to name a few things that sure aren't "equal" over time and distance. In today's climate. 186-187)
The June 21. But to assume everything else will be equal is a poor scientific assumption.
Asia. published in Moberg et al. including the 1930s drought…
These droughts were extremely severe and lasted for three to six years.” • “Coincident droughts. or the same droughts. occurred once or twice a century for the past three centuries (for example.it doesn’t correlate to temperature Lewis 6 (Marlo. are apparent in tree-ring records from Mexico to British Columbia. Similarly. “Scare Mongering as Journalism: A
Commentary on Time’s “Special Report” on Global Warming”. in terms of duration and spatial extent.org/pdf/5288. a long time for such severe drought conditions to persist in this region of North America. dated 12 November 2003: • “An inspection of the maps shows that
droughts similar to the 1950s. dry and wet periods have alternated during periods of both warming and cooling. For centuries.Climate Politics Page 132 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
No increases in drought ---. and Europe fail to confirm a link between warming and drought. http://cei. there is no apparent relationship between temperature and dryness (or wetness) in Northern Hemisphere data. 4-28. Senior Fellow @ Competitive Enterprise Institute.pdf)
alarmists claim that global warming makes droughts more frequent and severe. by the staff of the NOAA Paleoclimatology Program. and from California to the East Coast. Teddy & Megan
. (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. Consider these excerpts from North American Drought: A Paleo Perspective. Mitchell.”
132 Ellis. during the 1860s. 1730s). but analyses of climate data from Africa. Consider
Comment: Climate the table below.” • “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. 1820s.
How about this one: Acreage burned = X (temperature) – Y (rainfall). the total "change" in the climate-related signal according to our model is minus 300. the average was a little around 5 million acres per year going up in smoke. It's shown graphically in Figure 6.000 acres.)
reduced fire in the United States.000 acres is a needle buried in an annual 5. an average of 25 million combusted in the 1920s. say.3 inches. Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies @ Cato and Prof. Figure 6. Consider what's happened since Bambi.000 acres. Mitchell.Climate Politics Page 133 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
No increase in forest fires ---. the 2.000 more burned acres. you can't tell the climate signal from the random noise.12 shows summer (June— September) temperatures since 1960. the 1930s.000 more acres per year. and Figure 6.000.000. The computer calculates that X is approximately equal to 700. It's
not very hard to take the temperature. and rain. about 38 million acres went up each year. it was also around 5 million. In other words. Politicians. Despite our straightforward math. We hear more about it. you specify an equation that defines a
hypothesis about the way something works. that a
year that is one degree warmer than normal will have 700. Figure 6. the 0. p. when we look at. Y is equal to 400.5. “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists. on the average.
Scientifically speaking.) Before the 1942 release of Bambi. and burn data and turn it into a mathematical "model. 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. we used to just let things burn. There is a warming trend. This little "model" explains a bit less than half of the total year-to-year variation in acreage burned in the United States. heat. and the Media”. a rise of about 0. or in the current era of irrational fire suppression. In the 1960s. That net change of minus 300. but that doesn't mean there's more to hear about.13 is decadal average precipitation over the United States.000.3-inch rise in rainfall means that we're burning 930. (In the cool 1960s." First. This isn't just a straw doe.000fewer acres because of the increased moisture. That's part of the reason why. 142-145)
It is also one of the easiest to dispute.3 inches of rain per year.000-acre foreststack.they’re decreasing burned acres Michaels in ‘4 (Patrick.14.11 shows 10-year averages for acreage burned in the United States. Teddy & Megan
. we averaged about 28. Environmental
Sciences @ UVA. Since 1960. (And don't assume your
133 Ellis. rainfall. But there's also an increase in precipitation. By the 1990s that moved up to 30. 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 cartoon deer who probably spawned more ecological mismanagement and traffic fatalities than any other animal in cinematic history. But. In the warm 1990s.9°F in the period. or a rise of 2.9 degree rise in temperature means that we are burning 630. which means. So every inch of rain above normal reduces the annual burn by 400.
What seems clear is that a huge amount of heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases -. For instance. led by Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii. A trio of Earth scientists. which leads to the loss of more ice. scientists said on Monday. Some of these so-called "positive feedbacks" are already known. Mitchell. 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. "Mystery mechanism drove global warming 55 million years ago".700 parts per million (ppm).natural. estimates the planet's surface temperature blasted upwards by between five and nine degrees Celsius (nine and 16.5 C (1.google. the team found. try to account for the carbon that was spewed out during PETM. and so on. Previous research into this period.
http://www.3 F) of PETM's warming if the models for
climate sensitivity are right.8-6. this exposes the uncovered sea to sunlight. which in turn helps the sea to warm.
But all this CO2 can only account for between one and 3. attaining a concentration of between four and five times that of today. That causes the sea to warm.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jXKGlsM4aZXPmItKk9TowSECsEYg. as opposed to man-made -. depriving it of a bright. "Our results imply a fundamental gap in our understanding about the amplitude of global warming associated with large and abrupt climate perturbations.
"This gap needs to be filled to confidently predict future climate change. Even though there are big differences between Earth's geology and ice cover then and now. the findings are relevant as they highlight the risk of hidden mechanisms that add dramatically to warming. as this could shed light on aspects of global warming today. says the paper.
But these "feedbacks" are poorly understood and some scientists believe there could be others still to be identified." warns Zeebe's team.2 degrees Fahrenheit) in just a few thousand years.Climate Politics Page 134 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Greenhouse Theory Flawed
The dominant greenhouse theory is incomplete—it fails to explain past warming. called the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. or about the temperature of a lukewarm bath. They believe that levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) rose by 70 percent during PETM's main phase to reach 1. AFP 4/13/2009 (Agence France Presse. The Arctic Ocean warmed to 23 C (73 F). The theorised sources include volcanic activity and the sudden release of methane hydrates in the ocean.were disgorged in a very short time. There must have been some other factor that stoked temperatures higher. Teddy & Megan
134 Ellis. when a patch of Arctic sea ice melts. reflective layer.
How PETM happened is unclear but climatologists are eager to find out. or PETM.
known as the “Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum” (PETM). 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. "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 -. What caused the remainder of the warming is a mystery. for unknown reasons." In their most recent assessment report in 2007. "Could we be wrong about global warming?".com/sciencefair/2009/07/could-we-be-wrong-about-global-warming. 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.
The conclusion. Average temperatures worldwide rose by around 13 degrees in the relatively short geological span of about 10. This makes the PETM one of the best ancient climate analogues for present-day Earth.000 years.html.the ones used to predict global warming -.all be wrong? Maybe so. theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record. Mitchell. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models. is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of this ancient warming.
135 Ellis. the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. WEA)
Could the best climate models -." says oceanographer Gerald Dickens.
http://blogs. study co-author and professor of Earth Science at Rice University in Houston.caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM."
During the warming period. As the levels of carbon increased. global surface temperatures also rose dramatically during the PETM. "In a nutshell. Rice 7/14/2009 (Doyle. Dickens said. USA Today Science Fair.Climate Politics Page 135 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Climate Models Bad
Climate models are inaccurate—newest journals flow our way. Teddy & Megan
. says a new study published online today in the journal Nature Geoscience.usatoday.
Climate Politics Page 136 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
C&T Bad – Economy
Cap and trade kills the economy.heritage. energy costs. Teddy & Megan
.jobs. GDP. The Foundry. July
21st 2009. businesses The Foundry. Mitchell.org/2009/07/21/a-baker’s-dozen-of-reasons-to-oppose-cap-andtrade/)
136 Ellis. http://blog. 7/21/09 (“A Baker’s Dozen of Reasons to Oppose Cap and Trade”.
we find that the average per-family-of-four costs rise by almost $3. Mitchell.7 million jobs in each year of the policy through 2030–after accounting for “green job” creation. natural gas prices would rise by an estimated 16%. hitting a high of $662 billion in 2035.” Policymakers sought to protect consumers. 5.000 per year. a supporter of a carbon tax. the accumulated GDP lost is $9. “Relative to total expenditure. 4. From 2012 to 2035. like most debates in Washington.) It will increase your energy bills. the burden on the poor obviously becomes heavier. job loss will be 1. selective hearing can dictate what you believe Waxman-Markey will do to the economy and how it will affect global warming. there is a projected 2. Since 85 percent of America’s energy needs come from carbon emitting fossil fuels.Climate Politics Page 137 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
cap and trade debate.) It will reduce economic growth. All three aforementioned studies found significant losses in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). especially the poor. for the average year over the 2012-2035 timeline. since low-income households spend a larger percentage of their income on energy. 6. The carbon dioxide reduction
targets are still the same at the end of the day. Here are thirteen reasons to oppose cap and trade. Brookings predicts GDP in the United States would be lower by 2. 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. it’s about $71. projects that cap and trade will increase unemployment would by 0. by reducing their workforce for example.500 to be exact.600. 1. Since renewables are lavished with substantial tax breaks. But Heritage isn’t alone in these estimates. stimulating the economy while igniting a green revolution. the poor pay more […]. electricity prices would jump 90 percent.5 percent in 2050 and the National Black Chamber estimates that in GDP will be 1. the years in which we modeled the bill. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that.15
million jobs. 2. that’s equivalent to about 1. however. A study done by Charles River Associates prepared for the National Black Chamber of Congress projects higher unemployment of 2.000 per year. the tax impact is $4. cap and trade would be massive tax on energy consumption.5 million fewer jobs than without a cap-and-trade bill. CRA’s and the Black Chamber’s study found that relative to the baseline. why is all this even necessary?
137 Ellis.3-2. the other
says it’s expensive. When all the tax impacts have been added up. You hear it won’t cost Americans families very much – about a stamp per day is what proponents of the bill say. In the year 2035 alone. from higher energy prices by handing out rebate checks or tax cuts. Depending on what side of the political isle you fall on.) It hits low-income households hardest. If only a small portion (15 percent) of the energy tax revenue is given back to the consumer. 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. Although upper income families tend to use more energy (and thus emit more carbon per household). If cap and trade were so sure to work. our primary measure of economic activity. all in the year 2030. Heritage found the average GDP lost is $393 billion. Teddy & Megan
.4 trillion (in 2009 dollars).7 million fewer jobs than without cap and trade.5 percent ($730 billion) below the baseline in 2050. home heating oil would increase 56 percent. a national mandate will cost Americans both as taxpayers and as ratepayers. Washington is forcing costlier energy options on the public. By 2035. Heritage’s CDA found that by 2035 gasoline prices would increase 58 percent. 3. The Brookings Institute.) It will cost a family-of-four an additional $3.S. Rebates or
not. has become a numbers game. You hear it’s a jobs bill – that investing billions of dollars in new green technologies that will create or save millions of jobs.) It will destroy 1. electricity prices go up by 22% and gasoline increases by 23 center per gallon. Census population projection estimates.1 million greater than the baseline assumptions. In effect. Nothing could be further from the truth. and thus doing damage that no check would cover.500. That’s a lot of postage stamps—162.3 percent ($350 billon) below the baseline in 2030 and 1. One side says it’s cheap. the poor suffer most. And if you add up the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035. Cap and trade is an energy tax that falls disproportionately on the poor. and the way they will be met is by raising the price of energy high enough so people use less. Using U. saying.) More subsidies for unproven technologies and energy sources.5% in the first decade below the baseline.
Proponents of a carbon cap acknowledge this. and worst of all. A federally mandated RES is proposed only because renewables are too expensive to compete otherwise. the higher energy prices would reduce economic activity by forcing businesses to cut costs elsewhere.
natural gas prices would increase 55 percent.
as the climate change zealots propose to erect trade barriers to raise the costs of foreign products produced under less severe environmental policy constraints.S. whether consistent with WTO agreements or not. If Congress and the President do embark on such a potentially treacherous course. categories that include virtually every product in our economy.
**research assistant in the Thomas A. http://www. 138 Ellis.S. http://author.S.org/Research/tradeandeconomicfreedom/wm2408. imposing a cost on CO2 is equivalent to placing an economy-wide tax on energy use. companies and policymakers may find it fair for the government to prop up domestic businesses. 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. households and firms will face much higher costs for energy and energy-intensive goods. the potential for nations to retaliate against U. Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2407. restrictions. Hard-pressed U. Many such
trade restrictions could violate World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and lead to legal sanctions against the U.S.cfm. Heritage Foundation. C&T Kills Economy
Climate bill will decimate economic growth – higher costs and trade restrictions Markheim 2009 .
When all these negative effects are taken into account. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (4/23. single-year GDP losses exceeding $600 billion in some years (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).*senior policy analyst in Energy and the Environment for the Heritage Foundation.heritage. higher energy prices fall disproportionately on the poor. against foreign competitors whose governments have chosen to be less draconian. whose profitability will have been destroyed by new climate change regulations. "Five Reasons the EPA Should Not Attempt to Deal with Global Warming".
Above anything else. Teddy & Megan
. Any U. since low-income households spend a larger percentage of their income on energy.S. Daniella. Hit particularly hard is manufacturing. Even when the economy does recover. the EPA's proposed global warming policy would severely limit economic growth. economy runs on fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide. But importantly.S. High energy costs result in production cuts. Some U. increased unemployment. Since 85 percent of the U. which will see job losses in some industries that exceed 50 percent. ensures billions of dollars lost from the GDP each year and increases unemployment Loris and Lieberman 2009 .org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2407. WEA)
any attempt to reduce carbon dioxide would be poison to an already sick economy. "Climate policy: free trade promotes a cleaner environment". climate regime does far more harm than good and should be avoided.
Cap and trade destroys economic growth – taxes all energy use.000 for several years. 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. energy cost increases of 30 percent or more. consumers and producers will find no relief from artificially inflated prices by turning to lower-cost imports.Climate Politics Page 138 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Ext.heritage. it is clear that the adoption of protectionist polices as a part of a U. Even if some of the proposed measures hold up against legal scrutiny in the WTO. America's trade
partners are unlikely to agree. WebMemo #2408. trade measures is very real. reduced consumer spending.S. WEA)
The projected cost of a climate scheme on the U. Mitchell.S. and ultimately a much slower economy. 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). and annual job losses exceeding 800.cfm.Jay Van Andel senior trade policy analyst int he Center for International Trade and Economics at Heritage
US Senator (Jon.Va.com/site/news.zwire. 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. Eloy News. But it's not certain those jobs will materialize. R-AZ. Mitchell." "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. contemplate going to countries such as China where carbon emission caps are unlikely to be taken seriously. 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. When the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analyzed the cost of reducing carbon emissions by 15 percent below 2005 levels." That's $1. but legislation he and congressional Democrats are backing would do just that”. whose government has invested heavily in "green" jobs.Ph. I am convinced it can be defeated again. a typical family of four with earnings of $50. They would be bad for families and would slow the economic recovery as well. The Heritage Foundation concluded that it would slow long-term growth by almost $10 trillion over 26 years. “G8 falls
flat on Carbon Ban”. "Human activities are producing increasingly large quantities of greenhouse
gases. Those sources would then either reduce carbon emissions or buy or trade emission allowances to achieve the required overall emissions reductions. "I remain bullish about the future of coal.. Teddy & Megan
. Sen.reviewmessenger. and am so very proud of the miners who labor and toil in the coalfields of West Virginia. "To put that $1. C&T Kills Economy
Cap and trade kills the economy—taxes would prevent consumer spending and thousands of jobs will be lost Kyl. In 2008. If Americans communicate their opinions about this bill to their representatives in Congress. director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama administration. “President Obama has pledged not to raise taxes on middle-
income Americans. known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act. "The accumulation of these gases in the atmosphere is expected to have potentially serious and costly effects on regional climates throughout the world. "The tax imposed by the cap-and-trade system is therefore equivalent to raising the family's income tax by about 50 percent.
Senate could take up the House legislation. This year won't be the first
time that the Senate has considered cap-and-trade.000.S. let alone make up for the jobs that are lost. D-W. Rather than directly raising taxes on Americans.cfm? newsid=20346352&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept_id=222077&rfi=6)
On June 26." Byrd said. In addition to the tax increase. The Heritage Foundation's analysis found that Arizona would lose thousands of jobs. Congress should not be considering new taxes." West Virginians may not be the only Americans that will suffer economically if cap and trade passes the Senate. http://www. will feel the effects of this tax hike. Review Messenger. Robert Byrd. July 17th 2009. it was clear Orszag believed global climate change resulting from human causes was a serious. according to a Spanish economist. over 30.. From his testimony before he joined the Obama administration. In Spain. 6/17/09. though it may not do so until September." Byrd insisted that clean coal can be a "green energy.000 now pays an income tax of about $3. particularly CO2." atmosphere. in Political Science from Harvard (Jerome R. 7/16/09.600 a year." Feldstein wrote recently in the Weekly Standard. Proponents of the cap-and-trade proposal argue that job losses will be offset by the creation of new. That would give all Americans time to register their opinions on the bill. And jobs would be lost. "green" jobs. Americans would also feel the pinch because cap-and-trade will hurt economic growth. 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." 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.600 carbon tax in perspective. The effect is the same as if they had had their taxes raised.Climate Politics Page 139 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Ext. mandatory limits on carbon emissions from various sources (like electric utilities). it estimated a family's cost of living would increase by $1. The
increase. D. July 16th 2009.000 in the first year alone." he testified." Admitting that a cap-and-trade program amounts to a "carbon tax. two jobs are lost for every green job created.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. Economist Peter Orszag.com/index. Staff reporter for WND. http://www. testified before Congress on cap-andtrade in 2008.600 that families won't be able to spend or invest in the economy. cap-andtrade raises the cost of living for everyone by raising energy costs and consumer prices for virtually everything. similar legislation went down to defeat. saying in a statement that "I cannot support the bill in its present form. when he was the director of the Congressional Budget Office in the Bush administration. perhaps even catastrophic problem. and this year's version will once again face opposition from Senate Republicans and some moderate Democrats.
Cap and trade prevents growth—businesses and families won’t be able to compete in the global economy Corsi. At a time when the economy remains shaky and unemployment has reached a 25-year high. regardless of income. blasted the cap-and-trade legislation.
including manufacturing companies. not lose homes and pay monthly living expenses. will face yet one more cost of operations in paying cap-and-trade costs. at a time the businesses are trying to compete in a global economy. Moreover. at a time when families are struggling just to keep jobs. Teddy & Megan
. when the science behind climate hysteria is more certain. 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. the imposition of what amounts to a cap-and-trade tax may further depress the economy. In the meantime. Mitchell.
140 Ellis. Red Alert calls on the American people to make sure the Senate knows
that any senator voting for the Obama administration cap-and-trade legislation faces strong and determined opposition that will work actively to defeat them in the next election cycle. 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. Businesses that emit carbon dioxide. Orzag testified that "price increases would be essential
revenue for the federal government. including those involved in raising children. 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. Red Alert recommends we concern ourselves with the climate change catastrophe later.Climate Politics Page 140 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
that would require across-the-board emission reductions by all firms." 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.
What does a so-called “energy bill” have to do with E. The cost of transporting goods to market will drastically increase. government if it’s determined that the capand-trade bill resulted in the reduction of revenues going into these two trust funds. presidential candidate Obama admitted.
http://www.209 this bill references the Earned Income Tax Credit.S. 443: “Protection of Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.tidewaternews.” It allows the administrators of Medicare and Social Security to access the general revenues of the U. That is three years that our government will knowingly force Americans out of work. In January 2008.157 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. the “Energy Refund Program” will allot monthly cash payments to offset the additional burden of
energy costs caused by this bill.241 in 2035. Teddy & Megan
. I do not want to scramble for additional funds to cover outrageous electric or fuel bills. "Beware the consequences of cap-and-trade". In our faltering economy.T. Yet. C&T Kills Economy
Kills the economy. 7/18/09 (Ed. Tidewaternewsdotcom. Mitchell.increases energy costs and destroys consumer spending Hartman. 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. energy rates will drastically increase.I.com/news/2009/jul/18/beware-consequences-cap-and-trade/) I agree with Bob Edwards (“Reader disagrees with cap-and-trade talk.” Wednesday. In an economy that’s losing many jobs a month.I. “Electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” under this program. The authors of this onerous bill know that American workers will be displaced and that it will cause energy costs to soar. for an individual
with no dependents will double and include annual inflation adjustments. if you fall within a socioeconomic level of no more than 150 percent of the poverty line.T. This cost will be passed to the consumer. The Heritage Foundation estimates that the cost will range from $426 in
2012 to $1.C. how could anyone justify putting more people out of work? In addition. July 18th 2009.Climate Politics Page 141 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Ext. The E. On Page 1. the government will be here to bail you out. 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 2020.193.
141 Ellis. On Page 1. On Page 1. too. July 15) that the cap-and-trade bill will cost Americans jobs and further damage the economy.C.? Nothing but pandering! Another interesting section is No.
. Madam Speaker. Teddy & Megan
. was about to
sign a long-term power contract to get its electricity from a new. green jobs — exactly the same promises we’re hearing from cap and trade supporters. why would they want to do the same thing to our nation? Madam Speaker. Let me give you one example from my district.
http://www. Today. and I feel compelled to offer this warning from the Left Coast. In California.US Congressman (Tom. We need to understand what that means. California’s unemployment rate began a steady upward divergence from the national jobless figures. Can’t Solve Warming/Economy
Cap and Trade doesn’t solve warming or the economy – California’s attempt at reducing emissions proves McClintock.
142 Ellis. that is a historical fact. Congress will have delivered a staggering blow to our nation’s economy at precisely that moment when that economy was the most vulnerable. because it imposes new taxes on an infinitely larger number of domestic products on a scale that utterly dwarfs Smoot-Hawley.truthabouttrade. EPA-approved coal-fired electricity plant in Utah.org/content/view/14249/54/lang. baking and brewing — all of which produce enormous quantities of this innocuous and ubiquitous compound. energy production. So applying a tax to the economy designed to radically constrict carbon dioxide emissions means radically constricting the economy. 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. Until that bill took effect. I stood on the floor of the California Senate and watched a similar celebration over a similar bill. Waxman-Markey is our generation’s Smoot-Hawley. two things are certain. Second.000 imported products. This House has just made the biggest economic mistake since the days of Herbert Hoover. 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. but the objective is the same: to force a dramatic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. exactly the opposite has happened. So when economists warn that we can expect electricity prices to double under the cap and trade bill. And this brings us to the fine point of it. Mitchell. First. that’s not a future prediction. construction. every human being produces 2. 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. 7/9/09. and at its highest point since 1941. Schwarzenegger assured us that AB 32 would mean an explosion of new.Climate Politics Page 142 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Ext. If this
measure becomes law. “Waxman-Markey Is Our Smoot-Hawley”. AB 32 and companion legislation caused them to abandon that contract.
I can tell you from bitter experience that in my district. California’s unemployment rate is more than two points above the national rate. In fact. R-CA. It has profound implications for agriculture. Calif. It transcends ideology and politics. in January of 2007. And I have spent the last three years watching as that law has dangerously deepened California’s recession. The city of Truckee. When you discuss the folly of the Hoover administration — how it turned the recession of 1929 into the depression of the 1930s. 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. In fact. our planet will continue to warm and cool as it has been doing for billions of years. It uses a different mechanism than cap and trade. the first thing that economists point to is the SmootHawley Tariff Act that imposed new taxes on more than 20. 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.2 pounds of carbon dioxide every day — just by breathing. Gov.en/) I had a strange sense of deja vu as I watched the self-congratulatory rhetoric on the House floor tonight. Ignore all of that and still we are left with one lousy sense of timing. 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. July 9th 2009. Three years ago. The replacement power they acquired literally doubled their electricity costs. What is it that happened in January 2007? AB 32 took effect and began shutting down entire
segments of California’s economy. Assembly Bill 32. it’s worse. But then. California’s unemployment numbers tracked very closely with the national unemployment rate. this is deadly serious stuff. cargo and passenger transportation.
impose an overall limit on emissions of greenhouse gases.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. Nor is it likely to work as its authors intend. would
What’s more interesting is the change in approach.Editor at Kansas City Star (E. the two arguments are contradictory. Mitchell. July
4th 2009. 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. Teddy & Megan
. selfinflicted wound. For the sake of the economy’s health. those states together make up only 4 percent of the membership. but we have to understand that the short-term costs would be far less than the dire. the measure will need at least 60 votes. That has undercut the competitiveness of solar. Over time. 7/4/09. but — because energy costs raise production costs generally — it would make the prices of almost everything else rise as well. when he remarked that under his cap-and-trade plan. As Jay Cost points out at the Real Clear Politics site. Now we’re told there won’t be any economic pain at all. The result will be lower output and fewer jobs. fortunately. Kansas City Star. The bill would not only make energy prices go up.” How do you end up with a vibrant economy and lots of net job creation by forcing people to pay higher energy prices? Well. and that’s why this measure is one of the biggest threats to the U. In fact. lowering permit costs and the cost of using fossil fuels. 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. which seems
likely. Industries would then buy and sell permits to emit carbon.kansascity. Thanks to the Senate’s rules. which makes up the greatest share of the gross domestic product. Cap-and-trade would be a crippling. (Lower-income households would get a rebate reducing their energy costs by $40. by slowing the growth of consumer spending. they can stop the bill dead in its tracks.com/275/story/1306026. But in the Senate. If Republicans hang together and peel off a few Democrats. “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. which now goes to the Senate. That will add even more uncertainty to the business of energy production. The legislation. and those price movements could be violent.
143 Ellis. economy ever to emerge on Capitol Hill. the price of carbon permits will fluctuate. The bill’s prospects in the
Senate. Obviously. it would involve economic pain. the recession has caused the price of carbon permits to plummet. Not only that. you don’t.) The Heritage Foundation pointed out that incredibly the CBO study failed to include in its calculations the overall effect on economic growth. Obama’s latest tack is refuted by statements he made earlier this year.S. “Kill cap and trade before it kills growth”. the New York and California delegations provided 26 percent of the support for cap and trade in the House. http://www. reducing CO2 emissions. In Europe. long-term consequences of doing nothing about global warming. The whole purpose of the bill is to force people to pay
more for energy. It will retard it. That won’t spur economic growth. The House barely passed cap and trade — the vote was 219-212. Like any commodity. wind and other new technologies aimed at boosting conservation. the cap would become more restrictive. Thomas. they had better succeed. the usual rationale for a carbon cap is that.html)
Up to now. are grim because the same political dynamic that worked in the House won’t apply in the Senate. yes.
Mitchell. cap and trade is likely to increase greenhouse gases. For example. Census Bureau.S. gross domestic product by $269 billion with 850. it’s the poor who suffer the most. They are the ones
who will have the greatest difficulty making ends meet. Ironically at this
time of economic difficulty.241 a year in additional energy costs as a result of cap-and-trade. low-income families will have a hard time putting food on the table.
144 Ellis. economy. transportation. A report by the National Association of Manufacturers estimates that limiting emissions by the projected amounts for 2050 will reduce U. But the
cap-and-trade system will create huge job losses and negatively impact an already failing economy. jobs in energy and manufacturing which will be lost will be replaced with less paying renewable energy jobs. an independent study by the Heritage Foundation finds that every American family.
EGP News. Experts predict that more than nine million families will fall into poverty. and Senate leaders say a vote will come this fall.Climate Politics Page 144 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
AT: C&T Solves Economy – Green Jobs
Cap and trade kills the economy . According to a study by the University of Massachusetts. there is no doubt that imposing limits on energy will affect all other sectors of the economy. there are more than 37 million people living in poverty. “Climate Change Legislation Caps Poor. with 24 percent of African-Americans and 21 percent of Hispanics falling in this category.our evidence assumes green job increases Rosales. As some Republicans and Democrats who oppose the bill rightly argue. That’s over $100 per month. According to the U. Not Emissions”.000 job losses by 2014. 7/16/09 (David. Ironically.S. The President’s goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020 and by 83 percent by 2050. these numbers are likely to increase. This legislation would cap the amount of carbon emissions permitted.
Small businesses in our community are struggling to survive. Teddy & Megan
. Since energy is the largest sector of the U. Poor and single-parent families I counsel are stretching to make ends meet. consumers will end up paying “hidden taxes” in other areas (like food. A Sure Foundation. http://egpnews. and housing). Due to the current economic recession. And the jobs that will be lost because of cap and trade will likely go overseas to countries that do not have emissions caps. all for a possible decrease in global temperatures of less than one-tenth of one degree by 2050. not reduce them. July 16th 2009. the average wage in “green energy” jobs is about 65 percent less than regular energy jobs. Firms that reduce their emissions below the allowed amount would be able to trade their remaining credits to other companies. on average. Moreover. When the prices for daily commodities increase. Small business owners will also struggle to stay afloat. will have to pay about $1. which would decline over time.com/?p=11346)
Members of my congregation are concerned about losing their jobs. the House of Representatives has passed a bill to reduce global warming emissions through a capand-trade system. President Barack Obama is calling on the Senate to act. With the cost of living increasing due to taxes imposed from this pending legislation.S.
and agricultural sectors. fuel has now surpassed labor as their largest operating expense. Government Affairs Con-way. Government Affairs Con-way. construction.
145 Ellis. Over
the past five years. Randall. Inc. For most truckers. 3. retail. The trucking industry is composed of both large national enterprises as well as a host of small
businesses. According to the U. Trucking is a highly competitive industry with very low profit margins. Inc. Committee on House
Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality)
With more than 750. personal income. Trucks haul nearly every consumer good at some point in the supply chain. ATA urges Congress to carefully evaluate other approaches to evaluate and address fuel price impacts that
result from climate change legislation. 96 percent of motor carriers have 20 or fewer trucks and are
characterized as being small businesses.Climate Politics Page 145 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
2NC Trucking Industry Module
Cap and trade will jack the trucking industry. while the price of diesel has nearly tripled during the same time period. Nearly nine million people employed in the trucking industry move approximately 11 billion tons of freight annually across the nation. Mitchell. total industry consumption of diesel fuel has gone up 15 percent. Provisions to release more allowances to help mitigate fuel price spikes will not provide timely relief to our industry. Of those employed in private-sector trucking-related jobs. That is why the trucking industry is extremely sensitive to how climate change legislation may further escalate fuel prices. Randall. Department of Transportation. Committee on House
Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality)
This hardship surprises few in the industry. 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. 6/19/2008 (C.S. public utility. and tax revenue
generated by the motor carrier industry. Vice President. service. Vice President.5 million are commercial drivers.000 interstate motor carriers in the United States. This explains why many trucking companies are reporting that higher fuel prices have greatly suppressed profits. Our industry can not absorb rapid increases in fuel costs. Even fewer are aware of the significant employment. if they are making a profit at all. 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. Trucking generates approximately $646 billion in revenue and represents roughly five percent of our nation's Gross Domestic Product. all of whom operate in extremely competitive business environments with narrow profit margins. transportation. the
trucking industry is the driving force behind the nation's economy.can’t absorb costs and allowances don’t solve Mullett. mining. Teddy & Megan
Trucking industry is key to the economy Mullett. 6/19/2008 (C.
146 Ellis. 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. Even small increase in fuel prices could devastate trucking industry Mullett. Vice President. which is $1. Vice President. Inc. Teddy & Megan
. This means that a one-cent increase in the average price of diesel costs the trucking industry an additional $391 million in fuel expenses. by many accounts. 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.margins thin Mullett. Burning diesel fuel is the main source of carbon emissions from our industry equating to 22. most critically. Not only have equipment costs increased due to federal requirements. Diesel fuel provides greater fuel economy and the higher energy content necessary to transport widely diversified loads under extreme operating conditions. Mitchell. 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.000 to $5. Additional EPA diesel engine emission standards in 2007 drove
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2002 drove up engine costs on average of between $3. In 2006 alone trucking consumed over 39 billion gallons of diesel fuel.Climate Politics Page 146 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Trucking Industry Brink
Trucking on the brink. historical expenditures for fuel in the absence of any climate change legislation being passed. decreased fuel economy between 2-4%. Beyond equipment costs. The average national price of diesel fuel this
week is now over $4.S. I wish to further expand upon the critical role diesel fuel plays in our industry. These margins continue to be chipped away given the numerous and unprecedented costs being imposed upon the industry. Randall.000 while decreasing fuel
up the cost of engines between $8.000 and. Committee on House Energy and
Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality)
The trucking industry is concerned over what cap-and-trade legislation will do to the price of fuel we consume. Government Affairs Con-way. 6/19/2008 (C.2 pounds of CO2 per gallon of fuel. but state regulatory mandates have substantially increased the financial burdens being placed upon our industry.
economy between 6-8 percent.69 per gallon. new diesel engine emission standards imposed by the U.89 more than just one year ago. For instance. 6/19/2008 (C.000 to $10. Government Affairs Con-way. we have experienced record increases in insurance premiums and. Inc. Randall.
000 interstate motor carriers operating in the United States ranging from single truck operators to fleets with thousands of trucks.Climate Politics Page 147 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Ext. Randall. Inc. medicine. so does the corresponding demand for more consumer goods. 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. Keep in mind that as the nation's population continues to grow. 6/19/2008 (C. and clothing. 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. Teddy & Megan
. The table below clearly shows these relationships.
147 Ellis. Government Affairs Con-way. Approaches to dramatically reduce carbon emissions from line-haul trucks will curtail the delivery of vital consumer goods across the nation such as food. Vice President.
interstate and diverse nature of our business operations. Mitchell. Trucking Key to Economy
Trucking collapse jacks the entire economy Mullett. Constraining the country's freight delivery system will do nothing short of shutting down life as we know it.
the damage from Cap-and-Trade is not going to be from its direct impact. 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. 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. With costs of transport increasing. More than a few people have used this as a sign that the bill will not impact the economy heavily. Teddy & Megan
. the US manufacturers will see foreign factories gain a competitive
advantage not because of better schools or training. But such operations are power intensive and generate copious amounts of "greenhouse gases". Texas. the competitive advantage a nation such as China.com website. However. And this issue will have a higher impact on any manufacturing that actually produces carbon on its own. But
the increased cost from having to purchase carbon credits will drive the price they must demand for the same products higher. and open the door for foreign competitors to jump in with an alternative material or product. "Cap-and-Trade is a job
killer". If a company already has a factory overseas and one in the US. GreenChoice now would add about $58 a month to the electricity bill of an average home. 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. but because of regulations they must obey while their competitors do not suffer under the same restrictions. San Diego Examiner. The final area where costs will rise is logistics. Once again. 7/14/09. but a few mills have managed to remain in business. but the interior of the nation will have to pay for the increased cost of moving goods to their cities and towns. http://www.
148 Ellis. Most admit that their rigs get less than 8 miles-per-gallon on a good day. There are too many elements of this to list them all. Areas near the coasts will likely seen only a limited impact. A store finds that it can no longer obtain goods at a low enough price to sell them at a profit. All of this will mean lost jobs.com/x-2988-San-Diego-EconomyExaminer~y2009m7d14-CapandTrade-is-a-job-killer)
I've had a family member remind me that one study of the Cap-and-Trade bill that passed in the House of Representatives recently claimed that the average family of four would see only a modest $300 per year increase in their energy bills. the CEOs tenure can be measured in days before the stockholders demand a new CEO be appointed who will protect their investments. Businesses in the US are not run as non-profit organizations. 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. A factory closes due to increased energy costs and the workers lose jobs. but only a few locations are directly on or by the tracks on which trains run. the US one will likely be closed or sold off as the cost of running it rises.increases costs for businesses and encourages offshoring Vargus. Energy availability also becomes a factor as companies planning large expansions of factories must consider if the local power supply is sufficient. The industry in the US has already suffered greatly as lower labor costs in other nations ravaged profit margins. Now. has against US based manufacturers grows. For many manufacturers moving operations to China or India. Production will shift overseas as rapidly as companies can find alternative sites and prepare them for production. and the workers there lose jobs. but it’s not just the direct energy costs that come into play. companies will be less willing to ship products long distances unless prices can rise at the destinations. then that cost will impact business decisions and pricing.Climate Politics Page 148 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
C&T Bad – Competitiveness (1/2)
Cap and trade kills competitiveness. which noted: The reason is that GreenChoice prices have risen more than fivefold since the program started. often finding niche markets that foreign mills aren't willing to enter. but there are three that generate the largest push for companies to move their operations. so most goods still have to travel the last legs of their journey by truck. This is obvious. but anyone who does not see the truth that businesses will react negatively to Cap-and-Trade is ignoring reality.
Moving goods is less expensive by train. Sadly. and if any business failed to make major changes to maintain its profitability once Cap-and-Trade goes into effect. The first is the fact that as the cost of energy increases due to the effects of Cap-and-Trade. This was noted in an article published at the statesman. I've talked to more than a few semi drivers who make the
long hauls of goods and materials around this nation. which will have no carbon controls and therefore less expensive and more abundant energy is not a difficult choice. The availability of goods also will change. With consumer spending already dropping rapidly and unemployment rising. if Cap-andTrade goes through and increases the cost of fuel for trains and trucks permanently. Right now Austin. Businesses need to be able to control their costs and plan for profitability. Transporting products to markets is
another energy intensive arena that businesses compete in.San Diego Economic Examiner (Mark. Mitchell. One area the US once dominated is Steel. July 14th 2009. which has refused to participate in any carbon reduction treaties. these three issues all mostly concern the costs that businesses will face. which created a major program
to sell wind-derived electricity through the local utility company.examiner.
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.
149 Ellis. Mitchell. 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. Teddy & Megan
. the penalties to the US markets for passing this will be legion.
leadership. economy declines seriously. one gathers from the argument. 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.S. U. 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. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it).
It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U. even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. Doing so is a source of much good for the
countries concerned as well as the United States because.S." Consequently. the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. primacy. most notably France and West Germany. as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue. Second.
the relative position of classes and nations. of security studies at Missouri State. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan.
November/December. the United States must maintain its technological lead in the economic realm. In the past. but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood. Today. Everything we think of when we consider the current
international order--free trade. growing democratization--is directly linked to U. their people would be better off. Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East. power. 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. American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey. American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened.
That solves nuclear wars everywhere Thayer. Without U. Indeed they do. Teddy & Megan
. 6 (Bradley. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. others would try to fill the Vacuum. Of course. The first has been a more peaceful world. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. During the Cold War. As the United States weakened. To sustain and improve its economic strength. its relative position will necessarily worsen. and. in general. l/n)
THROUGHOUT HISTORY. increasing respect for human rights. In addition. which will shift the sources of wealth and
If the United States fails to recognize the change and adapt its institutions. but nonetheless. should not even be attempted. where 8.S. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel. spreading democracy helps maintain U. power behind it. Its success will depend on the choices it makes. In such an environment. particularly war's worst form: great power wars.5 million Afghans. such as in Darfur. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies. peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power--Rome.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. liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U. become inward-looking. American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. The National Interest. Mitchell. labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005
. Some argue that the world may be at the beginning of another such transformation. "In Defense of Primacy". Israel and Egypt. the likelihood of any
type of conflict is significantly reduced. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics. power. democratic states are good for their citizens as
well as for advancing the interests of the United States. prof.S. once states are governed democratically. it is because they are more open. Indonesia and Australia. a robust monetary regime.
150 Ellis. voted in a critical October 2004 election. it is important to note what those good things are. the domestic economic and political base for global leadership would diminish and the United States would probably incrementally withdraw from the world. South Korea and Japan. India and Pakistan.S. 40 percent of them women. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Britain or the United States today. Rather. and abandon more and more of its external interests.S.S. And so.3 So. leadership reduced friction
among many states that were historical antagonists.
which are facilitated through American primacy. along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy. the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce. and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Morocco. and mobility of capital and labor markets.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit. Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides. the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. By all accounts. Mitchell.
151 Ellis. Teddy & Megan
.Climate Politics Page 151 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the
economic network comes from Deepak Lal. helping to ensure military prowess. Latin America. Asia and the Caucasus. Third. 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. They may not yet look like Western-style democracies. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive. Abandoning the positions of his youth. who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India. respect for international property rights. Lebanon. but democratic progress has been made in Algeria. With its allies
. the march of democracy has been impressive. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. Kuwait. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology.
Iraq. particularly the poorest states in the Third World. maximizes efficiencies and growth. a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank.
” had been tweaked.
152 Ellis. minimum renewable fuel inputs in electricity generation). “The logic is not difficult to understand. The cap-and-trade system thus imposes a carbon tax without having to admit that it is really a tax. Mr. In a cap-and-trade system. particularly as rapidly industrializing nations — chiefly China — continue to resist the idea of implementing their own emission caps. raising the possibility of serious risks to international trade. such as automobile mileage standards. Editor and writer for The New York Times covering alternative energy and
green business. To that point.
Implementation of cap and trade is a more serious threat to trade – tariffs would immediately lead to a new round of protectionism Feldstein. Scientific evidence appears to indicate that the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels (primarily coal. oil. July 19th 2009.” Mr.” A day later. principally by raising the cost of doing business here relative to other countries like China. the secretary of agriculture. Inhofe. testified that American farmers and ranchers could benefit from carbon offset provisions in cap-and-trade legislation. If the government sells these permits in
A cap-and-trade system can cause serious risks to international trade. where they have no mandatory carbon caps. At other points. the stakes are particularly high.
Senate subcommittee that the E. the research coordinator for energy and climate policy at the Öko-Institut in Berlin. merits and implications of climate policy generally and a cap-and-trade system specifically.Editor at New York Times (Tom Jr.Climate Politics Page 152 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
Ext. will severely damage America’s global economic competitiveness. At times. “Peacocks and Passions in Senate Climate Debate”.
A common suggestion is to impose a tax on all CO2 emissions. the European carbon trading system — the world’s largest and oldest — has been racked by volatile and. which would be levied on companies that emit CO2 in production. on the ability of the United States to find common ground on the issue at home. and
natural gas) — mainly in electricity production. 7/19/09. system. Although governments levy taxes on gasoline. be included in the price charged to consumers. After all. Business Standard. Felix Matthes.business-standard. transportation. now in its “third phase.” he said. 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. cap-and-trade policies could produce significant harmful economic effects in the near term that would continue into the future. 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. 6/27/09. 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. weighed against the potentially grave consequences of doing nothing.” Jobs and businesses. plummeting prices. in no small part.S.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1)
With the U. C&T Kills Competitiveness
Independent analysis finds cap and trade will destroy competitiveness – raises business costs and forces outsourcing Zeller.com/2009/07/20/business/energy-environment/20iht-green20. Inhofe said in a speech on the Senate floor as his colleagues in the House were preparing to vote on their bill. Mitchell. they have been a raucous display of political peacocking and sniping
With the prospect for a global climate treaty hinging. the resulting permit
an auction. Tom Vilsack.U.” among witnesses and elected officials who appear far from consensus. blog. House of Representatives having narrowly approved a climate change bill late last month. and free allocation of permits has been widely curtailed — “because there’s a huge potential for perversion. “will move overseas.
not least by a parade of witnesses now being called before various Senate committees and subcommittees to testify on the needs. of course.” Whether or not that logic is as airtight as Mr. 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. as long as the cost of doing so is less than the tax that they would otherwise have to pay. Teddy & Megan
. Inhofe said. While aimed at reducing long-term environmental damage. as my colleague Kate Galbraith reported at our Green Inc. 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. Those industries least likely to be harmed by the increased cost of having to buy emission permits at auction. In addition. A carbon tax causes each firm and household to respond to the same cost of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. are now being required to do so. which is busy debating just how to craft a version of its own. with long-term adverse effects on living conditions around the world.nytimes. production technology standards (eg. Such a tax would cause electricity companies and industrial firms to adopt techniques that reduce their CO2 emissions. Matthes explained. Formerly Chairman Of President Ronald Reagan’s Council Of
Economic Advisors and President Of The National Bureau For Economic Research (Martin. Mr. http://www. told the
“unprecedented threat to our way of life. http://www. 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. according to reams of independent analyses. Even if every country has a cap-andtrade system and all aim at the same relative reduction in national CO2 emissions. 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. attention has now moved to the Senate. on July 8. Setting aside leaders like James M. 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. or that sell products like gasoline that cause CO2 emissions when used. “Martin Feldstein: Cap-and-trade = protectionism?”. The higher cost of production incurred to reduce emissions — and of any emissions tax still due — would..Professor Of Economics At Harvard. more recently. 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. 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. 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. Earlier this month. Yet we do not see carbon taxes being adopted.com/india/news/martin-feldstein-cap-andtrade-=-protectionism/362252/)
The cap-and-trade system imposes a carbon tax without having to admit that it is really a tax. etc. and various industrial processes — contributes to gradual global warming. “Carbon caps. June 27th 2009. the hearings have provided a sober accounting of the economic hazards posed by overzealous government meddling in the marketplace. they are reluctant to impose a general carbon tax because of public opposition to any form of taxation. Inhofe suggests is widely debated —
perpetrated on the American people.
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. cap-and-trade systems in practice do not rely solely on auctions to distribute the emissions permits. Teddy & Megan
. The plan working its way through the United States Congress (the Waxman-Markey bill) would initially give away 85 per cent of the permits. the cap-and-trade system affects its international competitiveness. by paying for the planting of trees) instead of reducing their emissions or buying permits. Because the price of the CO2 permits in a country is reflected in the prices of its products. 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). Such
complexities make it impossible to compare the impact of CO2 policies among countries. which in turn would invite those who want to protect domestic jobs to argue for higher tariff levels. When the permit prices become large enough to have a significant effect on CO2 emissions. Mitchell. and allow companies to buy CO2 offsets (eg.Climate Politics Page 153 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
prices will differ because of national differences in initial CO2 levels and in domestic production characteristics.
153 Ellis. there will be political pressure to introduce tariffs on imports that offset the advantage of countries with low permit prices. Worse
As long as nations are trading peacefully. the carbon dioxide reduction targets are still there. many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. labor or paranoia about global government.org/2009/07/21/a-baker’s-dozen-of-reasons-to-oppose-cap-andtrade/)
9. When businesses are faced with the higher costs from an energy tax through a carbon capping policy.Climate Politics Page 154 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
C&T Bad – Free Trade
Cap and trades kills trade – higher costs and tariffs The Foundry. 7/21/09 (“A Baker’s Dozen of Reasons to Oppose Cap and Trade”. such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell. whether the cause is environmental. http://blog.)
It would disrupt free trade. and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War
protesters of decades past. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just
to further their own prosperity. our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Teddy & Megan
. Another logical solution is for these companies to move overseas where they can make more efficient use of labor and capital. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. firms would face. 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. they just shift them around. and their economies are built on exports to other countries. Actually. Although the government awarded handouts to businesses. the government awarded 15 percent of the allowance allocations to energy-intensive manufacturers. To counter this. a budding superpower. 99 (December 1. The Foundry. China has already threatened retaliatory protectionist policies. That's why bringing China.
Free trade solves extinction Copley News Service. most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists. the bill includes protectionist carbon tariffs to offset the competitive disadvantage U. July
21st 2009. the father of the nuclear disarmament movement. but also to forestall conflict with other nations.heritage. they can certainly make production cuts. the threat of hostility diminishes. They're special-interest activists. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity. Free allowances do not lower the costs of
Waxman-Markey. and the way they will be met is by raising the price of energy and thereby inflicting more economic pain. they have a major disincentive to wage war. into the WTO is so important. In a way. But they're not. both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. 1999)
154 Ellis.S. Mitchell. To mask the economic pain.
It is no accident that his Secretary of the Interior unilaterally cancelled 77 oil and gas leases or that. on March 25.html)
The Waxman-Markey bill is villainy on a grand scale.
155 Ellis. by definition. it totally
ignores the fact that all the other nations of the Earth will continue to generate "greenhouse gases. live in a very different. Even if the bill were to become law. Teddy & Megan
. 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. 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. by the actions of this Congress. http://www. They pose the greatest threat to its future that has ever existed in our history. July 17th 2009.000 jobs on average with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 1.com/200907175536/energy-andenvironment/cap-and-trade-bill-villainy-on-a-grand-scale.000 jobs. the keystone of capitalism. Its limits are. Mitchell. It is estimated that 300 million barrels of oil and 8. purposefully exempted China. and babbling endlessly about "green jobs" as the real jobs of Americans are systematically destroyed. intended to reduce these gases. The government owns 607 million acres of land in a nation founded on the belief in the sanctity and power of private property.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. It is estimated to destroy 844.rightsidenews. Out of 307 million Americans.900. and their grandchildren will." The United Nations Kyoto Protocol. Prices for gasoline and natural gas will rise by 74% and 55% respectively. meaningless. by 2035. must hate America. Our present annual GDP is about $14 trillion. It will raise electricity rates 90% after adjusting for inflation.4 trillion. It is no accident that President Obama and his acolytes keep calling for "clean energy". I seriously doubt that more than a relative handful know what Cap-and-Trade means or that it
is even being debated. Upon taking office. This bill will impoverish Americans and destroy the nation. The Democrats in Congress and the present occupant of the White House. India. reduce the aggregate domestic product (GDP) by an estimated $7.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lie beneath these "protected" acres. "Cap-andTrade Bill: Villainy On A Grand Scale". "energy independence".Member of American Society of Journalists and Authors (Alan. their children. Society of Professional Journalists. but they. The Waxman-Markey bill will. 7/17/09. and all undeveloped nations. very costly America.
7/29/09 (Jesse. “DC Climate Bill Update. Teddy & Megan
.” http://itsgettinghotinhere. Mitchell.
Wins beget wins. The White House is maintaining that both agenda items are the “valued children” of the Administration. advocate.
Though healthcare floor action has been pushed until after the August recess. and they will continue to press Congress to pass both this year. currently the Director of Energy and
Climate Policy at the Breakthrough Institute.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. energy and climate policy analyst. and Foreign Relations Chairman Kerry (D-MA) is denying that the healthcare calendar will have any effect on climate (E&E). EPW Chairwoman Boxer and Agriculture Chairman Harkin (D-IA) have promised to stay on track with their committee pieces of the bill. climate champions are insisting they will hold a vote this year.