This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
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
.................................................................................................................................................................121 C&T Can’t Solve Warming........................................................................117 AT: Reprocessing Solves Prolif.................................................................................................141 Ext...........................150 Ext...................................142 AT: C&T Solves Economy................115 AT: Nuclear Power Leadership............................................................................................................................123 C&T Can’t Solve Warming.......................................................................................................................................116 Nuclear Power Bad – Prolif ................................................139 Ext..............................................................................................................155 Healthcare Kt Climate..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Teddy & Megan ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................120 C&T Can’t Solve Warming............................................................................126 C&T Fails – Warming ................................................................ Can’t Solve Warming/Economy.................................................................................................................................................................................131 AT: Drought...............................................................................................................................................................132 AT: Forests....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................125 C&T Can’t Solve Warming....................................................134 Climate Models Bad..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Climate Politics Page 4 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Nuclear Power Bad – Extincion............................................................................................ C&T Kills Economy............................................................................................. C&T Kills Economy...................................136 Ext..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................127 AT: C&T Solves Warming............................................................................................................130 AT: Disease Spread............................................................................... C&T Kills Economy.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................147 C&T Bad – Competitiveness (1/2)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................119 C&T Bad – Warming ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................118 AT: Nuclear Power Solves Water Wars................................................................................................................................................................................. Trucking Key to Economy................................................133 Greenhouse Theory Flawed..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................143 AT: C&T Solves Economy – Green Jobs.............................................................................................................................................................146 Ext............ Mitchell...............................................156 4 Ellis....................................................................................................................................................................148 C&T Bad – Competitiveness (2/2)................................128 AT: Sea Levels...........................144 2NC Trucking Industry Module.......................................................................152 C&T Bad – Free Trade....................................................................................................135 C&T Bad – Economy ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................145 Trucking Industry Brink..............................................................138 Ext................................154 C&T Bad – Poverty ....................................................................................................................... C&T Kills Competitiveness...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mitchell. Teddy & Megan .Climate Politics Page 5 of 156 7WJ – HPSW 5 Ellis.
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. says that emissions must be stabilized by 2015 and in decline by 2020. So there’s a very different dynamic. Obama must expend political capital in Congress and work with leaders to complete passage of science-based federal legislation capping greenhouse gas emissions. The latest science only underscores the need for immediate action." In Copenhagen. however.” http://www. part of the Guardian Environment Network. global leadership. in terms of energy efficiency projects. with sparse dollars allocated to those needs. working with your senators. the world's coal juggernaut. because the science is more compelling. The boldness of Obama's regulatory strategy. Since the Supreme Court affirmed in Massachusetts v. If he does. some of the governors. and frequently to the American public about the true science of climate change and the urgency of our present circumstances. in the Northeast. By itself. and green jobs. exercise the full might of his executive powers and regulatory discretion under the Clean Air Act to jump-start action. and increase . and spend freely from his enormous store of political capital to lead the government to enact comprehensive federal climate legislation. so if the package survives its passage through Congress. and potentially irreversible changes. By approving the waiver after a formal review process. Such a speech would send a clear signal to the American . 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. land-use planning. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson will guarantee steep future emissions reductions from the transportation sector. With former EPA chief Carol Browner heading up his climate team in the White House. unequivocally. For Obama. After eight years of U. Jane relationship that exists between sustainable economic prosperity and environmental stewardship Lubchenco. really hinges upon the fate of coal-burning power plants under the Clean Air Act. inaction on climate change. public health and safety. So I think Obama’s political capital key – passage now is vital to global action that will solve warming Guardian 9 (From Yale Environment 360. he must demonstrate how science has been restored "to its rightful place" in America in strong climate regulation and law. it has become an open question as to how existing coal plants and permits for new ones will now fare under the act. the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. American leadership offers the only hope of success. and smart growth. global commerce. it will certainly change the tone of what happens with coal in Congress longer-term. 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. and Energy Secretary Steven Chu. http://www. credibility to the promise he made in his inaugural address to "roll back the specter of a warming planet. though. where powerful lobbies have held science at bay. it’s a very complicated issue. Obama has another chance to redirect land use away from highway sprawl and in a low-carbon. light rail.guardian. the electorate is way ahead of some of our colleagues here. Even if President Obama himself decides to attend the talks — and hopefully he will — his mission will fail unless he carries with him a year's worth of demonstrated results to lend weight and Rajendra Pachauri. and the real issue is how aggressively the law will be applied. but it is essential to Obama's success.e360. given the acceleration of global ice melt. Science. adopt a mandatory federal renewable energy target. The president must also instruct his cabinet to clarify the impact of global climate change on each of their respective portfolios. He is talking frequently about energy and climate change. Mitchell.S. energy security. Can you talk a little about the [changed] dynamics? John Kerry: This time there’s a reality to it. the as people begin to analyze the realities here. televised address to the nation about the climate crisis and the need for immediate action and U. dangerous feedback loops. Manufacturers will soon have to deliver higher mileage vehicles on an accelerated schedule. which 13 other states are poised to adopt as well. To secure his crowning achievement there 6 Ellis. 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. 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 has well chosen his scientific team in John Holdren. Simultaneously and climate plan. The new president must use the bully pulpit of his office to provide quick and remedial education. despite currently low fuel prices. pending further review. in its rightful place. The EPA plainly has the right to control CO2 emissions. Signs are good that Obama genuinely means business. and I think a lot of communities have already moved — I mean. and it will be hard fought. If that first signal gets amplified. the White House science adviser. Now you have President Obama. As expected.msp?id=2174) Yale Environment 360: I remember watching you last year in the Senate debate on the floor as [you] were voting on the Lieberman-Warner [climate] bill. the political winds at his back are now as favorable as they will ever be. 7/27 (Darren. and he should empower them and other government scientists to speak loudly.S. other kinds of things mayors have done.co. and shipping. The administration should also strengthen energy efficiency incentives and clean energy tax credits. The legislation must be signed into law this year. and allow the thorny bailout of Detroit to proceed without any doubt as to where the industry must head. mass-transit direction. there are greater possibilities this time around. In the short term. because we have a responsibility to people. President Bush was waiting at that point with a veto pen. But with the federal Transportation Bill up for reauthorization in 2009. and the United States needs to lead. he will be ahead of schedule on that score. economic recovery. It is not an energy Obama will still face heavy regulatory and legislative lifting to turn promise into reality before Copenhagen. 2/3. the question of coal rests largely in Obama's hands. Instead.edu/content/feature. At his direction. clean energy. This is more than a third of the $150 billion he promised over the next 10 years for clean energy investments. can tolerate no further delay. Teddy & Megan . extreme weather events.uk/environment/2009/feb/03/network-obama-climate-meeting-copenhagen) chairman of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. For almost a decade. because we have a Democratic president. Coming to Copenhagen with the necessary legislative accomplishments — in addition to regulatory ones — will be harder still. this investment inside a trillion dollar package merely colors the economic recovery with a pale green hue. Over half the American economy has already voluntarily put itself under mandatory [carbon] reduction schemes. and environmental protection. other heavy industries. Americans have been purposefully led astray about the reality of global warming and about the positive . state compacts in the Midwest.Climate Politics Page 6 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Climate Good 1NC Climate bill will pass – but it’ll be a tough fight Samuelsohn. and he has the authority to stop new dirty coal plants cold. 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. Doesn’t mean it’s going to be easy — it’s not. the United States will reclaim the mantle of global leadership when it takes its seat in Copenhagen. and energy efficiency — $54 billion worth. agricultural policy. in the West. it must be appreciated for its cross-cutting immensity — it is fundamental to national security. the president must travel to Copenhagen with real regulatory and legislative achievements. Obama has tapped the talent he needs to implement a powerful regulatory strategy. as delay into 2010 will wreck it on the shoals of mid-term investment in a clean energy grid. his inspiring oratory alone will not be sufficient. who would sign a bill. “We’re Going to Get It Done. The president's executive action on coal will invigorate Copenhagen and bring seriousness to bilateral discussions with China. Interview with Senator John Kerry. Global warming has been crammed into a "green" box for the sake of political expediency. Obama must also make a prime-time.yale. The proposed economic recovery package has been disappointing to advocates of public transit. EPA that carbon dioxide could be regulated as a pollutant under the law. because we have 60 votes. to Copenhagen. cement plants.
but one of them is rising as a preferred choice because elections. the prospect of sending monthly dividend checks to families is a political winner. cap-and-dividend provides the best point of departure because it creates a fundamental break with business-as-usual. permits to pollute the air with greenhouse gases would be auctioned and the proceeds returned to citizens. Mitchell. Still. cognitive frame of reference: the democratic principle that an equal share of the sky belongs to each person. Peter Barnes. Indeed. With cap-and-dividend. Now is the year for President Obama to act. It's called "cap-and-dividend. The extra income. nobody does. winning. began by asking a simple question: Who owns the sky? Without a price signal. brought by President Obama to Copenhagen along with other concrete actions. It establishes a new. It makes a cap-and-dividend plan largely immune from criticism that it will be costly to the public. In the present economic crisis. it protects low-and middle-income families from rising energy prices. This American accomplishment. 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. which should be targeted especially to the poor. while the window of opportunity is wide open. 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. would set the stage for passage of a comprehensive international treaty to slow global warming. nor will there be another financial context more sensitive to a strong new signal. it must do so with a price on carbon as part of its cure. who originally formulated this concept and has championed it tirelessly.Climate Politics Page 7 of 156 7WJ – HPSW There will not be another political opportunity as ripe as now. a time when political courage disappears. None of the options is perfect. and global warming pollution will proceed essentially unchecked. future 7 Ellis. Teddy & Megan . and it increases the chances of passage this year. As the global economy starts to rise from collapse." Under this program. everybody owns the sky and the emissions cap then becomes universally comprehensible as it begins to turn us toward a low-carbon . Whether the allocations should be shared and what the right ratios ought to be will be the subject of intense political negotiation on Capitol Hill. will protect the most vulnerable American families from rising energy prices and will help build a long-term constituency for climate action.
guardian. all we can prepare for is extinction”. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. 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. and the more the Arctic warms. To see how far this process could go. The Gaurdian. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions. and much of the world's most productive farmland. Sir David King.Climate Politics Page 8 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Climate Good 1NC Warming guarantees multiple positive feedbacks triggering extinction – adaptation cannot solve Tickell. complete with ports. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable. look 55. the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea. 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. both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke. bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. Teddy & Megan . would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean. who warned droughts.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange) We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser. cities. 8 (Oliver. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. 8/11http://www. Mitchell. "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. 8 Ellis.000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. All the world's coastal plains would be lost. Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. This is a remarkable understatement. with more frequent and severe The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks. And as the Arctic warms. melting of the Arctic sea ice. The world's geography The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5. Billions would undoubtedly die. transport and industrial infrastructure. floods and hurricanes. notably the summer The more the ice melts.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Climate Researcher. and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. “On a planet 4C hotter. the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land.
as a result of the coal-fired Industrial Revolution. warming the When these gases accumulate beyond a certain level . If that happens. potentially beyond control. 8/15. global warming will continue even if we stop releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. 8 (Andrew Simms. and the effect of those environmental feedbacks. with different ocean circulation. we have released more than 1.a "tipping point" . once a critical greenhouse concentration threshold is passed. In just 250 years. scientists at least have the sense of humour to term what drives this process as "positive feedback". Greenhouse gases trap incoming solar radiation. Faced with circumstances that threaten human civilisation. a atmosphere. So. is the highest it has been for the past 650. wind and rainfall patterns. if we are lucky. 9 Ellis. Teddy & Megan .000 years. the implications of which are potentially catastrophic for life on Earth. L/N) In just 100 months' time.000 tonnes of CO2 are released into the atmosphere every second. by revealing darker surfaces. approximately 1. The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere today. linked to climate change. and changes to land use such as the growth of cities and the felling of forests. Let us be clear exactly what we mean.global warming will accelerate.800bn tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. In climate change. This is often referred to as irreversible climate change. or the increase in greenhouse gases. Other dynamics include the decreasing ability of oceans to absorb CO2 due to higher wind strengths. Mitchell. due to human activity. number of feedback loops amplify warming through physical processes that are either triggered by the initial warming. and based on a conservative estimate. “Guardian Weekly: Just 100 months left to save Earth: Andrew Simms on a New Green Deal that could forestall the climate change tipping point”. One example is the melting of ice sheets. 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. This has already been observed in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic. and adding to climate change. Currently. To do so you combine current greenhouse gas concentrations with the best estimates for the rates at which emissions are growing. increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. the maximum concentration of greenhouse gases allowable to forestall potentially irreversible changes to the climate system. The loss of ice cover reduces the ability of the Earth's surface to reflect heat and.Climate Politics Page 9 of 156 7WJ – HPSW 2NC Impact Calc – Warming Quick The impact is quick – 81 months to extinction Guardian Weekly. we could reach a tipping point for the beginnings of runaway climate change. increases the amount of heat absorbed. the Earth's climate will shift into a more volatile state. Because of such self-reinforcing feedbacks. the most prevalent greenhouse gas.
it’s a very complicated issue. President Bush was waiting at that point with a veto pen. We may mark it up ourselves. e360: In [the 2004 presidential] campaign. there are many reasons for people to embrace what is going to be done here. because those are decisions that will be made down the road here as we get together in the next weeks. 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 have to take risks. we don’t want anything partisan out of this. who would sign a bill. after every single House amendment vote that took place in the Energy and Commerce Committee. hiring people involved with grassroots organizing. and local populations are perceiving those things. But we’re going to have to find a level of compromise here that works for people. make stronger. e360: Republicans think they can take the House and Senate back with this vote. and we’re going to have to negotiate here — obviously intelligently — and get the the House bill is actually a very good bill. got global climate change impacts hitting states all across the country. 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. You have the Europeans calling for stronger targets. this is not a race for the presidency. all of whom believe that this is a big deal for America’s economy. you’ve dramatically faster — and in greater affirmation of the predictions — than anybody had thought. who believe that we’ve got to do this. So I think e360: As an advocate without President Bush around.edu/content/feature. working with your senators. and they’re also going to run ads describing this challenge appropriately in certain states to encourage people to change their mind. e360: From a political standpoint. Interview with Senator John Kerry. Are you concerned that you might be too polarizing as a senator representing Massachusetts now? Kerry: I really don’t think so. People make too much of all that stuff. What’s their energy. and we’ve just got to get it caught up. Over half the American economy has already voluntarily put itself under mandatory [carbon] reduction schemes. that we’re going to create jobs that don’t go overseas. Do you think there’s any truth to that? Kerry: I don’t agree. may I add significantly. We’re trying to find a way to save the coal industry. without the assistance that we’re going to put in this bill to help them. So the key here is to build as broad a coalition as is possible. I’ve also talked to Newt Gingrich. fire risks. This bill is about jobs — clean energy jobs that stay here in America. 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. Doesn’t mean it’s going to be easy — it’s not. it’ll be very tough. and there may be several things we feel we can tweak. Kerry: Well. in the West. this is legislating. a very strong bill. I think what’s changed is that the science is coming back major businesses and corporations have signed up realizing that this is critical to their economic future. and various power companies. “We’re Going to Get It Done. It’s not a partisan issue.e360. You have to be reasonable — West Virginia has huge unemployment. some of the governors. because the science is more compelling. and the United States needs to lead. stronger drought. These issues are going to rise and fall based on how well they are addressed. and what they’re doing. and they votes. Different people are raising money. We may just put them into the bill with [Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman] Barbara [Boxer]. there’s a huge grassroots effort going on right now that will support the people who are involved with this. and I think a lot of communities have already moved — I mean. and on good environmental policy — good economic this bill is really a bill for the transformation of the American economy.. but it got the votes. and the status quo hurts Americans. and they can dispute and completely discredit any arguments that they’ve lost jobs because they’re doing those things. this is not a campaign. could be in trouble because of this cap-andtrade bill. that it was watered down too much in the negotiations. Let this debate be joined. that provide a higher standard of living. Things are happening to the negative because of climate change. we will show. [American Wind Energy] Association. it has been determined by the policy. This is an issue that ought to be based on science. on facts. because if it doesn’t. 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. that pay people decent salaries. Less rainfall. to Copenhagen. on economics. Teddy & Megan . is it hard to push this? Kerry: We don’t want [to be] divisive. e360: Some say that the House bill is too weak. Do they want to fix the system? No. This is about how do we meet those interests.. in the Northeast. talking about how many jobs they created in their states as a consequence of their moves on environmental policy. and so scientists are deeply alarmed. I mean. You’ve got tech companies. because we have 60 votes. It is an anti-pollution bill that protects children from all the impacts of bad air. It represents one of the fastest growing sectors of many of our states. it’s going to be regulated by the EPA. Their “no” is a vote for the status quo. But 10 Ellis. state compacts in the Midwest. potential goals for Copenhagen. and so you have DuPont and Siemens. any time you’re successful it opens up the opportunity to go out and be successful again.” http://www. 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. That’s one thing that’s changed. They’re just trying to figure out what’s the best way to try to deal with it. and it will be hard fought. our commitment to clean coal technology is in fact a huge incentive for coal states to recognize that this is a good moment. 7/27 (Darren. coal has a better opportunity for its future if it comes on board this bill. it’ll be a very big deal. because we have a Democratic president. So I think that the public is ahead of some of the politicians in Washington on this. And we’re still fighting that. there are greater possibilities this time around. Can you talk a little about the [changed] dynamics? John Kerry: This time there’s a reality to it. I think that that realization is striking home with people. We met with Markey and Waxman. two days ago. It’s taken a lot of time to try to get health care through here. So. is the number one potential state for wind in the country. In fact. in a run for a second term. Thirdly. Al Gore. though. So this will be hard fought. But there this is a growing recognition of a major challenge to Americans’ security and economic interests. He says President Obama. What’s your opinion? Kerry: I introduced legislation several years ago that had higher levels of reductions. Again. I think encouraged us to do that if we can in various places. in terms of energy efficiency projects. I have no illusions about it. other kinds of things mayors have done. reporters’ e-mail inboxes were flooded with press releases from the National Republican Congressional Committee attacking the House Democrats who voted on those amendments. I can’t tell you what the level will be in the bill. I know it’s tough. even gave us some ideas about things they would have liked to have done but weren’t able to. This is a jobs bill. Mitchell. the electorate is way ahead of some of our colleagues here. a lot of folks who are on the lower end of the economic income scale. That decision has yet to be made. Secondly .msp?id=2174) Yale Environment 360: I remember watching you last year in the Senate debate on the floor as [you] were voting on the Lieberman-Warner [climate] bill. the as people begin to analyze the realities here. I think this bill health care could be trouble? Kerry: Well you know how this place works.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. and a major coal interest.yale. Now you have President Obama. because we have a responsibility to people. you didn’t win West Virginia and Montana and the Dakotas and these states that are the swing states. I know that the House started at a higher level and had to move backward somewhat. So. It could produce ten thousand times its own electricity needs just from wind. what’s their plan? What plan do they have for anything? Do they have a plan for heath care? No. and they’re going to run ads in support of people where they do this. So as the evidence comes in. Governor Christine Gregoire here. people who look at the facts are going to realize what’s really happening here. including North Dakota. [with] enormous positive assets. beetle pine nut bugs that are eating forests in Colorado and Montana. putting advertisements together. like Florida Power and Light and American Electric Power. So there’s a very different dynamic. This is an economic jobs bill. But they’re going to try to educate the public about it. The Republicans. the Climate Action Partnership. and it is a huge step forward for energy independence for our country. different kinds of entities. We had Governor Bill Ritter from Colorado here. I look forward to it. North Dakota. and I respect that. e360: Can you talk about what general issues you intend? Kerry: The kinds of things are offsets. adaptation technology transfer.
and just where we are. and I think that as people learn that this is actually a winner. that’s our goal. I thought the 2 degrees C goal [temperature increase target] they came out of [the G8 meetings] with is pretty significant. among many. “Wow. a lot of people are going to say. because it is harder to take more [CO2] out of the atmosphere the more you delay. 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.” e360: What level of specificity do you think the United States needs going into Copenhagen? Kerry: Well I think what the House has done. overall. budget issues. as well as an improvement in the health of children because you’re reducing pollution. So if your interest is in getting something done. Hopefully we’ll have time to do it.Climate Politics Page 11 of 156 7WJ – HPSW is already better than a lot of people think it is or know it is. 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. there was some pretty harsh reaction toward the United States. But when they learn that there are billions of dollars there to help develop clean coal technology. Things don’t end with Copenhagen. I think that China is doing a lot more than people know or think. if you had a law. and it also doesn’t take into account the final things in the House when they voted. But we have to see what happens to the Senate schedule. This is not a static process. which we do very effectively in this. that’s pretty good. because they don’t know yet really what’s in it. e360: When you look at the G8 meetings that just happened. to achieve that. negotiating with China and with other countries? Kerry: Not at all. CBO [Congressional Budget Office] — and the EPA — has demonstrated that the cost to the lowest quintile of Americans is actually no cost. and the cost to others is a range. But that’s without taking into account energy efficiencies or taking into account the new technologies. And if you want to enhance China’s prospects of signing onto [a treaty]. and everything else. this is not the scary thing people have described it as. it’s a significant engine of growth for the economy. Teddy & Megan . when they learn there are incentives for energy efficiencies or new technologies. and the Chinese likewise. and a bona fide effort by the United States. with some adjustment as we go along to the realities of science and economics and other things as they come at us. it’s $40 in their pocket. we can always react. and if we get a bill out of committee here. that’s a good level to go in with. that are going to be necessary. we should pass something. But it’s going to take leadership. too. Whatever we achieve in Copenhagen is a first major step. Mitchell. Would it be better if we finished the job here and got it passed? Absolutely. to do what we need to do. That puts pressure on China and India and everybody else. Kerry: 11 Ellis. we can react. does that tie the United States’ hands. the issue doesn’t suddenly go away. You know. Kerry: It’s been overblown — the Indians are repeating what they’ve always been saying. that we’re helping to mitigate any kind of cost increase against the individual homeowner or electricity user. and regrettably it’s going to get actually more expensive. If evidence came in saying we’ve got to speed it up. Is it sufficient yet to deal with what we have to deal with going into Copenhagen? Not yet. because a 2 degrees goal carries with it certain obligations. it’s a jobs creator. I’m optimistic about the capacity to do it. And also increasing the security of the United States because you’re reducing energy dependency. between 75 dollars and a hundred and something. and you have the House bill at that moment. over an entire year for a family of four. e360: Senator Reid has said that he would like it signed into law by Copenhagen. I think people understand that. So that’s now being scoped into it. health care. or Secretary Clinton’s trip to India. e360: Do we leave Copenhagen with a document that is the Copenhagen Protocol? Kerry: I hope so. and that gets more expensive. e360: And going into Copenhagen. what people ought to understand is that legislation isn’t forever. So in fact delay hurts the American consumer. If evidence came in in a few years showing we could slow it down. and we need to show them exactly how. it’s a jobs winner. but that is what has to be fleshed out in the negotiating process. and Speaker Pelosi has said the same. we’re better off passing something. Kerry: We’d all like it — ideally you’d get a November signing. That was on the Waxman-Markey original bill. It also carries with it some requirements with respect to what you do. domestically.
factories. with the remaining 15% to be auctioned. however. Teddy & Megan . will face a far tougher time in the Senate. oil refineries and vehicles to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. but the passage of the Waxman-Markey Bill through the House of Representatives is a landmark victory for Obama's energy policy.Climate Politics Page 12 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Uniqueness: Will Pass – Bro Card for 1NR Cap and trade will pass the Senate because of Obama’s political capital and solve for warming– but it will be a tough fight BMI 7/1/09 (Americas Oil and Gas Insights. With Obama clearly willing to expend significant political capital to secure the passage of legislation which will. The bill's cap-and-trade programme allocates 85% of credits to industry without cost. which is predicated on a transition away from dependence on fossil fuels and significant investment in renewable technologies. 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. where the upper chamber's composition makes the polarisation of regional interests far more pronounced. The WaxmanMarkey Bill would also require that at least 15% of US electricity production by 2020 come from renewable sources. including energy secretary Steven Chu and foreign relations committee chairman John Kerry. put a price on US greenhouse gas emissions. the bill now passes to a sceptical Senate for ratification. for the fist time. while forcing US companies to comply with stricter environmental standards than their overseas competitors. 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. Senate agriculture and forestry committee chairman senator Tom Harkin of Iowa said passage of the bill would be tough. Having gained approval from the lower house. have been working on securing Senate support for the bill since January. with at least six of the Senate's 20 committees working on alternative legislation. such as Vermont independent Bernie Sanders. Further political horse-trading is inevitable. It aims to cut fossil fuel emissions from power plants. The passage of the bill. Indeed. passage of a wide-ranging climate change bill before the end of 2009 now seems assured. also referred to as the Waxman-Markey Bill after its authors. Mitchell. Senators from Midwestern and industrial states are concerned that a cap-and-trade system could raise energy costs for consumers. the bill is unlikely to survive in its current form. Attempts to water down the bill could. risk the support of senators. Key members of Obama's administration. according to Bloomberg. 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. 12 Ellis. Revenue from the auction will be redistributed to low-income households. including farmers. who support more stringent environmental standards. Even with Obama's support.
Nebraska. and it will make it easier.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. Mitchell. and that it will. It should have a broader appeal. Boxer's standalone climate-change bill fell to defeat. Energy. WEA) Last year.will have jurisdiction over the bill.miamiherald. There will be so much in there. it's all difficult.html. most observers say the bill's fate will lie with 15 or so Democratic moderates." she said in the interview. Six committees . There will be help for areas that need flood control. "Boxer faces challenge of a lifetime' on climate change bill". After years of battling with the Bush administration. Boxer has been telling audiences for years that Congress must act. 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. Boxer figures she has the best odds ever of getting a bill signed into law. "There will be so much in this bill. There will be great opportunities for agriculture. Having said that. Teddy & Megan . There will be great incentives for energy efficiency." While vote counts vary. Those committee heads have been meeting for months with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. but there's a new strategy this year that will make it harder for senators to reject it. Commerce. There will be investments in transportation. Boxer said the approach was unlike any she'd experienced since she joined the Senate in 1993. Miami Herald. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of for climate change legislation could hurt their re-election chances. who'll help combine their work into one massive bill this fall.com/news/politics/AP/v-print/story/1138238. and she predicted that it will simplify passage. "It's a different dynamic. 13 Ellis.Environment and Public Works. Agriculture and Foreign Relations . which Boxer heads. http://www. 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
still fights for global warming law”. despite past rifts with Dems." he said.Climate Politics Page 17 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Uniqueness: Will Pass – Odds Climate bill has better than even chances of passing Cappiello. also has gotten more compelling since he wrote his first global warming bill more than a decade ago. problem gets worse. the threat of real damage gets worse. http://www. 7/27/09— (Dina Cappiello. 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. San Francisco Examiner. however.com/politics/ap/51807187. Teddy & Megan . he said. "Every year the feel comfortable operating in the context of the House bill. Lieberman says the odds for passage "are better than even" — thanks to a president who is behind the bill." said Lieberman. He also says it would raise the money needed to make "revolutionary investments" in cleaner forms of energy. The science. even catastrophic damage. "That's the thing I like most and why I This year. who went on to win a Nobel Prize for his work on global warming. Mitchell. ”AP Interview: Lieberman. vehicles and businesses.sfexaminer. and to "ameliorate some of the pain associated with an enormous societal change" in how Americans power their homes. Vice President Al Gore.html) Lieberman still thinks that cap-and-trade is the best way to control global warming emissions. 17 Ellis. sounding like his 2000 presidential running mate.
Lexis) Baucus (D-Mont. 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. "Not aware of any change." 18 Ellis. as well as provisions dealing with international trade. and something we ought to do. Mostly. when he will also be tackling some of the core pieces of a climate bill.” E&E News. And Senate Democrats still expect to meet Reid's timetable for the global warming bill. And Agriculture Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said he planned to meet Reid's deadline for moving his parts of the climate bill. 7/28/2009 (Darren. who sits on both the Environment and Public Works and Finance committees. and science advisor John Holdren—told the Senate Agriculture Committee to relax." said Sen. "I think the idea of marking up in late September is viable.com/environmentalcapital/2009/07/23/team-obama-why-farmers-should-love-the-climate-bill/tab/print/. Mitchell. More than any other lawmaker. with prospects for Senate success resting in large part on a small set of said he is gearing up for September. he said. 7/23/2009 (Darren. http://blogs." Manley said of the Sept.” Secretary Vilsack brandished a new report from the Agriculture Department.” E&E News. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev. "Team Obama: why farmers should love the climate bill".wsj." Baucus told E&E. WSJ 7/23/2009 (Wall Street Journal. which allowances are free allowances.) today acknowledged that the Senate would not begin floor debate until after the August recess on health care legislation. Teddy & Megan . A number of administration heavyweights—Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. For now. At the same time. "We'll be taking that up. alongside several fiscal 2010 appropriations bills. have hearings on and fully intend to mark up allowances. senior reporter. literally. as well as what allowances are auctioned. Reid's goal is to resolve health care differences in the key committees in time for a September floor debate. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson. while we're debating on the floor health care legislation. The upshot? Thanks to all the last-minute goodies included in the House climate bill. Farmers will make out a lot better with climate legislation than without it. 28 deadline for six Senate committees to complete their pieces of a climate bill.). according to his spokesman. Dems say. 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." An aide to EPW Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif. deadline for cap and trade. But that shift in schedule does not affect Reid's Sept.) confirmed that the plan still remains for committee action in September. "And we may be doing that. he said today. "We're going to. 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. Baucus has been engulfed in negotiations on health care reform. senior reporter. “Senate health care delay won't change cap-and-trade schedule. Jim Manley. farmers stand to rake in a fortune from so-called carbon offsets. That extra income will more than compensate higher energy prices.) has set for six committees to sign off on their pieces of a sweeping climate bill. The Obama administration continued its offensive on the climate bill.) will meet a late September deadline for clearing global warming legislation despite the all-out push for a health care bill that has dominated the congressional agenda. “Baucus pledges to meet late Sept. in the Finance Committee. Still on track for climate passage – Senators can walk and chew gum at the same time Samuelsohn. Baucus (D-Nev. including the distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars in emission allowances.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." Baucus said of the Sept. Tom Carper (D-Del. 28 target. Baucus agrees – they’ll get climate done in September Samuelsohn. enjoying “significant net benefits. That schedule was abandoned after House and Senate Democrats struggled this week to find consensus in several committees. 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. But we can walk and chew gum. we'll meet it. "Yes.
however.html) Administration officials and environmental groups continue to push Congress for quick action. Teddy & Megan .Climate Politics Page 19 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Healthcare First The vote will come soon despite the push for health care Samuelsohn. Mitchell.glgroup. Earlier this year. when he will also be tackling some of the core pieces of a climate bill." Baucus said of the Sept. More than any other lawmaker. “Cap and Trade Enactment Likelihood Fading. At the same time.) has set for six committees to sign off on their pieces of a sweeping climate bill. Obama is still lobbying Congress on a daily basis for climate GLG 7/27/2009 (Gerson Lehrman Group. he said today. E&E News PM. 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. "Yes. (Darren. 28 target that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev. with prospects for Senate success resting in large part on a small set of bipartisan negotiations he is leading in the Finance Committee. CLIMATE: Baucus pledges to meet late Sept.com/News/Cap-and-Trade-Enactment-Likelihood-Fading-Utilities-ShouldntGet-Complacent-41899. Utilities Shouldn’t Get Complacent. including the distribution of hundreds of millions of dollars in emission allowances. The White House is actively lobbying Congress for climate change legislation on an almost daily basis. The administration is also working through the Environmental Protection Agency on a parallel strategy. as well as provisions dealing with international trade. but the development of such regulations keeps the heat on industry and Congress to come to a legislative solution. Baucus has been engulfed in negotiations on health care reform. Implementation of such regulations would no doubt be delayed by years of litigation by industry. 7/28/09. deadline for cap and trade) Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.” http://www.) will meet a late September deadline for clearing global warming legislation despite the all-out push for a health care bill that has dominated the congressional agenda. we'll meet it. Baucus said he is gearing up for September. 19 Ellis.
20 Ellis.com/disp/story.chron.html.” observed Frank Maisano. Houston Chronicle. Dlouhy 7/11/2009 (Jennifer A. For supporters.. “the largest problem is the regional nature” of the debate.Climate Politics Page 20 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Senate The Senate will be substantially harder than the House. 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. http://www. "Energy-climate overhaul an uphill battle in Congress". “Regional issues tend to blow up in the Senate. Teddy & Megan . Mitchell.mpl/business/6524623.
Climate Politics Page 21 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Democrats Won’t pass—no Democratic unity. US News & World Report. Adding to the bewilderment is the political reality that climate change doesn't necessarily follow partisan lines. who monitors Congress for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. The present Democratic majority doesn't stick together on global warming policy. SFC 7/12/2009 (San Francisco Chronicle. WEA) Obama hailed the package. "That's not remotely an option in the Senate.DTL&type=printable. "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.usnews." says Nikki Roy. For all of its lofty intentions. WEA) the Senate presents special challenges. 21 Ellis." says Roy. Mitchell.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/12/ED5618I1CC. "Because there is such an overwhelming Democratic majority in the House." 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. "Climate-change challenge shifts to the U. but it's nowhere near a done deal.com/articles/news/energy/2009/07/10/climate-change-bill-faces-hurdles-in-the-senate. Supermajority isn’t enough to get it through Senate. Teddy & Megan .S. a worrisome invitation to a protectionist trade war.com/cgibin/article. The moribund nuclear industry wants a chance to rebound.html. rules. Included in the House version is a tariff on imports from countries that don't play by the U. the House bill was larded with so many giveaways and complexities that several environmental groups denounced it.sfgate. because you have to look beneath the partisan levels. you could more or less enact the bill almost entirely on Democratic votes. http://www. http://www. Midwest states worry about job losses if smokestack rules change.S. Collecting the 60 votes the Senate will need to stop a filibuster and win passage is no certainty. Coal states fear that generating plants will cut back on their favorite fuel. Farm groups want ag-friendly sweeteners to promote biofuels and allow the sale of pollution credits to outside industries. Senate". Garber 7/10/2009 (Kent.
health care is the top priority for leaders on Capitol Hill and the bills intended to deal with climate change will have to wait.Climate Politics Page 22 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Healthcare First Healthcare coverage is pushing climate off the agenda.environmental politics news site. But the move comes amid signs of rising opposition to the bill in the Senate from moderate Democrats as well as Republicans.a goodly percentage of which is far across the spectrum from Stewart and outwardly hostile to climate change arguments . health care. she said. he said. “Health care swallows up everything else for a while. Red Green and Blue . D-Calif. Climate bill got delayed. but they will also need to tweak the policy. If Jon Stewart is snoozing. climate change later". 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. Palmer 7/11/2009 (Avery.. 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.is tuned all the way out. Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer . With no soft power left.guardian. Messaging is a start.founder of EnergyWorks Community Relations. energy and the environment still are considered Birkenstock and granola issues. has agreed to extend by 10 days a deadline for all committees to finish their work on the climate change bill. "The more we can do the better. After all his arm-twisting on the F-22s.” said Sherrod Brown .” added Debbie Stabenow . Barack "We will do it as soon as we get back. Several senators said they need the extra month to negotiate with moderates in both parties to reach agreement on a large and complicated bill. and the stimulus. Instead. 28. And they said “Health care is a huge." she said." 22 Ellis. Health care is all touch-and-feel…it plays with everyone. Mitchell. That is partly because climate change. You can count climate change among the “priorities” now in the shadows. http://redgreenandblue. CQ Politics. 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. we know that the rest of America . the health care bill’s going to consume our attentions and our passion. D-Mich. "I want to take this as far as we can take it. D-Ohio. WEA) At least for now.” Majority Leader Harry Reid . Suffolk University Law School (Joe. said she had scaled back plans of writing a first draft of a climate change bill before Congress goes on its August recess. you have to decide what we’re going to focus on. http://www. That wasn’t really a surprise given the way that health care has elbowed its way into the political spotlight. She insisted that the delay would not jeopardise chances of getting climate change legislation through Congress this year. Goldenberg 7/9/2009 . the committee will debate amendments and vote on a bill in early September. the Guardian.US environment correspondent for the Guardian (Suzanne. giving them until Sept. “I think in terms of floor time.org/2009/07/23/three-ways-obama-wins-republicans-on-climate-change/. D-Nev.uk/world/2009/jul/09/congress-climate-change/print.” Aug. complicated issue and critical that it be done. Sotomayor. Obama will need to combine a new message with new concessions. "Senate Democrats push back deadline on Obama climate change agenda"." she told reporters. Teddy & Megan . Although the committees can still move on energy. "Three Ways Obama Wins Republicans on Climate Change". Barbara Boxer. so at some point. Walsh 7/23/2009 . WEA) Energy didn’t get a sniff in last night’s Obama press conference.. and so is climate change. 7. Climate change? Not so much. "Health bill now. “Many of us are deeply involved in both.co. founder of LinkedIn. when Obama is due to attend an international summit on climate change at Copenhagen. 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. Boxer would not guarantee that Congress would be able to pass legislation before December. the chair of the environment and public works committee who is spearheading the Obama environment agenda. 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).
Boxer tried and failed a year ago to pass a climate change bill. Mitchell.Climate Politics Page 23 of 156 7WJ – HPSW The downshifting in the Democrats' agenda comes a day after a meeting of Obama's energy and climate change team at the White House. 23 Ellis. and marks an acknowledgement by the Administration of the daunting challenge of getting enough votes for the bill in the delicately balanced Senate. Teddy & Megan .
WEA) He also predicts the heart of Obama's climate change plan on carbon emissions -. not a destination.Climate Politics Page 24 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Recession Cap and trade won’t pass—recession makes it too unpopular.news. and if Weekend Australian. the Australian." Obama. Obama cannot escape the realities of the US economy.00. health and climate change as a journey. is trying to brush off suggestions of setback. 70.html.a cap-and-trade scheme -- could go missing from legislation that ultimately passes in the Senate. http://www. 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. we were not left with this budget deficit and the recession was not as deep.25830885-7583. saying it is OK with him to delay considering health care until the end of the year. it might have worked out.au/story/0. rather than 60. "I think the President had a terrific vision and grand plans on where to go with health and climate change." Cook tells The "He can look to getting a third to a half of what he wanted. "Popular faith in Obama dwindles amid setbacks". Norington 7/25/2009 (Brad. But if his health and climate change policies don't work. 24 Ellis.com. Mitchell. Teddy & Megan .25197. or 80 per cent. The challenge as a most strategically gifted politician is selling a disappointing result as a victory : we've made a down payment.theaustralian. meanwhile.
Brown. "Climate bill takes hit in Senate from China".com/leading-the-news/climate-billtakes-hit-in-senate-from-china-2009-07-11. Both Sen. and Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) say they are skeptical of the climate change bill that passed the House last month.html. Teddy & Megan . Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Sen. 25 Ellis. 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. The legislation has an uncertain future in the Senate. http://thehill. Taylor. Mitchell. Rushing 7/11/2009 (J.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. the Hill.) announced on Thursday that she is delaying the bill until after the August recess. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark. 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. 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. given the likelihood that Republicans will lock down against it.
Sen. July 16).nytimes. Lisa Murkowski. Bob Corker (R-Tenn." Alexander said at a press conference this week unveiling a "blueprint" for constructing 100 nuclear power plants in 20 years." Fellow fence-sitter Sen. increasing resources for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and more money to nuclear research and development.Climate Politics Page 26 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Uniqueness: Nuclear Concessions =/= Passage Nuclear power concessions not enough Ling 7/17/2009 (Katerine. "No one can give us a clear estimate about the cost. John McCain (R-Ariz. another possible supporter. additional reporting from Allison Winter and Alex Kaplun and Darren Samuelsohn. such as the cost of the bill. but it is not going to make up for the tremendous defects that occur in the House bill." Corker said. Sen. said spokesman Robert Dillon. But McCain has also roundly criticized many other parts of the House climate bill. .). 26 Ellis. "The bill needs to be junked. a key potential Republican supporter. New York Times.com/cwire/2009/07/17/17climatewire-nuclear-title-may-not-be-enough-to-push-sena-19318. who was also thought by many to be a possible supporter of a climate change bill." "Certainly our energy bill has nuclear in it and hopefully it sees the light of day. ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. which Boxer has stated is the starting point for her committee draft. natural gas and other fuels as part of an "all of the above" approach. 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). Mitchell.html? pagewanted=print.400-page monstrosity" House bill contains too many giveaways to special interests and trade protection measures (E&E Daily. "At this point she is not supporting a cap-and-trade bill. Alexander said he would be pursuing his goal in separate legislation to boost loan guarantee funds. Nuclear energy incentives do not appear to be the clincher for Republican swing voters either. would welcome a stronger nuclear title in the climate bill but there are several other problems." Dillon said." Sen.a heavy coal-production state -. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.. "Nuclear Title May Not Be Enough to Push Senate Climate Bill Over the Top". Sen. Teddy & Megan . 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.. "We'll see.Dorgan simply said. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn. Lincoln spokeswoman Katie Laning Niebaum said. http://www.). ClimateWire.) also wants to see incentives for nuclear energy in any climate bill she would support but also more for biomass. told reporters this week including a nuclear title is "vital" to his support for a climate bill.). said the money or free allocations flowing to special interests is "offensive. WEA) When asked if additional nuclear incentives in a climate bill would help win support from the senator from North Dakota -. (R-Alaska). McCain said the "1.
meaning that supporters need 60 votes to pass a bill. or South. Dallas Morning News. 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. resolution: * there were two important Senate climate change votes in April on the Senate budget 67 Senators. Mitchell. Teddy & Megan .dallasnews.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. voted against creating fast-track reconciliation protections for a cap-and-trade bill. regions such as the Midwest. Mitchell 7/2/2009 (Jim. Great Plains. *54 Senators. including 27 Democrats. "Why the energy bill faces a tough Senate fight".S. As a reminder. including 13 Democrats.html. http://energyandenvironmentblog." 27 Ellis. 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. rather than 51.
“It’s a very good thing. Palmer 7/11/2009 (Avery. director of congressional affairs at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Boxer said the Agriculture and Foreign Relations committees may draft legislative text for her to incorporate into the bill. There’s no benefit to noble failure here. allowing more time for the Senate to reach a consensus. Science and Transportation panels could hold separate markups. WEA) Advocates Approve Members of several interest groups pushing for a climate change bill said the new schedule is a positive step. CQ Politics. “Just having the House bill passed was a big boost.” The Senate also has a narrow window to pass energy legislation before the United Nations climate change negotiations this December in Copenhagen.” said Manik Roy. "Health bill now.” said Jake Schmidt. climate change later". Boxer said Congress already sent a strong signal internationally with the passage of the House bill. “It’s very. “I want to take this as far as I can take it. the more credible we are in the final negotiations. So the more we can do. very important that we succeed in this effort to enact this law in this Congress. 28 Ellis.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. Teddy & Megan . 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. Meanwhile. five other committee chairmen will share jurisdiction over the bill. the better. Mitchell. “The further along we are on that path.” Advocates for a climate treaty say the United States needs to show progress toward enacting a new law. according to the administration. international climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. The measure will also incorporate a bill that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved in June. In addition to Boxer. the Finance and Commerce.” 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.” she said.
How do you make sure people are actually complying?" Harkin wondered Thursday. Under cap and trade. And she's concerned about how caps on emissions might affect coal-fired power plants that supply electricity to rural areas. In the Senate. said he still has questions about exactly how a cap and trade program would work. That's what two influential Democrats in Congress Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. other congressional leaders. Harkin. Californian Boxer. Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota told Agriculture Online Thursday. 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. along with possible legislation to cap greenhouse gasses and allow trading of offsets. But that system does not include offsets like capturing carbon in soils on farms and in forests.agriculture. another Californian who Barbara heads the Energy and Environment Committee. Besides serving on the House Agriculture Committee. trade legislation will take back seat to health care reform.the effort on climate change could be delayed.com/ag/story. including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Harkin said he still has questions about how a cap and trade law would work. says Laura Sands. Teddy & Megan . chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. head of the Environment and Public Works Committee.Climate Politics Page 29 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Climate Bill Inevitable Cap and Trade inevitable – now is not key Looker. "If you're going to have agricultural offsets. 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. Sands said. said he doubts that cap and trade legislation will be completed in the Senate this year. climate change -. Whoever sequesters carbon." 29 Ellis. "I think thats a very aggressive schedule. has indicated interest in getting a climate change bill passed this year. large factories and power plants that put out greenhouse gasses would be required to buy offsets. 3/13/09." she said Thursday. "The sticking point is the inspection regime. which represents a coalition of farm leaders from commodity groups." 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. coordinator of the Ag Carbon Market Working Group. multi-billion dollar carbon market for farmers. Mitchell. has outlined a goal of getting a bill out of his committee by Memorial Day. congressional leaders say” http://www. who has told Agriculture Online Thursday. We realize that some in the leadership of Congress have established an aggressive schedule for cap and trade. In the House.xml) With President Barack Obama and Congress tackling many big issues this year -. you've got to make sure they're complying.jhtml? storyid=/templatedata/ag/story/data/1236946503706. practices that take a commitment of many years. 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." Harkin said. Herseth Sandlin is on a the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. something that advocates say has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% or more. you've got to make sure it's actually happening. "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. Representative Henry Waxman. long favored farm programs that make "green payments" for long term practices such as planting trees and grasses. "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. According to published reports. That makes this issue crucial for agriculture.health care reform." Harkin said that the best way to capture carbon may be in pastures and trees. still want to get climate change legislation passed this year. In an e-mail message to Agriculture Online. education. “Cap. which was formed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2007.Successful Farming Magazine Business Editor (Dan. "Our number one priority right now is health care reform.
is this: We cannot be afraid of the future. While his popularity remains strong. 2009 (“Analysis: Obama scores major. medical system. Political capital is key to get the climate bill passed—House pressure proves.environmental politics news site.guardian. 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. the victory validated Obama's governing style â€” and that could bode well for his other top domestic priority. Suffolk University Law School (Joe." Obama said in his weekend Internet and radio address. the president's furious lobbying â€” coupled with a final push by allies including former Vice President Al Gore â€” carried much weight. 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. To a certain extent. President Barack Obama put a big dose of political capital on the line and scored a major victory just when he needed one. given that Democrats lack the 60 votes needed to cut off a likely filibuster. He faces an even more difficult test in shepherding the energy and climate legislation through the Senate. Teddy & Megan . Senate passage is far from certain. Red Green and Blue . including deficit spending as Obama pumps an enormous amount of money into the economy and elsewhere. Liberal groups are running ads against senators who won't publicly support a government program to compete against private insurers. Moderate Democrats are looking to forge compromises to pass a measure.org/2009/07/23/three-ways-obama-wins-republicans-on-climate-change/.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 . But the climate legislation pitted Democrats who represent East Coast states that have been cleaning up their act against Democrats in the Mideast and other places that rely heavily on coal and industry. now is the time to take these three steps.6-28.S. He scrapped his talk on his original topic. In the end.co. 30 Ellis. Copenhagen is just five months away. As Congress tackles that contentious issue. If Obama wants policy reform. In private telephone conversations and last-minute public appeals. WEA) The science says we’re at a tipping point. Mitchell. They have a longer. Democrats have a comfortable House majority. Obama's personal touch â€” and another dose of his political capital â€” will be required again.Associated Press Writer. http://www. founder of LinkedIn. Sidoti 09 LIZ SIDOTI. And we must not be prisoners of the past. The measure ended up passing in dramatic fashion. Obama's overall ratings have slipped a bit.uk/world/feedarticle/8581478) Facing a rare defeat. more expensive path to meet requirements in the measure. This restive nation also is wary of some of his proposals. as well as to every American. liberal critics are dug in over elements they want to see in any legislation. health care. Congress was getting ready for a weeklong holiday break and already health care was hanging in the balance. Obama recognizes as much. health care. "Now my call to every senator.” Associated Press. much-needed victory. Obama's left flank is beating up him and his allies over the effort to overhaul the costly and complex U. http://redgreenandblue. health care tops the list. there is a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate until the end of the session. His political courage today will dictate whether tomorrow’s environment will benefit from an abandonment of yesterday’s energy consumption habits. Obama leaned heavily on House Democratic holdouts to support the first energy legislation ever designed to curb global warming. "Three Ways Obama Wins Republicans on Climate Change". It was a win Obama certainly needed.
As outlined. If there is a GOP co-sponsor. at which point he hopes to cobble together the pieces and get the package to the floor late in the fall. 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 controversial and still-evolving technology described by its developers as "clean coal" but derided by many environmentalists.) 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. acknowledging that they cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.). when the leaders of the world's largest economies are slated to focus on efforts to slow global environmental change. More evidence Washington Post. 18.html) Obama's climate-change legislation begins a daunting march through the Senate this week. according to aides and outside activists backing the legislation.) plans to unveil a major global warming bill immediately after Congress returns from the August recess. Some outside activists supporting the bill are taking a wait-and-see approach. A Republican cosponsor could give cover to moderate Republicans — and fence-sitting Democrats — to vote for cloture." Sen. even if they have concerns about the political impact of a “yes” vote in the final tally. Sens.washingtonpost. 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. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif. I don't deal in hypotheticals. Supporters are targeting a pool of roughly two dozen lawmakers -. which would be traded on markets like commodities.Climate Politics Page 31 of 156 7WJ – HPSW I/L: Bipartisanship Key Bipart key to the climate bill Washington Independent. "I am very optimistic. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. The environmental lobby has rigorously opposed any new nuclear plants.who will determine the legislation's fate or coal -. But the political realities of the Senate. 7/16/09 (A Boxer-Snowe Climate Bill? http://washingtonindependent. Maine's moderate Republicans. Ohio. the two moderates from Maine. Byron Dorgan (D-N. 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. it will be necessary to bring a few Republicans on board. said yesterday.) said in an interview yesterday.com/51380/a-boxer-snowe-climate-bill) Via Climate Progress. Democrats from the Rust Belt states of West Virginia.). Sen.). but it would almost certainly lose the vote of Sen.would have to reduce their emissions or buy allowances.everything from allowing more offshore drilling for oil and natural gas to increasing funding for President nuclear energy -. natural gas Reid can count on the support of about 40 to 45 senators for that basic premise.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/07/06/AR2009070603514_pf. the bill would create a "cap-and-trade" system placing the first national limit on greenhouse-gas emissions. I don't think negatively. at least to break a filibuster. A trio of Democrats from the Dakotas want more funding for wind power. have made their case that nuclear power is the best for cleaning the skies of carbon emissions. is planning to introduce a climate bill Sept. 31 Ellis. .including any business that burns fossil fuels such as oil. Major emitters of greenhouse gases -. That measure might help attract moderate Democrats and some Even after making additional compromises to win over wavering Democrats.400-page House version of the bill already includes so many giveaways to corporate America that more horse-trading in the Senate could lead them to oppose the final version. Senators will weigh a slew of potential compromises -.). "As a legislator. gradually tightening those limits over the next four decades with a goal of reducing emissions 83 percent by 2050. Mitchell. Indiana and Michigan are pushing for more incentives to help their depressed industries shift to alternative energy sources. director of the Washington office for Environment America. The narrow 219 to 212 victory on June 26 in the House has given Senate backers some level of hope.D. who has regularly vowed to help filibuster any bill that brings drilling within the current limit of 125 miles. despite the concessions they might be forced into accepting. E&E News reports that Sen. director of communications and strategy for the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy. though she would not name names. but several GOP senators. 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. Bill Nelson (D-Fla. Teddy & Megan . Republicans. 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. everything is negotiable. which is drafting its portion of the climate legislation. are the only likely GOP backers of the legislation at this point. chairman of the environment committee.including about 15 of Reid's Democrats -. 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. and if Obama needs more Republicans. Obama will be promoting the effort to limit greenhouse gases at the Group of Eight meeting in Italy on Thursday. it will most likely be Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins.that they think would inch the package closer to passage. This last piece of news is potentially huge. 8. she said today…. The same senators also will likely want more funding for carbon capture and sequestration. As a legislator and a chairman. with a Republican co-sponsor: Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif. chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I think positively. including Lamar Alexander (Tenn. Reid has tasked a handful of committee chairs with completing their portions of the legislation by Sept.) and John McCain (Ariz. The battle ahead differs from many on Capitol Hill in that ideology is considered to be less influential than geography. Reid could find himself a few votes short and desperately searching for Republican support." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev. 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. As of today. 7/6/09 (http://www. Boxer predicted she would have at least one Republican cosponsor on her bill. where supermajorities of at least 60 votes are needed for practically any major piece of legislation. Bledsoe. "Senate leaders will likely be compelled to expand the political and policy appeal of the bill to reach key moderates in both parties." said Paul W. The technology is already slated for $10 billion in government-funded research in legislation that passed the House. "It goes a little in all directions." said Anna Aurilio. But environmental activists warn that the 1. especially after the House vote.
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.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. http://www. and staking a claim for the money to come from a proposed clean energy development bank. 32 Ellis. but I am not sure what else you can do for nuclear. 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. envisages almost unlimited federal loan guarantees to encourage wind and solar power and." said Lamar Alexander. Ling 7/17/2009 (Katerine.2bn) to $38bn. 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. calling for a doubling of the number of nuclear reactors in the US by 2030.. a Republican from Tennessee who is the strongest proponent of nuclear power in the Senate. But what should go in it and how much impact that might have for the nuclear industry is unclear. Republicans in the House of Representatives produced a spoiler version of the Democrats' climate change bill this week. Climate legislation will be a boon to the nuclear industry—Republicans and nuclear lobbies have hijacked it. he said." said Joseph Romm. The "I think there will be a nuclear title. "Nuclear Title May Not Be Enough to Push Senate Climate Bill Over the Top". Tom Carper (D-Del.. "If you care about climate change ." Sen. Teddy & Megan .) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev. Republican leaders. Other Republicans have called on the administration to underwrite the $122bn start-up costs of 19 nuclear reactors.com/cwire/2009/07/17/17climatewire-nuclear-title-may-not-be-enough-to-push-sena-19318. 100 new nuclear power plants is the place to start.guardian. In the Senate. This conclusion comes after discussions with Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif. chairman of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee. "we just have to do it the right way.uk/environment/2009/jun/11/us-nuclear-industry-plans-new-reactors/print. Mitchell. One version. a senior fellow with Center for American Progress.. "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." Romm said. yes. under consideration by the Senate. including the former presidential candidate John McCain. nuclear proponents hope. additional reporting from Allison Winter and Alex Kaplun and Darren Samuelsohn. making its potential role in climate negotiations muted.nytimes. Reid this week said he would be open to a nuclear component but. http://www. New York Times. Goldenberg 6/11/2009 . and proposes easing controls for new nuclear plants.html? pagewanted=print. ClimateWire. he said..co. new reactors." nuclear title on incentives for R&D . also called this week for loan guarantees for building new reactors to rise from $18. "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. "US nuclear industry tries to hijack Obama's climate change bill".US environment correspondent for the Guardian (Suzanne. told reporters earlier this week. whose applications are now under review by the department of energy. Another crucial element of the Republicans' "nuclear renaissance" are two rival proposals for a "clean energy bank" now before Congress.).5bn (£11. 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. The 152-page Republican bill contains just one reference to climate change.).
33 Ellis. Timothy. "Nuclear lobby presses for more loan guarantees".the fossil fuel that emits the most carbon dioxide -.S. a centerpiece of President Barack Obama's green agenda. "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. http://thehill." Roy said. is actually a solution to worsening global warming. As many as 20 to A key question is whether the industry and its allies can convince enough lawmakers that nuclear power. "Nuclear could benefit from U. a vice president for government outreach at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. That's anxious to see nuclear get incentives because because Midwestern utilities mainly burn coal -. 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. Snyder 6/21/2009 (Jim.com/leading-thenews/nuclear-lobby-presses-for-more-loan-guarantees-2009-06-21. WEA) NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U. and the coal and oil industries. Gardner 2009 (7/7.Climate Politics Page 33 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Cap And Trade Solves Nuclear Power Cap and trade is a boost to nuke power regardless of extra provisions. climate bill. Concessions for nuclear could help win them over. Moderate Democrats from Midwestern states are especially utilities there could get slammed by greenhouse gas regulations.com/article/GCAGreenBusiness/idUSTRE56677B20090707. said Manik Roy. Teddy & Megan .reuters. Rueters. Legislation that caps carbon emissions could make nuclear power more economical relative to other sources of electricity such as coal. 25 of the 60 Senate Democrats are just as concerned about what the recession is doing to manufacturing. Obama will include nuclear incentives to help it pass Senate. which is a big emitter of CO2. climate bill". a leading greenhouse gas.and incentives to build nuclear plants could help them deal with the expenses and provide new jobs. Mitchell.S. http://www. long seen as an environmental headache due to its radioactive waste and potential safety risks. as they are about global warming. 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. The Hill. The House of Representatives narrowly approved its version of the bill late last month and it included little mention of nuclear energy.html. could stall in the Senate unless it contains incentives to help the nuclear power industry build the next generation of reactors.
http://www. Senate lawmaker said.S. Dow Jones Newswires. "I don't know that we need to have more than that.Climate Politics Page 34 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Not Enough Loan Guarantees The current bill has enough nuclear power provisions. D-Calif. Mitchell.aspx?storyid=200907161530dowjonesdjonline000943&title=us-senboxerhouse-climate-bill-already-boonto-nuclear-pwr. additional incentives aren’t key Hughes 7/16/2009 (Siobhan. and the U. House of Representatives. WEA) Nuclear power would be encouraged under a climate.S." 34 Ellis." Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer. Teddy & Megan .nasdaq. Senate doesn't need to go beyond that to encourage nuclear power. a top U.. told reporters after a Senate hearing.change bill that has passed the U.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story. The House bill is "a huge boon to the nuclear industry. "US Sen Boxer:House Climate Bill Already 'Boon' To Nuclear Pwr".S.
23. 2007. Mitchell.. 'There are no silver bullets to this issue.' Obama was asked again about nuclear power during a meeting with the Editorial Board of the Keene Sentinel newspaper in New Hampshire. that's the problem. 'I'm not somebody who says nuclear is off the table no matter what because there's no perfect energy source. and if they're not solvable I don't want to invest in it. WEA) Obama appears unlikely to throw the nuclear industry under the bus entirely. http://www. Inter Press Service. But we're gonna have to try a series of different approaches. Cardinale 2008 (12/17.' Obama said. 'But if they are solvable. on Nov. We just dislike the fact that it might blow up and radiate us and kill us.Climate Politics Page 35 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Obama Won’t Push Nuclear Power Obama wants nuclear power.commondreams. 'There are a whole set of questions and they may not be solvable. 'I actually think we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix. 25.org/headline/2008/12/17-4. however.. "Obama faces hungry nuclear industry".' 35 Ellis. CommonDreams.' Obama continued. 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.' Obama said during the CNN/Youtube Presidential Debate on Jul. why not? I don't think there's anything we inevitably dislike about nuclear power. 2007.
the benefit could be well worth the cost. **research assistance in the Thomas A. Mitchell. WEA) Furthermore. Because nuclear plants could have an operating life of 80 years. assiging all of the costs of the first few nuclear plants to future plants is inaccurate. Spencer and Loris 2008 .Climate Politics Page 36 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Nuclear Power Still Too Expensive Mass production creates economies of scale that solves cost concerns. it is very expensive to produce nuclearqualified components and materials because steep overhead costs are carried by only a few products. Teddy & Megan . Heritage Foundation.heritage.*research fellow in nuclear energy. "Critics of nuclear power's costs miss the point". economies of scale will be achieved. Additional production will allow these costs to be spread.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1961. Jack and Nicolas. Today. 36 Ellis. http://www. Further savings should be achieved by applying lessons learned from initial construction projects. thus lowering costs overall.cfm. As more orders are placed. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (6/19.
O. we have little confidence that ongoing discussions between D.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. and the Office of Management and Budget over these regulations will produce a satisfactory result in a timely manner. hydro. cited “disagreements” between the Department of Energy and the Office of Management and Budget over regulations to carry out the loan guarantees. Teddy & Megan .blogs. renewable energy industry associations sent a letter on Wednesday to President Obama urging him to speed the program along. Three months have gone by since the stimulus packaged passed. “With access to these loan guarantees. combined heat and power.nytimes. geothermal.” 37 Ellis. 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.former Economist writer and Nieman Fellow at Harvard (5/20. http://greeninc.” “and The letter.” the letter continued. nuclear.com/2009/05/20/renewable-industries-askobama-to-speed-loan-guarantees/?pagemode=print. the letter stated.E. "Renewable Energy Industries Ask Obama to Speed Loan Guarantees". WEA) Worried that an important loan-guarantee program has ground to a standstill. “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. Galbraith 2009 . seen by Green Inc. solar. as has been a similar loan program that predates the stimulus. New York Times Green Inc. The signers represented virtually every type of clean energy — wind. Kate. Mitchell.
new nuclear plants and other clean energy projects will certainly be built.President of the Nuclear Energy Institute (6/19.S. 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. Such a concept serves at least two national imperatives. one of the most significant financing challenges is the cost of these projects relative to the size.000 MW of new nuclear capacity (that would be about 15 plants) on line in the 38 Ellis. financing capability or financial strength to finance new nuclear power projects on balance sheet. to provide loan guarantees and other forms of financing support to ensure that capital flows to clean technology deployment in the electric sector. In this environment. Achieving significant expansion of nuclear power in the United States will require stable and sustained federal and state government policies relating to nuclear energy. Frank L. transmission and distribution infrastructure. The public benefits associated with a robust energy loan guarantee program-lower cost electricity. Electricity consumers-residential. We expect four to eight new U. U. or both. student loans. Lexis Congressional. affordable housing. Teddy & Megan .S. such a program would be revenue-neutral and would not represent a subsidy. nuclear plants in operation by 2016 or so. continued progress requires sustained policy and political support. Nine applications for construction and operating licenses are currently under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a total of 15 new plants. steelmaking. construction of critical transportation infrastructure. nuclear industry is moving forward as quickly as we are able to license. we could see approximately 20. finance and build new nuclear plants in the United States. market value and financing capability of the companies that will build them. Assuming those first plants are meeting their construction schedules and cost estimates. If it is structured like the loan guarantee program authorized by Title XVII of the 2005 Energy Policy Act. With the necessary investment stimulus and financing support. commercial and industrial-are already struggling with increases in oil. Throughout the South and Southeast. The new nuclear power projects now in the early stages of development will not enter service until the 2016-2020. Testimony to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality. but it does not represent a sufficient response to the urgent need to rebuild our critical electric power infrastructure. but in smaller numbers over a longer period of time. Creation of First. Like all other advanced energy technologies. The states are doing their part. WEA) In terms of new nuclear plant construction. rural electrification. The modest loan guarantee program authorized by the 2005 Energy Policy Act was a small step in the right direction. In the absence of a concept like a Clean Energy Bank. Bowman 2008 . Mitchell. 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. In closing let me assure you that the U. Seventeen companies or groups of companies are preparing license applications for as many as 31 new reactors. modeled on the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. in turn reducing the Second. New nuclear power plants are expected to cost at least $6 to 7 billion. cost of electricity from the project.S.S. We know that the next generation of clean energy technologies will be more costly than the capital stock in place today. in which project sponsors are expected to pay the cost of the loan guarantee. "Greenhouse gas emission reduction". state governments have enacted legislation or implemented new regulations to encourage new nuclear plant construction. and environmental controls. federal loan guarantees provide a substantial consumer benefit. which reduces the cost of capital. the rate of construction would accelerate thereafter. The high cost of energy and fuel price volatility has already compromised the competitive position of American industry. deployment of clean energy technologies at the scale necessary to reduce carbon emissions-are significant. electric power companies do not have the size. on their own-particularly at a time when they are investing heavily in other generating capacity. That is why the U.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. These first projects must have financing support-either loan guarantees from the federal government or assurance of investment recovery from state governments. we see a compelling case for federal financing support that would reduce consumer costs. such a financing entity should be an integral component of any climate change legislation. natural gas and electricity prices. government routinely uses loan guarantee programs to support activities that serve the public good and the national interest-including shipbuilding. A loan guarantee allows more leverage in a project's capital structure. Comparable federal government commitment is essential. and for many other purposes.
39 Ellis. safe. around the clock. at a stable price. Teddy & Megan .000 megawatts (or 45 to 50 plants) by 2030. and 65. reliable electricity.Climate Politics Page 39 of 156 7WJ – HPSW 2020 to 2022 time frame. These plants will produce clean. Mitchell. immune to price volatility in the oil and natural gas markets.000 to 70.
Derek. and residual uncertainties associated with the new. including the regulated utilities that are considering a new nuclear project. will likely require federal financial support to allow the companies and investors to director of the investment giant Lehman Brothers.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 . including engineering design costs. Lexis. Teddy & Megan . and large initial capital investment. Mitchell." Asselstine said. A federal commitment to loan guarantees resolves regulatory uncertainty surrounding federal policy that would otherwise prevent investment Sands 2008 (4/28. James Asselstine.S." 40 Ellis. complexity. lawmakers pressed six representatives of the nuclear industry. 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. "Investors urge loan guarantees for nuclear plants". a nuclear investment expert told a House panel last week. http://www. regulatory and litigation-related risks that are unique to nuclear power. and may make loan guarantees essential to attracting them. Sachs & Co. will make lenders unwilling at present to extend long-term credit to such projects in a form that would be commercially viable. including the possibility of delays in commercial operation of a completed plant or “another Shoreham”. combined with the higher capital costs and longer construction schedules of nuclear plants as compared to other generation facilities. such as magnitude. "The total cost of the plant. and that investors remain wary. Platts Inside Energy.lgprogram. but as yet untested NRC licensing process. of a new nuclear project. WEA) Despite new licensing regulations meant to streamline the construction of new nuclear power plants. Some of the more controversial aspects of new nuclear power include government support for new plants. 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.energy. uncertainty over the rules and questions about nuclear waste still worry investors.*Managing director of Export and Agency Finance Group for Citigroup. an environmental group and nuclear research community on the future of nuclear power. a point that investors are watching. taxpayer. this can be a substantial benefit for all the companies. We believe these risks." Asselstine said. "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.pdf. Lenders and investors in the fixed income markets will be acutely concerned about a number of political. "Some factors.gov/nopr-comments/comment29. 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. In a hearing of the House Science and Technology Committee. he said. **also written with the managing directors for Goldman. move forward with new nuclear plant commitment. as well as Merill Lynch and Morgan Stanley ("Loan Guarantees for Advanced Nuclear Energy Facilities".
Because the U. Mitchell.S. while the U. Teddy & Megan .S. 41 Ellis. has made it clear that it would not subsidize the industry. decided to phase out nuclear energy for political reasons and now imports some of this energy. The British government.. and a possible sixth reactor would increase that amount substantially. which will likely be a model used throughout the United States. Finland has begun constructing a modern 1. if it is to avoid creating increased energy dependencies.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1977. alternatively. Heritage Foundation WebMemo #1977. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (7/2. http://www. India and China both have ambitious nuclear plans. Finland. has 19 reactors that provide about 18 percent of the nation's electricity.K.cfm. however. energy-starved Asia is where a nuclear revival is more likely to begin. Loris and Spencer 2008 . WEA) France is an example of a country that developed nuclear energy to reduce foreign energy dependence after the oil shock of the 1970s.K. WEA) With the nuclear construction business virtually dead in North America and Europe. Germany. building new reactors is a must for the U. Indeed. Up to 30 nuclear plants are planned in each country over the next two decades-which sounds impressive until you do the math. has a significant incentive to secure long-term energy solutions. on the other hand. **research fellow in the Thomas A. This is simply not a significant commitment for countries with populations of well over a billion and electricity demand growing at 10 percent annually. Japan is working to increase this to 37 percent by 2009 and 41 percent by 2017.heritage. Nuclear power already provides 30 percent of the country's electricity.K. Presently.*research assistance @ Heritage.President of the WorldWatch Institute (July/August. while providing long-term politically stable support for nuclear power. the U. The U. is already a net importer of energy and all but one of its coal-fired and nuclear plants are scheduled to be decommissioned by 2023.600-megawatt reactor. "Brave Nuclear World?/COMMENTARY: Nuclear Revival? Don't Bet on It!". World Watch. ranking fifth in the world for per capita electricity consumption. Flavin 2006 . Finland already gets 28 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. model could create a politically tenuous dependency relationship between government and industry. the British model should provide a sustainable environment for nuclear power moving forward. neither country will be getting even 5 percent of its electricity from nuclear power in 2020. ProQuest. "Nuclear energy: what we can learn from other nations". Christopher. continues to squabble politically about nuclear power but has offered some subsidies to the industry. It now receives nearly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power and is a Japan is another country that has looked to nuclear power as a clean.Climate Politics Page 41 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Nuclear Power Bad Nuke power inevitable--Asia. As a result. Even if their nuclear dreams are realized. Embracing nuclear energy as part of an effort to decrease the nation's dependency on foreign energy sources. net exporter of electricity. Nuke power inevitable in Europe and Japan. safe and reliable form of energy.
The media's continued fixation on this story suggests alarmism.but with a catch. with rising energy prices and growing concerns over carbon dioxide emissions.cfm.S. Although the problem was fixed and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission determined that the plant could have operated another 13 months without incident. eh? Until you realize it's the same old story New York's WCBS-TV broke four months earlier. and that the steel cladding could have withstood pressures 125 percent above normal operations. activists cite it as example of the risks posed by power reactors. misstating the information used to support their positions. In short: A problem arose. the 1979 partial meltdown at Three Mile Island. terrorists have never attacked a nuclear power plant. What seems reasonable. They should not have been sleeping. Some recent examples include incidents at the Davis-Besse plant in Ohio and the Vermont Yankee plant in Vermont. and the anti-nuclear movement's updated message is calculated to play upon that anxiety. newsworthy stories to be written about nuclear power: No one has ever died as a result of commercial nuclear power in the U. But it wasn't. Teddy & Megan . Awkwardly.their evidence is from recycled hippie rhetoric and a misleading media Spencer 2008 . the story wasn't exactly front-page material. So why have they been more vocal lately? Well. The result: stories that often portray nuclear power as inherently unsafe. The worst commercial nuclear accident in U. Their conditions generally hinge on safety concerns. Mitchell. "Nuclear safety paranoia". there are great. Their formula includes overstating the safety concerns. affordable and emits nothing into the The unfortunate thing is that atmosphere. In the months since the sleeping-guards story first aired. Scary stuff. For a news story. 42 Ellis. Increasingly. but no radiation was released. third-party analysis giving credibility and legitimacy to alarmist views. Let's be clear. at best. The list goes on.Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy at Heritage (2/1. http://www. A partial cooling tower collapse at the Vermont Yankee plant was far less serious than the Davis-Besse incident. USA Today ran the story in September. nor was anyone endangered. nuclear power has proven extraordinarily safe over the past four decades. caused no fatalities or casualties. safety inspections revealed a hole forming in a vessel-head.Climate Politics Page 42 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Nuclear Power Bad Nuclear power plants aren’t dangerous --. Each article included independent.and not just by The Post. it was identified. Although nuclear power's safety record means that activists can no longer play on "China Syndrome" fears. A handful of guards taking a 15-minute nap on company time does not fairly reflect the industry's level of safety. Yet that's what leading media are feeding the public. the anti-nukers preach acceptance -. Even when new. Non-radioactive water was spilled in the collapse. editorialized on it in October. The article also contained accusations that a whistle-blower had been ignored. history. When the company that runs the plant found out. The Washington Post ran a front-page story about guards found asleep at a nuclear power plant. for the people who railed against nuclear energy in the past under the auspices of environmentalism. The obvious contradiction has forced even ardent activists to make some accommodation for nuclear power in their anti-CO2 rhetoric.org/Press/Commentary/020108a. 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. quickly becomes ridiculous. the incident was portrayed as a safety failure. it promptly fired the contractors in charge of security.S. One of the least expensive forms of energy production. nuclear power is clean. such reporting misleads the public about the safety of nuclear power. That should have been the end of the story. but exploiting fears about safety to advance an anti-nuclear agenda helps no one. Some guards were sleeping on the job. Heritage Foundation. An inch of steel cladding prevented the hole from opening. and bias against nuclear power at worst. Safety should remain a priority at nuclear power plants. The plant was never in jeopardy. Jack. nuclear power is enjoying a comeback. At the Davis-Besse plant.. numerous articles have been printed -. and then demanding an unattainable set of stipulations to meet their conditions. Repeatedly. Their arguments are then fed to major media outlets that use them to frame nuclear-related articles. and revisited it again in December. the best way to reduce CO2 is to produce more emissions-free nuclear energy. it's pretty thin gruel. At the very least. however. Many Americans remain concerned about nuclear safety. and it was solved. three decades of antinuclear propaganda have left their mark.heritage. This allows them to avoid being overtly anti-nuclear while advancing an anti-nuclear agenda. WEA) On January 4. Nonetheless.
Teddy & Megan ." 43 Ellis. WEA) That is a big change. Nussle's confirmation hearing last week. "US energy bill aids expansion of atomic power". "It is very clear that this is a self-financing program. "There should already be $25 billion to $30 billion in the loan guarantee fund. In essence. Last year. Under current law. the government is only allowed to guarantee a volume of loans authorized each year by Congress." Mr..org/archive/2007/08/01/2910. Congress limited the government to awarding just $4 billion in loan guarantees for clean energy projects during the 2007 fiscal year. Mr. and Matthew L.Climate Politics Page 43 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Loan Guarantees Expensive Loan guarantees pay for themselves. Mitchell. Domenici. Bush's nominee to become the White House budget director. Domenici told James Nussle. Mr. at Mr. who has been pushing the Energy Department to move much more aggressively in approving loan guarantees. Andrews and Wald 2007 (Edmund L. 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. New York Times.commondreams. 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. http://www.
heavy-forgings for reactor components.it will develop with the industry Howard 7.Climate Politics Page 44 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: No Workforce/Manufacturing Capacity Capability arguments are irrelevant. nuclear companies have already placed orders with Japanese companies for long-lead. Office of the President Nuclear Energy Institute (Angie. Mitchell. Different companies are moving at different speeds. as well as some newcomers to the industry. http://nei. Babcock & Wilcox recently renewed its federal accreditation for manufacturing nuclear-grade components. The supply chain will respond as market demand dictates. 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. U. “Achieving Excellence in Human Performance: Nuclear Energy Training and Education”. 02-15-7. Every major nuclear fleet operator is involved in some way. capability will be developed. 44 Ellis. The more it looks like new nuclear plants will be built.Vice President. These companies are selecting technologies from two NRC-certified reactor designs. and two more designs that are under review by the NRC.S. These application submittals are expected beginning in 2007.S. Teddy & Megan . but the momentum is real. And there is manufacturing capability overseas in Japan and France.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2007/americannuclearsociety/) Finally. Today. we are seeing the first signs of revival in the supply chain for new nuclear plant construction. In manufacturing. the more U. for instance.
nuclear power plant fuel depends on converted Russian warhead material. Marvin S.-Russian nonproliferation agreement to recycle weapons-grade material from Russia for use in As it has in the past. Teddy & Megan . more than 50 percent of U. and to maintain America's leadership in nuclear technology development and its influence over important diplomatic initiatives like nonproliferation. American reactors.S. 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.S..Vice President of the Nuclear Energy Institute (4/29.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. 45 Ellis. Mitchell. nuclear power leadership Fertel 2005 . as evidenced by the U.S. Nuclear power's place in a national energy policy". Testimony to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Resources. Such efforts have provided a dramatic contribution to global security. Currently. strong Congressional oversight will be necessary to ensure effective and efficient implementation of the federal government's nuclear energy programs. CQ Congressional Testimony.
nuclear infrastructure continues to erode. nuclear infrastructure is capable of sustaining the goals of the 2010 program. The health of the U. This suggests that the influence of the United States internationally could be enhanced significantly if the U. extending international fuel cycle services. If the U.S. The U. U.S.S.S. supplier and partner in the field of nuclear technology. As the sole superpower. nuclear exports can be used to influence other states’ nuclear programs through the nonproliferation commitments that the U.S.S. The U. 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. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY”.S. it will need to promote the health and viability of the American nuclear infrastructure. on-going influence on the international nonproliferation regime.S.S.S. will need to actively pursue several key objectives New Nuclear Plant Orders Consumer countries are likely to turn for support and assistance to those states possessing the most vigorous domestic nuclear power programs that are placing new power plant orders. efforts to play a significant role as a nuclear supplier and to advance its nonproliferation objectives. Perhaps more importantly. nuclear infrastructure as well as the stature of the U. a policy that significantly strengthens the U. essential that the United States have vibrant nuclear reactor. utilities but will also enable the United States to promote Maintaining the U. http://www. if the 2010 initiative falters. International confidence in the effectiveness of nuclear export controls was shaken by the disclosures of the nuclear operations of A. in the international nuclear community. Constructive U. and maintaining leadership roles in supporting innovative improvements in advanced technologies. but will also enhance its ability to advance its nonproliferation agenda. uranium enrichment. However. It is. Experts believe that the U. and spent fuel storage and disposal industries that can not only meet the needs of U. therefore. is perceived as a major technological leader. The U. civil nuclear infrastructure will also be crucial to the success of U. it will weaken the ability of the U. aspires to participate in these programs and to shape them in ways that are most conducive to nonproliferation. becomes more dependent on foreign nuclear suppliers or if it leaves the international nuclear market to other suppliers. influence will be best achieved to the extent that the U. should establish a high priority goal to rebuild an indigenous nuclear industry and support its growth in domestic and international markets. to participate actively in the international nuclear market.S. as a Significant Global Supplier effective safeguards and other nonproliferation controls through close peaceful nuclear cooperation other countries. They also underscore the importance of the U.Climate Politics Page 46 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Nuclear Leadership Good—Prolif (1/2) Overhauling domestic nuke power is vital to technological leadership – both to support technological innovation and reduce risks of proliferation Bengelsdorf 07 – consultant and former director of both key State and Energy Department offices that are concerned with international nuclear and nonproliferation affairs (HAROLD.S. maintaining effective policies to achieve these objectives. or if U. will have considerable.Q.S. the ability of the U. Khan. requires. if the U. has and should continue to be able to influence the nonproliferation regime as a superpower in the years ahead.S. Concurrent with the prospective growth in the use of nuclear power.S. the U. policy and prerogatives. As a consequence. Mitchell. White Paper prepared for the American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness May.S.org/images/COUNCIL_WHITE_PAPER_Final. These developments underscore the importance of maintaining the greatest integrity and effectiveness of the nuclear export conditions applied by the major suppliers.S.S. However. companies only are given subordinate roles in processing new plant orders.S. the global nonproliferation regime is facing some direct assaults that are unprecedented in nature.S. has so-called consent rights over 46 Ellis.S.S. DOMESTIC CIVIL NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND U.nuclearcompetitiveness. “THE U. civil nuclear infrastructure will not only help the United States to build new nuclear power plants. Teddy & Megan .S. including arrangements for the acquisition of long lead time components and coping with anticipated shortages of experienced personnel. if the U.S. then this can only further weaken the U.S. to influence nonproliferation policy will diminish.S. is able to achieve success in its Nuclear Power 2010 program and place several new orders in the next decade and beyond. regardless of how active and successful it is in the nuclear export market.pdf) The U. Conversely.S. There is a clear and compelling upsurge of interest in nuclear power in various parts of the world that is independent of U. but this will require the resolution of a number of formidable problems.S.
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
They passively support things that improve human life. Most other people. This converted "nuclear energy" is. there is no shortage of energy. wind power and other alternatives is less because those methods cannot yet generate large quantities of inexpensive useful energy.Climate Politics Page 51 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Nuclear Power Good—Poverty Nuclear power key to check poverty Robinson and Orient 04 . even though they do not work actively toward these goals. biofuel power.*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. They spend their lives in efforts to increase the quantity and quality of human life. Those who understand energy production and its link to technological progress and who have positive humanitarian values support nuclear power. Politics and Death”. 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. Moreover. by far. share the same values.com/node/358) Easily usable energy is the currency of human progress. very The United States was once the world leader in the production of useful energy. Had that American leadership continued." including all physical objects. “Science. constantly at the edge of death. however. The lamentations of the popular press notwithstanding. and maximizes technological progress. Its use improves the standard of living. The New American. 6/14. the safest. Their interest in solar power. http://www. Teddy & Megan . increases the quality and length of human life. cleanest and least expensive energy source available with current technology. Many people strongly desire to help humanity. Technological miracles that are only dreams today would have already taken place. 51 Ellis. regression and untold human deaths will result. our country and our world would be very different.thenewamerican. in how easily mankind can make use of them by means of current technology. They are also in favor of hydrocarbon power derived from coal. These forms of energy differ. Mitchell. stagnation. oil and natural gas. and of hydroelectric power. Without it. Nuclear power plants convert mass into electrical energy. Scientists define everything that man can perceive in the natural world as forms of "energy.
prosperity. even with substantial efficiency improvements and conservation efforts. and per capita income or gross domestic product. exceptions to every rule). tensions over dwindling water supplies and rising populations are reaching what many experts describe as a flashpoint. 270) If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb. "energy star" appliances and homes. of course. billions of our global neighbors without sufficient electricity die decades before they should. n6 Figure 1 illustrates this for almost every nation on Earth (the data includes more than 90 percent of the Earth's population). and death. 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. One-third of the six billion people on Earth today lack access to electricity. n3 Another two billion use just 1000 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year. while those on the lower left side of this graph. then people who are well off increase their electric consumption. have a life expectancy of about eighty years. Above this threshold. Chair of the Public Information Committee of the American Nuclear Society (Denis E. It is a composite of average education level. Pulitzer Prize winning author. One such correlation that was done a few years ago showed that electric consumption first increases human well being. one billion people have no sanitary water. Note there is a threshold at about 4000 kWh per capita. the Change Bomb. such that national security requires developed nations to help increase energy production in their more populous developing counterparts. Department of Mechanical Engineering at UNLV. n4 In addition. This suffering creates instability and the potential for widespread violence.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. disease. undeveloped nations where most people have no access to electricity. n9 Even with conservation. which is easily sustained with ample energy. A deeper investigation into the data underlying the HDI reveals the effects of what Dr. & Environmental Law. a delegate to the United Nations 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. “The Next One Hundred Years”. And in a world as interlinked as ours. p. who have and use large amounts of energy. Resources. WEA) Our global neighbors need much more energy to achieve the standards of living of the developed world. Those who live in poverty live in the most dangerous of conditions." n7 People in the Western world. use of electricity increases rapidly as people become more healthy. now calls "energy apartheid. Energy is needed for development. n10 Water wars go nuclear Weiner in ’90 (Jonathan. while total energy use increased just 27 percent. health and well being (average life expectancy). Land Resources & Envtl. mandated fuel economy. massive government purchases of "renewables. and international security. The UN compiles the HDI for almost every nation annually. will die decades earlier. "Atomic time machines: back to the nuclear future". our use of electrical energy has been growing faster than total energy usage. Journal of Land. 41. from North Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates." and energy saving and efficiency measures. A climate shift in that single battle-scarred nexus might trigger international tensions that will unleash some of the 60. Without substantial increases in electricity generation. which is barely enough to keep a single 100-watt light bulb lit. then we may destroy ourselves with the C-bomb. Teddy & Megan . human development increases rapidly with increases in available electricity (there are.. Beller 2004 . Mitchell. range between doubling and tripling in the next fifty years. wealthy. and educated. 24 J.000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since Trinity. 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. electricity use in the United States increased 57 percent between 1980 and 2000. L. 52 Ellis. n8 Preventing global conflict will require even more addition of electricity. Thus. Below this threshold. Eric Loewen. is suffering in the form of poverty. 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. one explosion may lead to the other. South Africa. The alternative to development. health.. n5 which could [*43] be provided easily and inexpensively if energy were available to operate desalination and/or purification plants. Lexis. Already in the Middle East. Estimates [*44] for future increases in energy and electricity use.Dr.
Nuclear power plants consume less water per unit of electricity produced than some forms of renewable energy. Nuclear power plants have a small environmental impact and produce reliable electricity in a wide range of weather conditions.3 percent—less than half of the freshwater consumed by residential use (6.S. according to the U.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.nei. Of all the freshwater consumed in the United States. NEI 2008 (July. 53 Ellis. but actually consume a small amount of water relative to other uses in the modern world. This water continuously is returned to its source and never is exposed to radioactive material.org/keyissues/protectingtheenvironment/factsheets/waterconsumptionatnuclearpowerplants. Teddy & Megan . Nuclear power plants circulate water to cool equipment.7 percent). WEA) Power plants circulate significant volumes of water in the process of generating electricity. http://www. "Water consumption at nuclear power plants". Geological Survey (USGS). Mitchell. electricity generation accounts for 3. Nuclear Energy Institute.
26%. 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. The carbon market could provide a significant proportion of that sum.4%) and sea water (28. "Since net heat emissions accounts for most of the global warming there is no or little reason for carbon dioxide sequestration. WEA) A global carbon trading network will be vital to preventing dangerous climate change. Mitchell. natural variations in climate and/or an underestimation of net heat emissions.5%). so-called carbon dioxide sequestration. will ultimately help in preventing catastrophic climate change in the long term. The researchers have calculated that the heat energy accumulated in the atmosphere corresponds to a mere 6.egovmonitor. 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. Carbon markets themselves will not however be sufficient to successfully tackle climate change and are needed alongside strong domestic action to cut emissions. such as reducing our reliance on burning fossil fuels and switching to renewables like wind power and solar energy. Global carbon trading is our only hope at controlling emissions. 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.sciencedaily..the US Department of Energy and Climate Change ("Carbon trading vital to climate change success – PM Report". is due to the greenhouse effect. The Global Carbon Trading report. the ability of countries to avoid dangerous climate change will be limited and the costs of action increased.5%). published on 15 July. “Cap and trade should be combined with targeted regulation. according to energy calculations published in the July issue of the International Journal of Global Warming. This report proposes action in 54 Ellis. Experts Say". But the same calculations also show that trapping carbon dioxide. The UK Government is committed to meeting its required 34% cut in emissions by 2020 through domestic action alone. ice masses and the seas if they are to model climate change accurately. sets out the domestic actions required to meet its carbon budgets. http://www. i. global warming. Mark Lazarowicz MP said: “Climate change is an international threat that needs international action. 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. The "missing" heat. http://www. melting ice (33. They suggest that scientists must also take into account the total energy of the ground. The UK’s Low Carbon Transition Plan. and storing it deep underground or on the sea floor will have very little effect on global warming. Nordell adds. WEA) Attempting to tackle climate change by trapping carbon dioxide or switching to nuclear power will not solve the problem of global warming. The report makes clear that without a global system for carbon trading. 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. by the Prime Minister’s Special Representative on Carbon Trading." Nordell explains. while the remaining heat is stored in the ground (31. eGov Monitor 7/20/2009 . The evidence shows that global carbon trading can deliver substantial cuts in greenhouse gases rapidly and costeffectively.e. the researchers say. Their calculations suggest that most measures to combat global warming. apart from emissions covered under the EU Emissions Trading System where limits on offsetting are set at EU level.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. during that period.com/node/26497/print. tackle deforestation and adapt to the climate change already being experienced. 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. a new report commissioned by the Prime Minister Gordon Brown concluded today. and the missing heat may be much less.htm. taxation and public finance for comprehensive action. Teddy & Megan .6% of global warming. "The increasing carbon dioxide emissions merely show how most net heat is produced. Mark Lazarowicz MP. The researchers also point out a flaw in the nuclear energy argument. These calculations are actually rather conservative.com/releases/2009/07/090713085248. 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.
55 Ellis. Teddy & Megan .ambitious national targets and a network of linked cap and trade systems for emitters.Climate Politics Page 55 of 156 7WJ – HPSW developed countries at two levels . Mitchell.
56 Ellis. Jack and Nicolas. http://www. Teddy & Megan . Spencer and Loris 2008 . Heritage Foundation. This means that power plants are needed to provide electricity when the wind is not blowing.Climate Politics Page 56 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Wind Solves Wind fails—it requires backup generators.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1961. wind is intermittent. those additional costs should be assigned to wind power as well. Mitchell. "Critics of nuclear power's costs miss the point". If one is going to rely on wind and the additional power-generating capacity that is needed when the wind is not blowing.*research fellow in nuclear energy. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (6/19. **research assistance in the Thomas A.cfm. producing electricity only about a third of the time. WEA) First.heritage.
522 photovoltaic solar panel installations.000– $51.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1961. Inc. Heritage Foundation. WEA) Solar energy projects are also running into trouble. equal to 103 megawatts of capacity. Given the low cost needed to operate a nuclear plant. He looked at the costs of 26. Like wind. 57 Ellis. "Critics of nuclear power's costs miss the point". the world's largest solar company. the European Union. **research assistance in the Thomas A. solar is intermittent: It produces electricity only when the sun is shining. lifetime costs are very low once the plant has been constructed. Jack and Nicolas. recently told investors that its largest market.000) far outweighed their value ($19. http://www. a professor at the University of California. Solar. Other problems have arisen as well.heritage. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (6/19. To replace the cadmium model with a silicon-based model would quadruple the production costs. Mitchell.Climate Politics Page 57 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Solar Solves Solar is too intermittent and costly. 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. Teddy & Megan .  It is therefore difficult to conclude that wind or solar power should be built at all. For example.cfm.000–$91. Berkeley's Haas School of Business and director of the UC Energy Institute.. The general economic problems of solar power were recently described in a study by Severin Borenstein.000). may ban its solar panels because they contain toxic cadmium telluride. that have received state support from California and found that their cost ($86.*research fellow in nuclear energy. Spencer and Loris 2008 .
with an enormous trade deficit. Ben. climate change bill". Mitchell. in order to create a more sustainable solution to current economic. a collaboration of labor unions and environmental groups. passage of the stimulus bill would be extremely successful. energy.S. and with a terrible global warming problem on our hands . 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. Teddy & Megan . To think we can somehow stabilize that and go back to doing business as we were in the summer of 2008 . transportation.org/node/6000. WEA) If climate change legislation fails to pass this year. But Congress needs to overhaul the entire economy. and environmental restoration projects. said David Foster.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. "Growing optimism for U.that is the model that got us into this mess. and climate change crises. we can't slow down and we can't stop there. http://www. executive director of the Blue-Green Alliance. WorldWatch Institute." 58 Ellis.worldwatch. energy efficiency. "Although The House of Representatives approved a plan on Wednesday that would provide about $100 billion of support for renewable energy. "We really have created an unsustainable economic model. Block 2009 (1/30." Foster said. through a price on carbon.with oil at $147 per barrel.
David. and accelerate the melting of ice. The grave danger we face and the need to take vigorous global action to reduce GHG emissions without delay are clear. melt Arctic tundra.co. http://www. But global warming is different. WEA) If we allow GHG emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation to continue to grow at their present rates. If we don’t address it very dramatically and very soon. "POSITIVE FEEDBACKS AND CLIMATE RUNAWAY THE NEED TO ACT WITHOUT DELAY". and that’s melted the Arctic. the warming that will follow can be expected to decrease albedo3 (reflectivity) and increase the rate of absorption of solar energy near the poles. Teddy & Megan . You really want to go for two? Timeframe = this year.co. otherwise we'll have a mass extinction and a global warming catastrophe.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. the first truly timed test we’ve ever faced." said Tony Juniper. LVW climate change taskforce.org/AM/Template.cfm? Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay. 59 Ellis.guardianweekly. So far we’ve raised the temperature less than one degree Celsius. "There really is no time for delay. WEA) "People have known about the links between climate and forests for some time. http://www." Tipping point is coming soon where climate change will be unstoppable. but the alarming thing now is the level of certainty because real world observations are feeding into the computer models.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print.resident scholar at Middlebury (Bill. release stores of carbon from soils and sea floors. the Guardian.uk/?page=editorial&id=1164&catID=17. Governments must cooperate to cut industrial emissions while at the same time halting deforestation. "Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change.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. Climate change is happening more rapidly than anyone expected. for almost every other issue on earth. scientists say". WEA) That’s a smart answer. 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. an environmental campaigner and Green party candidate. Tolman 2009 (4/30. League of Women Voters.lwv. If he can’t get national health care through the Congress. The Guardian. because those feedback loops are taking the outcome out of our hands. http://www.cfm&CONTENTID=13409. Mitchell. increase water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere. or it will get beyond our control McKibben 7/15/2009 . then some halfway plan is a good fallback – you can come back in a decade and make it stronger.guardian. Adam 2009 (3/11. "Environment: race against time".
Centre for International Governance Innovation Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of International Affairs. Homer-Dixon 2007 .8°C.ing from pre-industrial temperatures is around 2°C. and the warming in the pipeline – even if all emissions cease right now – is about 0. PhD in IR from MIT (11/14. that I am talking about atmo. therefore. Very soon humankind must cap and then ramp down global carbon emissions. a number of U. so the room to emit. 60 Ellis. the actual limit for CO2 itself would be much lower than 450 ppm. and a number of other powerful greenhouse gases.selves to such reductions). Demo. If they did.) The current concentration of CO2 is about 380 ppm. as are environmental activists. This leaves us with around 0. in turn. these 450 ppm do not include chlorofluorocarbons.com/articles/excerpt-new_urgency-thomas_homer-dixon. beyond that point we get into a world where the positive feedback s I’ve just discussed may develop great force. nitrous oxide. for instance.pdf. some people would put the threshold for carbon dioxide much lower. and the Recarbonization of the Global Fuel Supply: The New Sense of Urgency about Global Warming".bon emissions by 2050. Mitchell.homerdixon. "Positive Feedbacks. Notice. (This is actually a conser. Teddy & Megan . Limited room to warm implies. but in Canada it isn’t even on the policy radar screen at the moment (notably. so we have about 30 years left until we reach 450 ppm.6°C room to warm. Professor in the Centre for Environment and Business in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo.6°C. that we have very little room to emit.cratic and Republican presidential candidates have committed them.duce at least 2°C warming is about 450 ppm. Scientists are talking about that kind of reduc. We have very little room to warm: the estimated maximum safe warm.tion. 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.vative estimate. The warming to date has been about 0. Dynamic Ice Sheets.’ In other words. Indeed. we need to be heading towards an 80 to 90 per cent cut in car. http://www.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. WEA) I’ll give you an indication of what we’re up against. transcript of an address to the conference for a Globally Integrated Climate Policy for Canada. is about 70 ppm. The estimated carbon dioxide concentration that’s likely to pro.S. The incremental annual increase is currently about 2 ppm and rising.spheric carbon dioxide and not ‘carbon dioxide equivalent.
16 Fourteen states have adopted renewable portfolio standards that require electricity suppliers to derive an increasing percentage of supply from renewable energy generation sources. 61 Ellis..com/pubs/4419. a number of states have stepped forward with legislative and policy initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.cfm. solar. and geothermal. such as wind. Environmental & Public Utility Practice Group of the Cozen O'Connor law firm (Peter J. Mitchell. Teddy & Megan . Fontaine 2004 . biomass. WEA) In the vacuum created by the administration's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.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. Public Utilities Reports.pur. http://www. National legislation is essential. 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. State RPS legislation. however.co-chairs the Energy. "Global Warming: The Gathering Storm".
country is the only country in the world that can really lead the global community.Climate Politics Page 62 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Good—Extinction The impact is extinction. and it's rushing at us with a speed that is unprecedented. Block 2009 (1/30. "There is no time to waste.worldwatch. who is currently chair of the nonprofit group The Alliance for Climate Protection. is the one challenge that could ultimately end human civilization. and we must make Copenhagen a success. We must learn from the lessons of Kyoto. climate change bill". "The solutions to the climate crisis are the very same solutions that will address our economic and national security crises as well. now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. a long-time advocate of climate change legislation. and regain control of our destiny." Gore said. http://www. cap and trade is key to solve our economic and environmental crises." Former Vice President Al Gore testified at the hearing to support Kerry's calls for action. we must take bold action now. highlighted the growing evidence of a dangerously warming planet during its first substantive hearing of the year." "This 62 Ellis. "The science is screaming at us." Kerry said. It was the first time the Nobel laureate appeared on Capitol Hill in nearly two years. also urged Congress to place a price on carbon emissions before the Copenhagen negotiations begin.S." Although traditionally focused on foreign aid and national security. WorldWatch Institute." Gore said. WEA) Kerry. Teddy & Megan . Ben.org/node/6000. "Growing optimism for U. "In order to repower our economy. restore American economic and moral leadership in the world. Mitchell. the committee "Our Gore.
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. oil refineries. would reduce total global warming emissions 83 percen below 2005 levels. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.php?story_id=31496.cbpp. combined with the bill's other provisions. http://www. while the permit market ensures that cuts are made in the most economical way possible. "Letter From Olver: House Passes Comprehensive Energy Legislation". former executive director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. Electric power plants. or they can buy permits from other companies who have made these investments.com/story. Housing and Urban Development (John W. Hannah Shaw.Massachusetts representative on the House Appropriations Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation. and Sharon Parrott. 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.Climate Politics Page 63 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. When combined with vehicle efficiency and biofuel standards enacted in 2007. this system.pdf. improved energy efficiency. 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.*Chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 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. http://www.iberkshires. leading to steady emissions reductions. The carbon cap will thus unleash a wave of investment. and greater use of alternative clean energy technologies. Cap and trade is an adjustable mandate that we can target to the right level of emissions. Stone et al 2009 . The number of emissions permits will decrease over time. Permits will be bought and sold on a carefully regulated market..org/files/3-3-09climate. 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. By 2050. A Over time. **BA in economics and masters degree in social work from U Michigan (3/3. HR 2454 will reduce America's dependence of foreign oil by 5 million barrels a day by 2030. This would force the economy to gradually adapt by reducing emissions through energy conservation. 63 Ellis. Mitchell. Olver 7/6/2009 . Teddy & Megan . "CAP AND TRADE CAN FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING EFFECTIVELY WHILE ALSO PROTECTING CONSUMERS". C&T Solves Warming Cap and trade solves warming. Chad Stone. the number of emissions allowances would shrink in order to achieve the substantial emissions reductions that scientists say are necessary to curb global warming.
500 per ton of SO2 removed.Climate Politics Page 64 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. 64 Ellis. ranging from $400 to $1. WEA) acid rain loomed large on the nation’s agenda. Ironically. which. "Getting more for four". 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. The expected costs of the Acid Rain Program have decreased since it was debated in Congress from early The Acid Rain Example During the late 1970s. a stringent environmental result was achieved at relatively low cost. This combined approach is far less expensive than "first generation" laws that regulate emissions from each source separately. This problem is largely caused by the SO2 emissions from the utility industry. Progressive Policy Institute. 2000). Byron and Jan.ndol. Teddy & Megan .org/documents/clean_energy_part2. citing cost concerns. The Acid Rain Program sets a single tonnage limit or "cap" on the emissions of SO2 from all utilities. By combining an emissions cap with allowance trading. the problem of estimates. **director of the Center for Innovation and the Environment at the Progressive Policy Institute (October 2001.pdf. 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. Economy and Innovation at the Environmental Law Institute. C&T Solves Warming Acid rain programs prove—cap and trade is the most effective free market mechanism Swift and Mazurek 2001 . resisted congressional efforts to place a limit or "cap" on its emissions. change the earth’s climate (IPCC. 2001). 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. 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. Those who can control SO2 cheaply can sell emissions trading allowances to those who find reducing emissions more costly. to a current price of only $200 a ton—far less than estimated benefits (Carlson. 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.*director of the Center for Energy. http://www. Mitchell.
R.Climate Politics Page 65 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. 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. 6-25/09 [Amanda. “Climate bill gives billions to foreign foliage. These range from 43. including New York State. By 2030. and it must be improved before it passes the Senate.S. A01.org/issues/2009/06/no_whining. In the short term the cap would reduce emissions by the equivalent of removing 500 million cars from the road by 2020. Increasing the energy efficiency component of the Combined were dedicated to efficiency. 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. Yes.. energy use in 2020. ACEEE’s studies of energy efficiency’s potential indicate that current technologies can cost-effectively save 25-30 percent of total energy use. Senate passage of similar legislation will be more difficult. there are many additional cost-effective efficiency opportunities available. including energy efficiency and wind and solar power. The bill is weak. energy use that year. hapless.” The Washington Times. “H. Mitchell.75 percent of allowances in 2012.R. decreasing incrementally to 7 percent in 2029. It would spark more clean-energy innovation and private investment in clean alternatives.uses efficiency and renewable electricity standards Nadel and Watson 09 – [Steven Nadel and Suzanne Watson. These energy efficiency savings are more than the annual energy use of 47 of the 50 states. Although these potential savings are dramatic. which accounts for about 5 percent of projected U. 6/23/09] Despite these changes this bill is a giant leap forward in efforts to transition to a low-carbon economy. 2454 is only the first arduous step toward energy transformation. The warming bill will reduce CO2 emissions. Moreover. http://www. http://www. over and above the savings from the Combined Efficiency and Renewable Electricity Standard.S. The cap would also set a price on carbon pollution.5 quads of energy in 2030. the energy efficiency provisions in H.S. Undoubtedly.R. Teddy & Megan .htm. energy use by 5. including substantial free allowances to electric utilities.R. The bill would worsen global warming by lifting the prohibition against the federal government purchase of oil from Canadian tar sands. 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.8 quadrillion Btu’s. DeBard 09. such savings will avoid about 345 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2020. 2454 could reduce U. Combat Global Warming. PAGE ONE. House passage of H. and unacceptable. 2454 also provides for a number of free emissions allowances to help companies mitigate the economic impact of climate change legislation. Critics assail futile 'offsets'. staff writer. Cumulative energy bill savings will total more than $250 billion by 2030. 2454 WOULD SAVE $3. Steve Nadel is the Executive Director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). 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. lexis] 65 Ellis. It reflects the enormous shift in priorities between the Obama administration and the previous one.americanprogress. sequestration and reforestation provisions solve existing emissions.org/press/0906waxman. Podesta 09 – President of the Center for American Progress (John. these energy efficiency savings grow to 12. And. C&T Solves Warming The climate bill is key to solve warming—it sets a hard cap on emissions.900 PER HOUSEHOLD BY 2030”. Whining. a non-profit research organization.aceee.html. and that new technologies could increase the available cost-effective savings.4 quadrillion Btu's. In total. President and CEO of the Center for American Progress. the equivalent of taking 57 million cars off the road for a year. reflecting the costs of dirty coal-fired electricity. Revised 6/23/09. Center for American Progress. accounting for about 12 percent of projected U. ACEEE NEWS RELEASE. 2009] H. which produce twice as much greenhouse gas pollution as regular oil. No. If one-third of these funds American consumers would save over 2.
Supporting ways to keep trees alive or plant new trees. licenses to pollute .in the United States and beyond.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 . 66 Ellis. Teddy & Megan . called permits. helps the effort. wherever those trees are located. Under the program. Mitchell. in turn. they say. Those companies could. sell the permits to other companies that emit greenhouse gases. the government would reward domestic and international companies that perform approved "green" actions with certificates.and potentially very valuable. in effect. The permits would be.
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
S. Officials also argue that China remains a developing country without the financial resources or technological prowess to make a rapid shift to cleaner. it issued a report warning that climate change posed a serious threat to the country’s agricultural output and economy. represented China’s first official response to a landmark report issued last week by a United Nations panel of scientists that declared global warming is “unequivocal” and warned that immediate action must be taken to prevent harmful consequences.” she said.. China is the world’s second largest emitter of the greenhouse gases contributing to climate change. including the United States. Later this year.S. WEA) BEIJING.com/2007/02/07/world/asia/07china. China has not disputed the scientific rationale behind global warming or denied the potential harm it could cause. a spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry. chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.nytimes. Environmental News Service. China had been expected to surpass the United States as late as 2020. but its soaring consumption of coal has rapidly increased the country’s emissions. adding that developed countries have responsibilities for global warming “that cannot be shirked. combined with another briefing on Tuesday by the country’s leading climate expert. China is expected to release broad policy goals on how it can reduce emissions and respond to global warming. has not been very active in this area. 6 — economy. "U.S.com/ens/feb2008/2008-02-01-10. lawmakers Wednesday. "The rest of the world looks to the U." said Pachauri. Last November. Action now key to get other nations on board—our current signal threatens overall leadership. "China Says Rich Countries Should Take Lead on Global Warming". trailing only the United States. Pegg 2008 (2/1. "It is essential for the U. WEA) - The head of the United Nations scientific climate panel spoke with U.” Ms. Jiang’s comments.S. Mitchell. Feb.S. adding that strong action would "undoubtedly reestablish confidence in U. President George W. The United States is responsible for some 22 percent of current greenhouse gas emissions. who also spoke at a public briefing Wednesday afternoon convened by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. to take action.Climate Politics Page 70 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Cap And Trade Modeled US action key to getting countries like China on board. Yardley 2007 (2/7. Lawmakers Urged to Lead Global Warming Battle". http://www.asp. U." Pachauri said. more expensive energy technology. encouraging them lead the world in cooling the overheated planet. The massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions needed to avoid serious disruptions to Earth's climate system are impossible without U. lawmakers remain reluctant to commit their nation to deep cuts without similar obligations from China. J. Pachauri told members of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.S. the International Energy Agency in Paris predicted that China would pass the United States in emissions of carbon dioxide in 2009. developed nations that have Jiang Yu. Jim. Chinese officials have long noted that China’s per capita emissions remain well below the averages in wealthier countries. The IPCC chairman said that view is misplaced. Despite broad criticism from across the world. In December. And many U.S. http://www. many of them equipped with substandard pollution controls.S. India and other developing nations." said Rajendra Pachauri. leadership." 70 Ellis.R.ensnewswire. "We really don't have a moment to lose. Dr. “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. leadership on critical global issues. New York Times. China derives nearly 70 percent of its energy from coal-fired power plants. Teddy & Megan . IPCC.S.html?pagewanted=print. Bush and his administration have rejected mandatory limits on greenhouse gases. 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. for leadership … [but] the perception round the world is that the U. emissions are four times greater than China's on a per capita basis. Although China recently emerged as the leading emitter. said been polluting for much longer.
the world urgently awaits US leadership. The Guardian – Final Edition. India. spent on clean-energy research. By putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions. landscapes and working patterns. With this signal we can develop the technology to keep global warming within manageable limits. could also purchase capacity from low polluters. Some environmentalists complain that this bill has been watered down to the point where it won't have any impact on carbon emissions.” CITY-C Edition. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the measure would cost each U. 6-26/09 [“Editorial: A big step against climate change. Warming bill sends international signal of leadership Lash 09 – [Jonathan Lash. The US is home to the most entrepreneurial and innovative private sector in the world. This legislation offers the promise of a new way forward. and that the American clean energy and security act (Acesa) would provide one. comprehensive energy policy. The legislation aims to cap greenhouse-gas emissions at 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. But there is much more to President Obama's push for a new energy plan than the desired results for long-term global warming. High polluters. 6/26/09] The US House of Representatives will vote today on a bill that would change the face of America's factories. Lexis Nexis. If the house defeats the bill. the United States has grappled with the unproductive consequences of its dependence on foreign-supplied energy. power sources. household about $175 annually by 2020. Acesa sends a vital message to businesses and investors that markets for low-carbon products and services are the future. Inq Opinion & Editorial. 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. international implications. Meanwhile. as well as its practical attempt to reduce pollutants. and heavy industry. 71 Ellis. it will be years before Congress returns to the subject. Almost as important are the bill's With the months to the UN Copenhagen summit counting down. send a strong signal that the US is serious about negotiating a new global deal in Denmark this December. China. setting mandatory caps on sectors responsible for 87% of US greenhouse gas emissions including electric power. lexis] If the United States is going to be the world leader in fighting global warming. A18. None has been more important than this.S. oil and gas. This nation generates a disproportionate amount of the polluting greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. This plan envisions new industries and jobs devoted to cleaner domestic energy. Mitchell. For three decades. The bill sets out a long-term road map to shift the world's biggest economy on to a low carbon path. EDITORIAL. some of the revenue would be Concerns about the cost of the legislation for consumers appear to be exaggerated. such as coal-fired electric plants. buildings. A portion of the money collected by government auctions of permits would go to offset consumers' higher energy costs. and increasing targets through 2050. Teddy & Megan . The Environmental Protection Agency projects it will cost the average household about $100 per year. And business leaders insist that the legislation will simply impose a huge new energy tax without any social benefit. My institute's analysis shows that it is the strongest climate bill ever to come before Congress. “National: Tackling climate change: Comment: This bill will change the face of US industry – and give the leadership the world awaits”. The heart of the bill is its "cap-and-trade" provision for carbon emissions. Let's start with the fact that the US has never had a coherent. it needs to walk the walk. The concrete greenhouse gas targets and additional carboncutting measures in this bill. and other major polluting countries will never come to the table over carbon emissions unless the United States leads by example. I have been involved in a dozen pieces of landmark US environmental legislation over the last 30 years. the Copenhagen negotiations would collapse. and its provisions to help finance developing country adaptation to climate change. There is symbolic value in this vote.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. Businesses would need to pay for permits for each ton of carbon emitted. Pg.
com." Chu said there is much the countries can do. as best we can and as many things as we can.chinadaily.htm. 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. "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." Locke said. 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.Climate Politics Page 72 of 156 7WJ – HPSW China Key To Solve Warming China cooperation is key to make emissions reductions effective. Both were visiting China for the first time as part of the Obama administration. China Daily 7/17/2009 ("China-US climate teamwork evolving". which both China and the US have in abundance." Chu said. 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. http://www. "The US and China have what it takes to meet the world's energy challenge. to share. he said. WEA) Cooperation between China and the US is crucial in meeting the climate change challenge. "One of the most important things is mutual cooperation. Mitchell. including improving technology to reduce carbon emissions and increasing energy efficiency. 72 Ellis. The objective of the planned joint clean energy research center. the technology.cn/china/200907/17/content_8439207. Teddy & Megan . 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.
which in turn brings about more global warming. have co-authored a paper entitled: Missing feedbacks. These are typically runaway processes in which global temperature rises lead to further releases of CO². WEA) Studies have shown that global climate change can set-off positive feedback loops in nature which amplify warming and cooling trends. Mitchell. "Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change. Adam 2009 (3/11. then when our anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming. Science Daily 2006 . resulting in additional atmospheric greenhouse gas loading and additional warming. WEA) Positive feedback Amazon dieback is one of the key positive feedbacks brought about by global warming.” said Torn. "Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century". also releases carbon into the atmosphere. which provides information about glacial-interglacial cycles over hundreds of thousands of years. two of the principal greenhouse gases. which appears in the May. Also increases feedback mechanisms to cause runaway warming. further increasing carbon dioxide and methane emissions. and the underestimation of future warming. asymmetric uncertainties. which are predicting a global temperature increase of as much as 5.sciencedaily. “The results indicate a future that is going to be hotter than we think. they calculated how much these rising concentration levels caused global temperatures to climb.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print. 73 Ellis.co. including the highly praised Consider a Spherical Cow: A Course in Environmental Problem Solving. Torn is an authority on carbon and nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems.htm. David. Torn and Harte make the case that the current climate change models.0 degrees Celsius because they only take into consideration the increased greenhouse gas concentrations that result from anthropogenic (human) activities. and has authored or co-authored numerous books on environmental sciences. 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. Now. a UC Berkeley professor in the Energy and Resources Group and in the Ecosystem Sciences Division of the College of Natural Resources.based on research by the DOE's Climate Change Resarch Division and the National Science Foundation (5/22. Combining their estimates with standard climate model assumptions. http://www. 2006 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters (GRL). In their GRL paper. scientists say". may be off by nearly 2. Teddy & Megan . http://www. Harte has been a leading figure for the past two decades on climate-ecosystem interactions. and is an Associate Adjunct Professor in UC Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group.guardian. who heads the Climate Change and Carbon Management program for Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division.” said Margaret Torn. In the Amazon this happens on a more localised scale but the result. Their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting. and so on. She and John Harte.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. that were released into the atmosphere in response to past global warming trends. the researchers were able to estimate the amounts of carbon dioxide and methane. increased forest death. Using as a source the Vostok ice core.Climate Politics Page 73 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Positive Feedbacks Continued warming causing feedbacks—this amplifies warming beyond control. the Guardian. it will alter earth system processes.com/releases/2006/05/060522151248. “If the past is any guide. and on the impacts of anthropogenic activities on terrestrial ecosystem processes.
How to meet that challenge. WEA) The threat of a global climate disaster is no longer up for debate. In its final report. while dealing with the already devastating consequences of floods. 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. However. notwithstanding all this sobering information. were extremely weak and inadequate. droughts and rising temperatures. and soil erosion reduced with conservation agriculture practices. Other methods are under development as well. or by promoting soil-improving agricultural practices.S. http://www. remains the great unanswered question. "Renewable energy". Byron and Jan. Jagger 2008 . the agreements reached in Bali. Lexis Congressional. who headed the panel.*director of the Center for Energy. Many carbon sequestration efforts carry ancillary Carbon Sequestration A benefits—wildlife and biodiversity are promoted through reforestation. 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"." said Rajendra Pachauri. Swift and Mazurek 2001 . Teddy & Megan . CQ Congressional Testimony. "Getting more for four". Progressive Policy Institute.org/documents/clean_energy_part2.pdf. Governments have previously been reluctant to accept this reality. cap and trade leads to sequestration technologies. Mitchell. Testimony to the House Select Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee. Vice President Al Gore. These methods increase the storage of carbon in vegetation and soils (called sequestration).chair of the World Future Council (3/6. Bianca. The majority of scientists are in agreement. And the time to answer it is running out. that's too late. **director of the Center for Innovation and the Environment at the Progressive Policy Institute (October 2001." 74 Ellis.ndol. 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.Climate Politics Page 74 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Current Emission Levels Too High Even if current emission levels are too high. Economy and Innovation at the Environmental Law Institute. "If there's no action before 2012. which shared the Nobel Peace Prize in October with former U. Carbon can be reduced simply by reforesting or planting trees. "What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. It’s not too late but if we don’t act in the next couple years we’re screwed.
It would fulfill Obama's G-8 promise by meeting the 2050 goal.0. WEA) Such international pacts are usually meaningless without the backing of Congress. Teddy & Megan . LA Times 7/10/2009 ("Global warming: The heat is on the U.story.com/news/opinion/la-ed-summit102009jul10. 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. http://www.Climate Politics Page 75 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: G8 Solves G8 agreements are worthless without Congressional follow-up.". Mitchell.S.4746209. signed the Kyoto Protocol to fight global warming in 1998. after all.latimes. President Clinton. 75 Ellis. but it was never ratified by the Senate.
or capping the quantity of emission rights and creating a market to regulate the allocation of rights (cap and trade). and it is the government that enforces and allocates those rights for all of us. food. all of us must be willing to pay the price to obtain clean air.. it implies that government has to be assigned the property rights. or a tax-price per unit of CO2 emissions. Therefore. Hence. public goods have to be provided collectively. Clean air is a public good and air pollution is a "public bad. Private goods benefit those who pay the price for those goods. The public is paying for their use of the resource by tolerating depletion of air quality. For example.net/live.php/news/178536?printable=story. and as Paul Krugman argues. people who pay the price have property rights to those goods and their benefits. Also in a democracy. When property rights emerge and are enforced. or a combination of quantity control and a tax." Since government has the property right to the resource clean air on behalf of Americans. "Cap and trade a sound market principle". Cap and trade policy is meant to create a market for CO2 emissions. because it removes uncertainty about the level of CO2 emissions. and adverse health affects. it can allow the use of that resource either by direct regulation of CO2 emissions (quantity control). markets will arise for those goods. Mathur 2009 . If goods are provided. for example. Vijay K. where given emission rights are traded at a positive price. Therefore.standard. Teddy & Megan . allows the market and its price mechanism to allocate rights. Self-interest of Americans demands that we all breathe clean air because our life depends upon it. Businesses that object to paying for emission rights want to be free riders. It is better than outright quantity control and better in many ways than a tax. WEA) Let me first discuss why government has to intervene by legislating CO2 emissions.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. it is effective in achieving international cooperation. national defense is provided by the government because it is a public good. there is no incentive for individuals to buy the goods and hence there will not be any supply of the goods.price.professor emeritus of economics at Cleveland State University and adjunct professor of economics at Weber State University (7/16. Mitchell. http://www. it would also benefit those who do not pay for the goods. Standard-Examiner. There is no leakage of consumption benefits to others who do not pay the price for private goods. Therefore. and our taxes support its provision. There are two types of goods which we consume: private goods and public goods. property damages. 76 Ellis. Private property rights can not be defined and enforced for public goods. since benefits of public goods can not be completely appropriated by persons who may be willing to pay the price. Private markets for the goods will not emerge. and clothing. cars.
steel. • Measures to address leakage to non-members can take the form of either tariffs or permit-requirements on carbon-intensive imports. 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. "OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING THE LEAKAGE/COMPETITIVENESS ISSUE IN CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY PROPOSALS". should be responsible for judgments as to findings of fact -. glass. Lieberman said.nytimes. But to avoid running afoul of the WTO.pdf. cement. 7/19/09.com/2009/07/20/business/energy-environment/20iht-green20.” he said.intensive major industries -. paper. • Independent panels of experts. against countries that are not doing so.Climate Politics Page 77 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Carbon Leakage No leakage or MNC shift.”Such arguments failed to impress Ben Lieberman. “and that will have adverse effects throughout the economy. Mr. 77 Ellis. 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. such as firms that use inputs produced in an energy-intensive process. WEA) ABSTRACT: We are likely increasingly to see efforts to minimize leakage of carbon to non-participants and to address concerns on behalf of the competitiveness of carbon-intensive industry. July 19th 2009. Matthes suggested that the latter had not happened in Europe. “Peacocks and Passions in Senate Climate Debate”. Jeffrey A. Frankel 2008 .” Government trade adjustments solve carbon leakage. or the nature of the response. Editor and writer for The New York Times covering alternative energy and green business. Teddy & Megan .rather than penalizing industries that are further removed from the carbon-intensive activity. and perhaps iron and chemicals -. Harpel Professor of Capital Formation and Growth at the Harvard Kennedy School (6/9. what industries are involved and what is their carbon content. Europe proves. and deservedly so. Brookings Institute. “We see ongoing investments there. they should not take the form of subsidies to domestic sectors that are considered to have been put at a competitive disadvantage. rather than being applied unilaterally carbon-intensive products will conflict with the WTO.brookings.what countries are complying or not. Import penalties should target fossil fuels and a half dozen or so of the most energy.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1) Addressing concerns about competitiveness and the relocation of investments to foreign markets. what countries are entitled to respond with border measures.edu/events/2008/~/media/Files/events/2008/0609_climate_trade/2008_frankel. if the measures are designed sensibly. http://www. “We can’t see any significant relocation of investment — even in industries like the iron and steel industry.aluminum. 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.” Mr. http://www. a senior policy analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation and the sole American testifying at the July 8 hearing.Editor at New York Times (Tom Jr. not politicians.. “The whole point of cap-and-trade is to constrain the supply of energy and therefore drive up its price. Mitchell.James W. which is heavily exposed to carbon prices. or by non-participants.. Zeller.
According to the Government Accountability Office.cfm. it could take 5. Beyond the costs of such actions. Loris and Lieberman 2009 . Though the Administration recently enacted a stimulus bill and touted "shovel ready" construction projects to boost the economy. Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2407.Climate Politics Page 78 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: EPA Regulation Solves EPA management fails. before a shovel can break ground.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2407. EPA regulations would essentially assure that a great deal of such economic activity would be held up for months. Mitchell. history would greatly expand the EPA's power. Granting the authority for one of the largest and unprecedented regulatory undertakings in U.6 years for a project to jump through all the normal environmental hoops.S. would be a chilling shift to a command-and-control system in which EPA officials regulate just about every aspect of the market. Teddy & Megan . **research assistant in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (4/23.4 years to complete a NEPA review. the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to file environmental impact statements for EPA review before moving forward with projects. "Five Reasons the EPA Should Not Attempt to Deal with Global Warming". construction project an average of 4. WEA) Having EPA bureaucrats micromanage the economy. 78 Ellis. the red tape and permitting delays are almost unfathomable. if not years. all in the name of combating global warming. http://www. normally it takes a federal with the Clean Water Act's Section 404 requirements. Along For instance.*senior policy analyst in Energy and the Environment for the Heritage Foundation.
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. http://www. working group one of the IPCC released its fourth global warming report. Korea.htm. 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. Canada.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. environmentalists and even scientists.sciencedaily. Given the significance of climate change research in public policy. 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. and the best models are now capable of simulating present-day climate with accuracy approaching conventional atmospheric observations. they compare the output of the models against observations for present climate. "Climate Models Look Good When Predicting Climate Change". WEA) The accuracy of computer models that predict climate change over the coming decades has been the subject of debate among politicians. Most of these models project a global warming trend that amounts to about 7 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years. France. "We can now place a much higher level of confidence in model-based projections of climate change than in the past. Mitchell." 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. "Coupled models are becoming increasingly reliable tools for understanding climate and climate change. Russia. Earlier this year.com/releases/2008/04/080402100001. 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). Australia." said Reichler. Teddy & Megan . 79 Ellis. Of course. Great Britain. and the United States. To this end. Scientific opinion on climate change In the study. 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. Germany. the study's results also provide important response to critics of global warming.
LVW climate change taskforce.cfm&CONTENTID=13409.org/AM/Template. population growth. 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. WEA) Burning fossil fuels (coal. Mitchell. http://www. "POSITIVE FEEDBACKS AND CLIMATE RUNAWAY THE NEED TO ACT WITHOUT DELAY". and agricultural practices are changing the composition of the atmosphere (increasing the concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs. League of Women Voters. oil. including melting large areas that have been covered by ice and snow.Climate Politics Page 80 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Warming Anthropogenic Climate change is anthropogenic Tolman 2009 (4/30. and natural gas). soot.lwv.cfm? Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay. deforestation. 80 Ellis. Teddy & Megan .
McKibben 7/15/2009 . Teddy & Megan . The Guardian. Clearly we’d passed a threshold. Oceanographers reported – incredulously – that we’d managed to make the oceans 30% more acidic. But politicians haven’t caught up. outstripping the climate models by decades. at least if we want a planet “similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted. and much faster than expected.story. Obama and the rest of the world’s political class are still using the dated science and its now stale conclusions.” They misinterpret short-term statistical blips—our overall climate theory is still intact. http://www. given the recalcitrance of everyone from China’s Central Committee to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. at about the same time methane levels in the atmosphere began to spike.latimes.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. scientists noticed that the Arctic was losing ice at an almost unbelievable pace.0. LA Times 7/10/2009 ("Global warming: The heat is on the U. and we need it now. It wasn’t just Arctic ice. We need a fire extinguisher. who look at average temperatures over time rather than year-to-year data.4746209. And the last decade was on average the hottest ever recorded.guardianweekly. Such statistical blips are properly ignored by most climatologists. The cyclical El Niño phenomenon and heavy greenhouse gas concentrations combined to make 1998 the hottest year in recorded history. even as carbon emissions during the intervening 11 years have risen. Surveys of high altitude glaciers showed they were uniformly melting. As we head toward the crucial Copenhagen talks slated for December.S. It’s easy to understand why: reaching a deal that would meet even that 2 degree target is incredibly hard. WEA) The clamor from global-warming deniers has heated up as the nation gets closer to taking action. Mitchell. A Nasa team headed by James Hansen reported that the maximum amount of carbon the atmosphere can safely hold is 350ppm.” Since we’re already at 390ppm. http://www. This hardly debunks the climate change theory. and global warming had gone from future threat to present crisis. the message was clear: we don’t need to buy an insurance policy to reduce the threat of future warming.com/news/opinion/la-ed-summit102009jul10. apparently as a result of thawing permafrost.uk/?page=editorial&id=1164&catID=17. 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. 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. A particularly common obfuscation from rightwing pundits is the "revelation" that global temperatures have been declining since 1998. yet their comprehension of climate science hasn't improved. 81 Ellis. WEA) But two years ago.resident scholar at Middlebury (Bill. "Environment: race against time".".co. Those observations changed everything – and they produced what is almost certainly the most important number in the world. almost to the week.
and 1998. less ice and rising seas should heat-trapping greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and forests continue to accumulate in the air. Revkin 2008 (3/2. "Skeptics on Human Climate Impact Seize on Cold Spell". a year after it was in the opposite warm El Niño pattern. http://www.com/2008/03/02/science/02cold. a private research group in Santa Rosa. Mitchell. So what is happening? According to a host of climate experts.” he said.” read a blog post and news release on Wednesday from Marc Morano. 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. which is in its La Niña phase for a few more months.nytimes.” said Carl Mears. 1991-92. It is no wonder that some scientists. “Temperatures are very likely to recover after the La Niña event is over. opinion writers. and a sharp drop in the globe’s average temperature. He pointed to similar drops in 1988. “The current downturn is not very unusual. New York Times. 82 Ellis. it is mostly good old-fashioned weather. 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.. Teddy & Megan . paralyzing blizzards in China. the communications director for the Republican minority on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Arctic sea ice returning with a vengeance after a record retreat last summer. political operatives and other people who challenge warnings about dangerous human-caused global warming have jumped on this as a teachable moment. Andrew C. “Earth’s ‘Fever’ Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print.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. but with a long-term warming trend clear nonetheless. If anything else is afoot — like some cooling related to sunspot cycles or slow shifts in ocean and atmospheric patterns that can influence temperatures — an array of scientists who have staked out differing positions on the overall threat from global warming agree that there is no way to pinpoint whether such a new force is at work. a scientist at Remote Sensing Systems. 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. along with a cold kick from the tropical Pacific Ocean.. Calif. including some who question the extent and risks of global warming.
Moore 7/16/2009 (John.” 83 Ellis. WEA) A major talking point amongst the skeptics is a certain indignation over how “global warming” became “climate change”.nationalpost.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.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/07/16/john-moore-one-world-government-and-global-warmingclimate-change-whatever. Teddy & Megan . 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. Mitchell. we dispute the cause. the terms are irrelevant. Actually. The general theory has been roughly the same for 150 years.aspx. "John Moore: One world government and global warming/climate change/whatever". Some people think this was a marketing move by the international forces of socialism to protect our Coke-like franchise. http://network. National Post.
Scheffer. and the Recarbonization of the Global Fuel Supply: The New Sense of Urgency about Global Warming". the drying of peat bogs in Indonesia.000 years ago. we get an additional fifty or so metres. such as the ice-albedo feedback. If these larger populations cross the Rockies and get into the boreal forest that stretches from Alberta to Newfoundland. we get another five metres. a leading cli.back situation. and sea levels were four to six metres higher than they are right now. which absorbs less carbon from the atmosphere. "Positive Feedbacks. He just shrugged and said. bark-beetle populations reproduce through two generations during the summer. after that in Antarctica. Dynamic Ice Sheets.’ Other potentially destabilizing carbon-cycle feedbacks include the drying of the Amazon and the possibility that if it dries it will burn. PhD in IR from MIT (11/14. change. WEA) Let me now say a little bit more about some other feedbacks.gest that feedback of global temperature and atmosphere CO2 will pro. where warming produces a change in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Teddy & Megan . 84 Ellis. in turn. Brovkin. and Cox carried out a comprehensive assessment of the feed. much of Greenland melted.’ Let’s turn to the issue of In other words. Also. The Greenland ice sheet will probably be the first to melt. Scientists are also concerned about the potential release of more carbon dioxide from forests: just yesterday researchers reported evidence that.est. ‘we sug. I asked Stephen earlier that Schneider. As you likely know. During the last interglacial period 125. The positive ones are self-reinforcing.Centre for International Governance Innovation Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of International Affairs. We have a fairly good understanding of the former and not such a good understanding of the latter. ‘well. the forest will be susceptible to fire that could release astounding quantities of carbon dioxide. The Southern Ocean around Antarctica is no longer absorbing carbon diox. Homer-Dixon 2007 . a change could reduce populations of molluscs and phytoplankton that absorb carbon into the calcium carbonate of their shells. If we melt the rest of Antarctica. and Northern Canada. transcript of an address to the conference for a Globally Integrated Climate Policy for Canada.ment. and those that operate on Earth’s carbon cycle.com/articles/excerpt-new_urgency-thomas_homer-dixon. 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. As the permafrost melts it releases large quantities of methane – a very powerful greenhouse gas that. They went on.’ researchers focused specifically on carbon cycle feedbacks. I mentioned there are two general kinds of feedback: those that operate more. As the climate warms. and the saturation of ocean carbon sinks. which have already been susceptible to wide-spread burning.homerdixon. This is one of the punch lines of my presentation today.mate scientist at Stanford. as the climate has warmed. Warming has produced much more vigorous winds closer to Antarctica. Professor in the Centre for Environment and Business in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo.or-less directly on temperature. If we melt the West Antarctic ice sheet.ide to the extent it did in the past. Alaska. because it’s the most vulnerable. when temperatures were roughly what they’re going to be at the end of this century. ‘[we] produce an independent estimate of the potential implications of the positive feedback between global tem.Climate Politics Page 84 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Negative Feedbacks Feedbacks are NET positive. higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are acidifying the oceans. and beetle mortality is lower during the winter. Mitchell. about the implications of such a develop. we’ve lost wide swaths of pine forest in British Columbia and Alaska – huge areas of trees – to bark-beetle infestation. If we melt Greenland entirely. Our climate has both positive and negative feedbacks. The Greenland ice sheet is the second largest mass of ice in the world. One carbon feedback that worries scientists involves the melting of the permafrost in Siberia. Both these changes mean that beetle populations become much larger overall. causes more warming. And then there’s the matter of pine bark beetles. and if they kill that for.peratures and greenhouse gasses. these dynamic ice sheets. we’re talking about billions of tonnes of carbon. the Canadian boreal forest has gone from being a carbon sink to a slight carbon emitter.7 They wrote. These winds have churned up the sea and brought to the surface deep carbon-rich water.pdf. In a paper published last year in Geophysical Research Letters. we get seven metres of sea-level rise.mote warming by an extra 15% to 78% on a century scale over and above the IPCC estimates. http://www.
sequences of the problem are going to be particularly serious. They’re saying. too. Solar radiation theory is inaccurate. and rising global average sea level. It’s basically a pollution problem that is not so serious. large rises in temperatures are more the result of strong upsurges in atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane concentrations set-off by the initial warming. "Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century". as is now the case with climate change. So. PhD in IR from MIT (11/14. there’s climate change. http://www. these three arguments used by sceptics have been largely put to rest. of denial. Mitchell. where one denies the actual existence of the phenomenon. 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. Dynamic Ice Sheets. This is essentially the position taken by a lot of climate change sceptics now.’ In my future research I want to explore the larger social consequences of widespread fatalistic denial.htm. "Positive Feedbacks. 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. which I talk about in my latest book.homerdixon. is what I call fatalistic denial: one basically accepts that the problem is real and that it’s going to hurt a lot. of course. Instead.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. but we can deal with it. We can adapt as necessary. 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. But existential denial is hard to sustain when the evi.com/releases/2006/05/060522151248. Sometimes I engage in an amusing exercise just to see how detached from reality they can actually be. However.Climate Politics Page 85 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Solar Radiation Cuases Warming Sunlight variation doesn’t explain warming.dence becomes overwhelming. in which they deny that the con. and invariably the evidence in these reports makes absolutely no difference to their point of view. I send them scientific papers and reports on the latest climate research. if we try to adapt.bonization of the fuel system.5 This research is pretty well definitive. Teddy & Megan . So. widespread melting of snow and ice. 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. 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. and recar. scientists have known that cyclic variations in the amount of sunlight reaching the earth trigger glacial-interglacial cycles. but then one simply says.com/articles/excerpt-new_urgency-thomas_homer-dixon. icesheet dynamics. Professor in the Centre for Environment and Business in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo. Homer-Dixon 2007 .sciencedaily. WEA) The most com.’ The evidence is also increasing.ing in what I call consequential denial. Let me go on to quickly give you a sense of the three issues that I talked about before: positive feedback. I think there are three stages The third argument concerns radiation from the sun. ‘okay. their authors are just stuck in denial in the face of insurmountable evidence. http://www. as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures. people tend to move away from existential denial and start engag. So the final position. once it becomes impossible to support even consequential denial.’ 85 Ellis. transcript of an address to the conference for a Globally Integrated Climate Policy for Canada.pdf. WEA) In examining data recorded in the Vostok ice core. ‘there’s nothing we can do about it.6 The first is existential denial.based on research by the DOE's Climate Change Resarch Division and the National Science Foundation (5/22. 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. Science Daily 2006 . the magnitude of warming and cooling temperatures cannot be explained by variations in sunlight alone.sively mitigate our output of carbon dioxide. we’ll still need to aggres.
saying that. They cobbled these proxy measures together to get a long-term record of the planet’s temperature.2 These 86 Ellis. Professor in the Centre for Environment and Business in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo. "Positive Feedbacks. transcript of an address to the conference for a Globally Integrated Climate Policy for Canada. except for some – and I use this word deliberately – crazies out there.emy of Sciences in the United States created a panel to examine the Mann et al.3 and Jones in 2003 to provide a temperature record from the years 200 to 2000 AD. overall.homerdixon.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.Centre for International Governance Innovation Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of International Affairs. and Hughes released a paper that estimated average global temperature for the last millen. and it certainly made Earth hotter than anytime in the last 400 years. methodology. 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. It has been one of the most contentious pieces of evidence used to support the claim that we are experiencing an abnormally warm period. In 1999. Teddy & Megan . You are probably familiar with this debate. which is why it was widely labelled the ‘hockey stick’ graph. WEA) The first argument concerns the long-term trend of Earth’s average surface temperature. Their graph famously showed a sharp uptick over the last half-century. In response to criticism of the statistical methodology used to cobble these records together. and the Recarbonization of the Global Fuel Supply: The New Sense of Urgency about Global Warming". I think the National Academy of Sciences report dealt with the hockey stick issue. Mann. 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. Homer-Dixon 2007 . the National Acad.nium. it has been covered in the pages of the Globe and Mail. while some questions remained about the methodology. Bradley.pdf.com/articles/excerpt-new_urgency-thomas_homer-dixon. Mitchell. Dynamic Ice Sheets. http://www. it’s off the table now. The panel released its results last year. PhD in IR from MIT (11/14.
as we would expect from glo.Climate Politics Page 87 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Satellite Data Proves No Warming Recent reviews of satellite data discrepancies have discredited skeptics. and the Recarbonization of the Global Fuel Supply: The New Sense of Urgency about Global Warming". it shows both tropospheric warming and. Teddy & Megan . "Positive Feedbacks.mous debate about an apparent discrepancy between data from satel. the discrepancy disappears. There has been an enor. Mitchell. Professor in the Centre for Environment and Business in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo. Once these errors are corrected.com/articles/excerpt-new_urgency-thomas_homer-dixon. transcript of an address to the conference for a Globally Integrated Climate Policy for Canada. 87 Ellis. http://www.homerdixon.lites that show no warming in the troposphere and data from groundlevel instruments that show warming. Homer-Dixon 2007 . The argument was originally made by John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville. stratospheric cooling. WEA) The second argument concerns satellite data. Dynamic Ice Sheets. PhD in IR from MIT (11/14.bal warming theory.4 The satellite record actually shows tropospheric warming – in fact.Centre for International Governance Innovation Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of International Affairs.pdf. 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.
practically the entire nation. there was no Greenland ice sheet and considerably less ice in Antarctica. @ Columbia U. It may require as much as a few centuries to produce most of the long-term response. begins slowly. Earth and Env.nasa. drawn through the solid That kills hundreds of millions Hansen 6 (James.32 As GHG concentrations and temperatures rise. Teddy & Megan . 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.g. The open point. Philadelphia. much of Bangladesh. based on earth’s behavior for the past 40 million years.cfm? Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay. with their major cities on coasts and their dependence on ports for international trade. Earth Institute. and vegetation to fully respond. sea levels also rise for two reasons: (1) Seawater expands as it warms. species extinction. 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. 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. when sea level was about eighty feet higher.. Fifty million people in the US live below that sea level. New York Review of Books. When the atmosphere last had a concentration of 560 ppm. ice. and Miami. necessarily. “THE THREAT TO THE PLANET”.giss.lwv.org/AM/Template. we may be able to manage a staged retreat from the coasts. http://pubs. and sea level rise—the last poses perhaps the most obvious threat to modern industrial societies. A critical question is: How rapidly will the ice melt? If we are lucky and the melting is slow enough. 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.pdf) How much will sea level rise with five degrees of global warming? Here too. The best straight line points has a slope of 20 m/°C (37 ft/°F). League of Women Voters. indeed.1 yards) every twenty years for centuries.Climate Politics Page 88 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Warming Bad—Sea Level Warming causes sea level rises – seawater expansion and glacial melting Tolman 2009 (4/30. A 50-ft rise would drown many large coastal cities and can aptly be called “catastrophic”. rose one meter (1. twice what it was in 1750.34 If just the Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets melt. That would be a calamity for hundreds of cities around the world. India would lose the land of 150 million people. crop yield losses. our best information comes from the Earth’s history. once ice sheets began to collapse.36 and other low lying areas. Sci. 88 Ellis. about 7 million years ago. WEA) Of all the threats posed by global warming—more severe droughts and floods. Mitchell. is based on the fact that the ice will not have had nearly enough time by then to fully respond to the temperature change. But the inertia of ice sheets is not our ally against the effects of global warming. The Earth’s history reveals cases in which sea level. this would raise sea levels by 15 m (50 ft). China would have 250 million displaced persons. more intense hurricanes. Washington. the Maldives and the Marshall Islands). submerging large parts of the Delmarva Peninsula. Other places would fare worse. http://www. which shows a projected temperature of about 18ºC and a sea level rise of 1 m in 2100. increased forest fires. is shown in Figure 2. most of them far larger than New Orleans. "POSITIVE FEEDBACKS AND CLIMATE RUNAWAY THE NEED TO ACT WITHOUT DELAY".35 Florida. Eighty feet! In that case. and (2) water runs into the oceans from glaciers melting on land. The Earth was five degrees warmer was three million years ago. the United States would lose most East Coast cities: Boston. A rise in sea level. Massive ice sheets last time that the must be softened and weakened before rapid disintegration and melting occurs and the sea level rises. New York.cfm&CONTENTID=13409. Director @ NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Prof. the spread of diseases. practically the entire state of Florida would be under water. several small island states (e. labeled Projection for 2100. LVW climate change taskforce. Note that the solid points represent equilibrium conditions—with enough time for the oceans. Bangladesh would produce 120 million refugees.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen.
from Jamaica to the Philippines. p. “Outer Limits to America’s Turn Inward”.com/28668-Boiling-Point-by-Ross-Gelbspan-Excerpt. 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. The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) has projected that climate damages will amount to $150 billion a year within this decade. Teddy & Megan . And two years ago. WEA) The responses of the insurance industry have been equally schizophrenic. Russia. The world's largest insurer-Munich Reinsurance-has said that within several decades. Britain's biggest insurer projected that. insurers have been economically defensive and politically invisible. Economic downturn causes global nuclear war Mead 92 (Walter Russell. climate change could bankrupt the global economy by 2065--from property damage due to sea level rise and increasingly severe storms and floods. The European insurers have also spent large amounts on public education. those losses will amount to $300 billion a year.longtime editor and reporter for the Philadelphia Bulletin Washington Post and Bostong Globe.Climate Politics Page 89 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Warming Bad—Economy Climate change kills the insurance industry and the overall economy. covered the Stockholm UN Conference on the Environment in 1973 and addressed the Davos World Economic forum in 1998 ("Boiling point". But what if it can’t? What if the global economy stagnates—or even shrinks? In that case. most U.S. unchecked. They are keeping silent By contrast. 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. In the early rounds of the climate talks. http://www. They and their leaders have embraced market principles—and drawn closer to the west—because they believe that our system can work for them. 89 Ellis. losses in the travel and tourism industries. politically. crop failures. 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. newspaper advertising. they aligned themselves with a coalition calling for the largest initial cuts (20 percent below 1990 levels)--the Alliance of Small Island States.wattpad. Hundreds of millions—billions—of people around the world have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. and public health costs. New Perspectives Quarterly. President’s Fellow @ World Policy Institute @ New School. rich against poor. and communications infrastructures. They are refusing to insure known storm corridors and selling the risk off to the public. The big European insurers have been politically proactive. Summer. 9:3. countries whose stability is threatened by rising sea levels and increasingly intense storm surges. destruction of energy. health. 30) If so. Gelbspan 2004 . The concern of the European insurers is reflected in their estimates of coming economic losses. and political capital on the climate threat. China. Mitchell.
Sci. yet creation is beyond our powers…. climate change could wreck havoc with ecosystems.” Ehrenfeld wrote these words in the early 1970s. "This clearly has major implications for food security worldwide. extinction species can never be replaced. Lawmakers Urged to Lead Global Warming Battle". http://www. he added. by 30 percent by 2050 in Asia and by 30 percent in Latin America before 2080. Associate Prof. No matter what the effort or sincerity of intentions. and threatens 20 to 30 percent of the planet's plant and animal species. we really have no way of turning back." said Pachauri. Extinction is the permanent destruction of unique life forms and the only irreversible In fact. Were he to write today he would likely add a note of dire urgency. “The Expendable Future: U. and biodiversity stress.Climate Politics Page 90 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Warming Bad—Environment Warming destroys ecological resilience—it increases water. As frightful as these events might be. J. Biodiversity loss outweighs nuclear war Tobin 90 (Richard. Mitchell. "U. "Once this kind of damage takes place. Pegg 2008 (2/1. The chapters that follow evaluate that response in the United States. To Wilson. noting that the IPCC estimates some 1. Environmental News Service. 14) when compared to all other environmental problems. noting that humans will be impacted by the loss of biodiversity. Pol. 90 Ellis. Teddy & Megan .ensnewswire.S.5 billion people in the developing world are likely to be exposed to increased water stress due to climate change by 2020.com/ens/feb2008/2008-02-01-10." Pachauri said. human-caused extinctions are likely to be of far greater concern. “From the standpoint of permanent despoliation of the planet. Pachauri said. or even nuclear war. agricultural.R. Wilson reasons that they can be repaired within a few generations. @ SUNY Buffalo. 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. Politics and the Protection of Biological Diversity”.” David Ehrenfeld succinctly summarizes the problem and the need for a solution: “We are masters of extermination. The panel also estimates agricultural yields will drop by some 50 percent in some African countries.” Harvard biologist Edward O.S. the worst thing that will happen to earth is not economic collapse. WEA) It is the world's poor who are "most vulnerable" to the adverse impacts of climate change.” Norman Myers observes.asp. Complacency in the face of this terrible dilemma is inexcusable. If scientists are correct in their assessments of current extinctions and reasonably confident about extinction rates in the near future. p. ecological change that humans can cause.. no other form of environmental degradation “is anywhere so significant as the fallout of species. the depletion of energy supplies. then a concentrated and effective response to human-caused extinctions is essential. Wilson is less modest in assessing the relative consequences of human-caused extinctions. Furthermore.
terrestrial plants. Of all of the systems of nature. oysters.longtime editor and reporter for the Philadelphia Bulletin Washington Post and Bostong Globe. The accumulation of evidence has us extremely worried. but we are alarmed. Dobson. Warming accelerates the breeding rates and the biting rate of insects. birds and humans.' 91 Ellis. [this] report was the first to study dozens of diseases in both humans and nonhumans.' said Andrew P. such as those that followed tree pathogen invasions in North America during the last century. and entire ecosystems all over the planet. It accelerates the maturation of the pathogens they carry. Richard Ostfeld. dengue. While climate change scientists have studied a handful of human diseases. Nonetheless. a team of researchers reported that rising temperatures are increasing both the geographical range and the virulence of diseases. As a result.' The researchers reported that the climate-driven spread of diseases will 'contribute to population or species declines. nor just a question of malaria for a few health officials--the number of similar increases in disease incidence is astonishing.' 'This isn't just a question of coral bleaching for a few marine ecologists. The risk for humans is going up. vegetation. or increase in drug-resistant strains--may underlie these range expansions. http://www.com/28668-Boiling-Point-by-Ross-Gelbspan-Excerpt. 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.' wrote lead author Drew Harvell. species. especially for generalist pathogens infecting multiple host species. It expands the range of insects. one of the most responsive to temperature changes is insects. covered the Stockholm UN Conference on the Environment in 1973 and addressed the Davos World Economic forum in 1998 ("Boiling point". Factors other than climate change--such as changes in land use. it’s comparatively a bigger threat than bioterror Gelbspan 2004 .Climate Politics Page 91 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Warming Bad—Disease (1/2) Global warming fuels disease spread through pathogens and insects. pollution. and plants.' 'The most detectable effects of directional climate warming on disease relate to geographic range expansion of pathogens such as Rift Valley fever. Mitchell. professor at Princeton University's department of ecology and evolutionary biology and one of the authors.' added another member of the research team. bacteria. 'We are seeing lots of anecdotes and they are beginning to tell a story. We share diseases with some of these species. 'We don't want to be alarmist. The greatest impacts of disease may result from a relatively small number of emergent pathogens. fungi. In 2002. and parasites-as well as in such a wide range of hosts including corals. 'It's a much more scary threat than bioterrorism. climate change is fueling the spread of a wide array of insect-borne diseases among populations. Teddy & Megan . Epidemics caused when these infect new hosts with little resistance or tolerance may lead to population declines. allowing them to live longer at higher altitudes and higher latitudes. and Eastern oyster disease.wattpad. As the Boston Globe reported: 'Researchers have long accepted that global warming will affect a wide range of organisms. WEA) There is one group of creatures for whom global warming is a boon. but they are only now beginning to predict what those will be. The implication is a future of more widespread and devastating epidemics for humans. animals. a Cornell University biologist.' 'What is most surprising is the fact that climate-sensitive outbreaks are happening with so many different types of pathogens-viruses. the numerous mechanisms linking climate warming and disease spread support the hypothesis that climate warming is contributing to ongoing range expansions. Added Dobson: 'Climate change is disrupting natural ecosystems in a way that is making life better for infectious diseases.
it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about. deadlier than HIV. University in New York.which turns internal organs into liquid ." He cites the 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreak as an example of how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence. if it was closer to home: an outbreak of that scale in London. It could happen anytime in the next 20 years . infect humanity at a large scale and imperil the survival of the human race. "It can come from a rare animal or from anywhere and can mutate constantly. AIDS. "This raises the very real possibility that lethal." he said. There is a much more pressing medical crisis at hand . 1/4. 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". few could have predicted the impact of AIDS on the world. it could happen tomorrow. it affects one person and then there is a chain reaction and it is unstoppable.one he believes the world must be alerted to: . If this makes Dr Ben-Abraham sound like a prophet of doom. said Joshua Lederberg of the Rockefeller the possibility of a virus deadlier than HIV "Nature isn't benign. he says. The survival of the human species is not a preordained evolutionary programme. 96 (Kavita Daswani. humanity could face extinction because of a single virus.they are all. Fifteen years ago. at a recent conference. South China Morning Post. 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.000 in the former Soviet Union . but Dr Ben -Abraham said history has already proven his theory. It is a tragedy waiting to happen." he said. the "tip of the iceberg". for the first time. He added that the problem was "very serious and is getting worse". lexis) Despite the importance of the discovery of the "facilitating" cell. And as new "mega-cities" are being developed in the Third World and rainforests are destroyed. Mitchell. "An airborne virus is a lively. disease-carrying animals and insects are forced into areas of human habitation. Abundant sources of genetic variation exist for viruses to learn how to mutate and evade the immune system. If there is no cure. then he makes no apology for it. Ebola has had sporadic outbreaks over the past 20 years and the only way the deadly virus . Teddy & Megan .Climate Politics Page 92 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Warming Bad—Disease (2/2) And diseases will cause extinction South China Morning Post. mysterious viruses would. complex and dangerous organism. the flu epidemic that has now affected 200. Dr Ben-Abraham said: 92 Ellis. the Ebola outbreak which killed more than 100 people in Africa last year. Imagine. New York or Hong Kong.could be contained was because it was killed before it had a chance to spread. according to Dr Ben-Abraham.theoretically." That may sound like a far-fetched plot for a Hollywood film.
but this year is one of the driest on record.puts millions at risk and leads to water wars Washington Post 7 (Doug Struck. "There is an emerging situation of climate refugees." According to the IPCC.D.000 feet. Patagonia and the U. and when.S. “The Next One Hundred Years”. For example. 170 miles away. hydroelectric dams rely on the flow to generate power. there will be more water in the atmosphere. For the first time. the models predicted. Already in the Middle East. Much of the world's fresh water is in glaciers atop mountains. forcing farmers to dig wells. He has spent more time in the oxygen-thin "death zone" atop mountains than any other scientist. And in a world as interlinked as ours. 800. one explosion may lead to the other. drilling ice cores and measuring glaciers. These will not be small droughts. the Southwest will be gripped in a dry spell akin to the Great Dust Bowl drought that lasted through most of the 1930s. the World Health downstream." Farmers in the Central Valley. many will disappear "What do you think is going to happen when this stops?" Thompson mused of the water. gently feeding streams and 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. Organization says. They thought a wet 2006 ended a seven-year drought. Water wars go nuclear Weiner in ’90 (Jonathan. he said. "And it will intensify floods. the runoff helps feed the giant capital. The glaciers are melting. then we may destroy ourselves with the C-bomb. the water flowing through irrigation canals built by the Incas. These projections clearly come from a warming forced by rising greenhouse gases. At the edge of the Quelccaya Glacier. The climate will be wetter in some places. a senior researcher at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. He has watched the Quelccaya Glacier shrink by 30 percent in 33 years. But. North Africa. Lake Mead and Lake Powell. "You are going to intensify the hydrologic cycle. are drying. "mechanistically." Global warming threatens water supplies in other ways. Teddy & Megan . Down the mountain. Its reservoirs." he says. Sudan. In wet or cold seasons. Where the atmosphere is configured to have high pressure and droughts. http://www. Even farther Soon. the Mideast. 93 Ellis. 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.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/19/AR2007081900967. drier in others. In Somalia. Richard Seager. where a quilt of lush. “Warming Will Exacerbate Global Water Conflicts”. more gully washers. Farms below are dependent on that meltwater. pours himself a cup of tea and says the future is clear. It's crazy to think they won't go anywhere. it comes down is the big uncertainty. a multitude of rivulets seep from the edge of Quelccaya to irrigate crops of maize." he said. a growing stack of studies conclude. the largest ice cap in the Peruvian Andes. Changing weather patterns will leave millions of people without dependable supplies of water for drinking. Syria and Iraq bristle over the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. the edges slowly melt. South Australia.washingtonpost. In dry and hot seasons. Mitchell. from North Africa to the Persian Gulf and from the Nile to the Euphrates. Where the atmosphere is configured to be wet. tensions over dwindling water supplies and rising populations are reaching what many experts describe as a flashpoint. The spacing of tree rings suggests there have been numerous periods of drought going back to A. But the atmosphere's temperature is rising fastest at high altitudes. He found remarkable consistency: Sometime before 2050. The United Nations has said water scarcity is behind the bloody wars in Sudan's Darfur region. state water authorities shut off irrigation pumps to large parts of the valley. this is different. leaving accusatory rings on the shorelines and imperiling river-rafting companies. "Global warming will intensify drought. In northern China. Ohio State University researcher Lonnie Thompson sat in a cold tent at a rarified 17. "It will certainly cause movements of people.S. irrigation and power. drought has spawned warlords and armies. p.Climate Politics Page 93 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Warming Bad—Water Wars Warming causes massive droughts ---. "As the air gets warmer. initially increasing the runoff.000 nuclear warheads the world has stockpiled since Trinity. They act as mammoth storehouses. there will be migration from rural areas to cities and then the U. Already. But where. the once-mighty Colorado River is looking sickly. the Change Bomb.. Farther south and east. A climate shift in that single battle-scarred nexus might trigger international tensions that will unleash some of the 60. Pulitzer Prize winning author." he said. siphoned by seven states before dribbling into Mexico. you will get more rain. Lima. "Do you think all the people below will just sit there? No. that means a drying out of areas such as southern Europe. Turkey. huge cities have grown up on the belief the mountains will always give them drinking water. 8-20. . Southwest. there will be more desperate measures. green orchards on brown hills displays the alchemy of irrigation. 1 billion people lack access to potable water. the glaciers grow with snow. global warming will mean long. as Mexico dries out.html) As global warming heats the planet. 270) If we do not destroy ourselves with the A-bomb and the H-bomb. another city built in a desert. editor of the journal Climatic Change and a lead author for the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Ethiopia and Egypt trade threats over the Nile. That's settled science. dry periods. looked at 19 computer models of the future under current global warming trends. Stephen Schneider. At Stanford University. want to believe this is a passing dry spell. Seager predicts that drought will prompt dislocations similar to those of the Dust Bowl. but gradually getting smaller and smaller.
New U. in the Seacoast region A lot of the problem has to do with timing. At the same time. But now.S. warmer temperatures could increase evaporation and lengthen the growing season where water is sucked up by plants. About half of the water that recharges the region’s aquifer is from spring snowmelt. instead of snow. said Mack. Similar worries are on the minds of Massachusetts and other New England water scientists. USGS hydrologist Thomas Mack estimates that summer stream flows. http://www. 94 Ellis. is expected to fall in the winter. "Global warming's timing problem".boston. Mitchell. more rain. 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. Teddy & Megan . Daley 7/14/2009 (Beth. allowing it to be plentiful to residents for summer lawn watering and other uses. Boston Globe.html. Seacoast region. Warming Causes Water Scarcity Climate change increases global water scarcity. which helps feed groundwater aquifers.Climate Politics Page 94 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. That means the aquifer is filling up earlier in the spring. a study shows that parts of even drenched New England may be facing water shortages as the world warms and demand increases. could be ten percent less by 2025 than they are today. But global warming is causing the snow to melt earlier by around two to four weeks. WEA) Evidence is growing that climate change is exacerbating water scarcity problems around the world.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2009/07/global_warmings_timing_problem.
Gelbspan 2004 . Scott Goetz. It is our hope that the Canadian government will reduce emissions from tar sands development. “It’s an internationally important repository for carbon. Obviously. Russia and Scandinavia just below the Arctic. occupies about 25 percent of the world’s and 50 percent of Canada’s total land area.” said Dr. This is largely because in boreal climates.” With 50 percent of the world's remaining original forests stretching across Canada. 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. noted.longtime editor and reporter for the Philadelphia Bulletin Washington Post and Boston Globe. Canada’s Boreal Region is LifeSupport for Planet “Clearly. WEA) The risk. David Schindler. We should do everything we can to ensure that the carbon in this storehouse is conserved.Climate Politics Page 95 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Warming Bad—Forests Climate change kills global forests through bark beetle spread. “Boreal Forest is World’s Carbon Vault”. In Canada. the Boreal Forest houses 22 percent of the total carbon stored on the world’s land surface. is not confined to humans. The map shows several carbon hotspots distributed across Canada. “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. Nearly 90 percent of the organic carbon found in Canadian soils occurs in Boreal and Tundra ecosystems. The map released today illustrates the vast Boreal peatlands that stretch from Quebec and Labrador westward to the Mackenzie Valley. This globally significant Canada’s Boreal Forest Includes the World’s Largest Peatlands Peatlands are recognized worldwide as highly important for carbon storage. Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Canada Program.com/28668-Boiling-Point-by-Ross-Gelbspan-Excerpt. encompassing 12 percent of the nation’s land area.wattpad. the growing tar sands destruction and associated carbon emissions in Alberta will seriously hamper Canada’s ability to meet its commitment under Kyoto. http://www. Vast Permafrost Areas are Key to Carbon Storage Permafrost. “It’s similar to a bank vault containing one of the world’s most valuable and most influential resources for impacting climate change.aspx?id=32032) “The Boreal Forest is to carbon what Fort Knox is to gold. 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. built up over thousands of years.” said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz. storing at least six times as much carbon per hectare carbon storehouse is due to three key factors: as forested mineral soils. 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.” Canada’s Boreal Forest stores an estimated 186 billion tons of carbon in its widespread forest and peatland ecosystems—the equivalent of 27 years’ worth of global carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. the Senior Scientist at the International Boreal Conservation Campaign (IBCC). http://www. a Professor of Biology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. an initiative of the Pew Environment Group. Alaska. Globally. covered the Stockholm UN Conference on the Environment in 1973 and addressed the Davos World Economic forum in 1998 ("Boiling point". 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. Canada’s Boreal region is a life-support system for the planet because of its key role in carbon storage. 8-12. Mitchell. a Senior Scientist at Woods Hole Research Center. resulting in deep organic soils that are thousands of years old.” 95 Ellis. an explosion in the population of tree-killing bark beetles is spreading rapidly through the forests. 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. the Boreal is the largest land reservoir of carbon on Earth. “The carbon frozen into Canada’s permafrost. turning them into tinder for the fires that blanketed the area around Los Angeles. Forests prevent extinction Pew Charitable Trusts 7 (Press Release. of course. Teddy & Megan . the deadly bark beetles had spread throughout an area of British Columbia nearly three-fourths the size of Sweden--about 9 million acres. Canada has the largest area of peatlands in the world. including roughly a third of the Boreal region.org/news_room_detail. is one of North America’s largest stores of carbon. the colder temperatures reduce decomposition rates. The maps released today document where and how these vital carbon reserves are distributed across Canada.pewtrusts. with significant concentrations in northern Ontario and Manitoba. “The world recognizes that tackling global warming involves both reducing emissions and stopping deforestation and forest degradation. or permanently frozen ground. Officials attributed the spread of the insects to unusually warm winters.” said Jeff Wells.
"Renewable energy".Climate Politics Page 96 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Warming Bad—Systemic Death/Poverty Turns systemic death. Bianca. http://www.000 people currently die each year from the impacts of warming. Teddy & Megan . Those who are most vulnerable are also the most at risk from this threat. Testimony to the House Select Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee.' said Kerstin Leitner. Gelbspan 2004 . Lexis Congressional. Melting glaciers will trigger mountain floods and lead to water shortages in South Asia and South America. increased heat stress. Reduced rainfall will aggravate water and food insecurity in Africa. assistant director-general of the World Health Organization.com/28668-Boiling-Point-by-Ross-Gelbspan-Excerpt. Turns all systemic harms globally. 96 Ellis. and the warming-driven proliferation of allergens. Mitchell. And then there is the threat of disease and epidemics: according to Christian Aid." If current trends are allowed to continue. unprecedented droughts will occur. A poor. low-lying country like Bangladesh will find it much harder to cope with sea level rise than a rich region like Florida. Ban Ki-moon said: "Climate change will affect developing countries the most. CQ Congressional Testimony. WEA) About 160.longtime editor and reporter for the Philadelphia Bulletin Washington Post and Boston Globe. covered the Stockholm UN Conference on the Environment in 1973 and addressed the Davos World Economic forum in 1998 ("Boiling point". WEA) When the floods have subsided. by the end of the century.wattpad. 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.chair of the World Future Council (3/6. '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. Jagger 2008 . hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries will lose their homes as well as the land on which they grow their crops. 182 million people in sub-Saharan Africa alone could die of diseases and epidemics directly attributable to climate change.
regain its credibility in the global deliberations over how to combat global warming. WEA) By adopting some form of national legislation that begins to internalize the costs of global warming.S. http://www.S. Rueters. U.. Mitchell.S. Trade tension non-unique.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSPEK303347. "China is trying to promote trade balance.co-chairs the Energy. China's big surplus in its trade with the United States has become a global concern.S." "There The United States is China's second-largest trade partner after the European Union. 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 .but it also sowed some of the seeds for our current economic problems. industry can find opportunities in China.S. Locke said in remarks prepared for a speech to the American Chamber of Commerce. increase its exchange rate flexibility. electricity prices will increase due to the internalization of the costs of the cap and trade system. do exist some issues in our bilateral trade relations. pointing out that China mainly exports labour-intensive products. side on promoting trade balance and cooperation on high-tech products. trade surplus does not necessarily mean trade benefits. 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. America can develop new technologies. 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. Growth predicated on ever increasing Chinese exports being consumed by debt-laden Americans provided years of prosperity -. The EIA analysis points out one fundamental conclusion. goods." Yao said." Locke said. 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.pur.cfm. who will visit Beijing and Shanghai. the United States would blunt any effort by the EU to impose trade sanctions on U.S. In this way. Public Utilities Reports. http://www. and accounts for 18 percent of China's total exports and imports.com/pubs/4419. Environmental & Public Utility Practice Group of the Cozen O'Connor law firm (Peter J.-china trade imbalance not sustainable-Locke". Locke. among them is a bilateral trade imbalance that simply can't be sustained. "For all our areas of agreement. Palmer 7/15/2009 (Doug. The reduction of global warming gas emissions called for under the Kyoto Protocol will increase electricity prices and therefore the cost of goods. "Chief trade relationship has to evolve. "U. and the two countries have a joint responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If the United States continues to resist global pressure to reduce its CO2 emissions. To avoid this negative outcome. Teddy & Megan . Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said on Wednesday. and open its markets more. he said. "Global Warming: The Gathering Storm". July 15 (Reuters) - The trade imbalance between the United States and China is not sustainable. plans to promote clean energy technology as one area in which U. policy-makers. Lieberman Even under the relatively modest goals of the McCain bill." 97 Ellis. the United States and China's There are concerns and deep structural issues that must be addressed. In a globalised world today. it's a separate issue as how to interpret the trade surplus. much like the Acid Rain Trading Program. and avoid the risk of a damaging trade war with the EU. WEA) BEIJING. "Of course. We have special working groups that are in talks with the U.reuters." Chinese commerce ministry spokesman Yao Jian told a press conference on Wednesday. including cooperation on high-tech products.
Levi 2009 . American enterprises say that China encourages the development of local enterprises by restraining foreign energy companies from entry into the Chinese market. Mitchell. Over time. Egypt's party scene. Teddy & Megan . http://www. If we win our modeling claims then you do not have a protectionism turn. face strong protectionist pressures. But if major U. saying Obama has ignored lessons from the Depression era. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned against reliance upon intervention and protectionism to cure economic ills.chinastakes. French leaders. Significant threats loomed for free-trade hawks well before Davos. "Gloomy Portents for Global Trade". most of the rationale for the U. Trade policy could emerge as a flashpoint in the weeks and months to come. then. compared to an expansion of 4. the secretary-general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. "China Warns US: Carbon Tariff Will Invite Retaliation". U.S. saying such policies could backfire (Guardian). Many of the financial sector's major players skipped the summit altogether (Bloomberg).assistant editor and economics writer for CFR. 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.cfr. WEA) Amidst the worst economic crisis in decades. the only solution to the competitiveness problem is global climate action.S.David M. The concern for policymakers. http://www. Pleas for economic openness rang out at this year's summit. The World Bank also projects a contraction--the first decline in global trade since 1982. as did India's (Reuters). CFR's Jagdish Bhagwati questioned U. saying world leaders must remain vigilant (Xinhua) in their efforts to curb trade protectionism. the United States can't cut through this thicket by itself. climate legislation.S. Democrats are pushing for "Buy American" provisions to be included in President Barack Obama's proposed stimulus package. 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. Obama aside .Climate Politics Page 98 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Trade Turn China is already acting protectionist in the energy sector.org/publication/19674/.3 billion. though. in an article published on the OECD's website. Congress should make sure that in crafting U. particularly as major developed economies seek to implement stimulus packages to boost their domestic economies. Michael A. Protectionism up now—World Economic Forum meeting proves. Rather.com/2009/7/china-warns-us-carbon-tariff-will-invite-retaliation. no one country's industries will be unfairly disadvantaged.8 percent in 2009 (WSJ). "We will only make the crisis worse if we succumb to the lure of protectionism and petty nationalism." added Angel Gurria. 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. degree from Harvard (1/30. As a result. the World Economic Forum's annual mega-summit in the Swiss Alps found itself at a crossroads.org/publication/18429/. rebates will vanish.1 percent in 2008. too. CFR. prototypal "Davos Man"--the international captain of finance whose prominence and significance has risen meteorically in recent decades--seemed humbled. valued around $3. 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. and several big banks cancelled the glitzy parties they have traditionally hosted at the summit. Mr. WEA) In the long term.html. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao backed Putin. progress on the international front will depend mainly on cooperative action. Lee Hudson. 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. trade minister echoed concerns (Reuters) about protectionism. WEA) China has also come under criticism for protectionism.S.cfr. Since the United States has few sticks to bring to the climate negotiating table. trade competitors all impose new and similar climate costs on their energy-intensive industries. Locke said that China could not close its markets. In a recent op-ed. President Barack Obama's pronouncements on trade. http://www. The International Monetary Fund estimates global trade will contract 2. such as excluding foreign companies from bidding on a recent wind power project. 98 Ellis. "Trade and Climate Change". Council on Foreign Relations.S. the short-term trade outlook isn't particularly rosy. particularly among the leaders of emerging economies. ChinaStakes 7/16/2009 (Chinese business news. however. its trade measures don't unnecessarily aggravate the external relationships that will be needed to get that done.. Teslik 2009 . The Financial Times' John Gapper says the Davos was different this year. for keeping a fair and open market was the consensus reached between leaders of the two countries at the G20 meeting in London. Ultimately.
Mitchell. Teddy & Megan .Climate Politics Page 99 of 156 7WJ – HPSW 99 Ellis.
” http://www. If Ron Kirk. including bauxite. will shrink by nearly 10% this year. reeling from a drastic collapse in global demand (see chart).” Rueters. Now China and Canada are imposing their own protectionist regulations. is far more significant. America sits at the center of global markets for technology. But America and the EU argue that by hindering their export. Furchgott-Roth 6/19 Diana Furchtgott-Roth. have recovered from its current moribund state. Other countries may follow suit. When international markets expand. This week China reported that the government now requires stimulus projects to use domestic suppliers when possible. Jeffrey Schott. Trade creates jobs not just through investments of foreign companies at home. by which time trade will. That would be the sharpest fall since the to find ways to protect their own. and the first decline in trade since a small dip in 1982. though less obvious.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory. far above other industrialized countries. 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. When barriers are erected to trade. find that firms that trade goods employ over 40% of the American workforce. Of particular concern are the so-called “Buy China” requirements added to China’s stimulus package this month. 2009 (“Starting a trade war with “Buy America”. and advertising — to name but a few. believes the case against China is a strong one. 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. “Buy America” is shorthand for fewer jobs as other countries retaliate. among others. a think-tank. This effect. equipment manufacturing. The Chinese $585 billion stimulus package has resulted in a World Bank growth forecast of 7. it could drag on for several years. These require recipients of money But trade experts warn that protectionism remains a serious worry. magnesium and manganese. If the case proceeds to the stage where a formal WTO panel is formed to decide on its merits. The World Bank said on June 22nd that world-trade volumes.reuters. banking. http://blogs. even though in February it promised to treat foreign companies equally. Protectionism now—World Bank statistic prove Economist 09. Many markets no longer have national boundaries but global reaches.” The tragic losers of “Buy America” are free trade agreements and potential job growth in the American economy. America’s new trade representative. Andrew Bernard. finance. That may be too sanguine. together with economists Bradford Jensen and Peter Schott. The latest salvo was fired on June 23rd by America Depression. oil from Canada. “Buy America” promises workers they can have it all — cheap goods from China. And on June 6 the delegates at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities passed a resolution calling on “local infrastructure projects. America grows. but also by increasing employment at exporting firms. China is unfairly favouring domestic industries. John Veroneau. Seductively. cement.Climate Politics Page 100 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Trade Turn Trade wars inevitable because of the Buy America provision. including environmental projects such as water and wastewater treatment projects. a trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.2% for China this year. potentially destroying well-paid American jobs in the export sector. Teddy & Megan . our government invited a trade war with important economic partners.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. as well as protection from global competition. it is unlikely to have that effect. demonstrates that he is actively enforcing the agreements already in place. the landscape of global trade remains resolutely bare. Unsurprisingly. True. and textiles) financed by the stimulus bill to be made in America. In reality. In practice. fashion. They conclude that approximately 57 million American workers are employed by firms that engage in international trade. which complained to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) about China’s restrictions on the exports of nine minerals. That’s why “Buy America” hurts employment.Jun 25th 2009 (“Duties call.cfm?story_id=13903045) DESPITE the periodic sighting of green shoots elsewhere in the economy. he may get “the authority to negotiate Doha and other accords”.June 19th. for that matter. a professor at Dartmouth College. [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. These are important raw materials for the steel industry. with luck. But real life just doesn’t work that way. jobs — and also wages —shrink. America and the EU are not resorting to imposing fresh barriers of their own in this dispute. says that the case against China may also help the cause of open trade in other ways. tempers are fraying as governments struggle and the European Union.a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. a former American deputy trade representative. and China restricts their exports on the grounds that they are exhaustible resources. China’s export restrictions are not new either. Mitchell. coke.
Brookings Institute. The big significance was a path-breaking ruling that environmental measures can target. A notorious example was the GATT ruling against US barriers to imports of tuna from dolphin-unfriendly Mexican fishermen. at roughly the same time as the Kyoto Protocol. but also partners’ Processes & 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. open and non-discriminatory trading system. provided it did so without discrimination against Asian fishermen. Article XX allows exceptions to Articles I and III for purposes of health and conservation. must be mutually supportive.” and the 2001 Doha Communiqué that sought to start a new round of negotiations declares: “the aims of . Harpel Professor of Capital Formation and Growth at the Harvard Kennedy School (6/9... respectively. GHG emissions are PPMs. as always. as embodied in electricity or in goods produced with it. whether tariffs or quantitative restrictions. which contained trade controls.brookings..pdf. Teddy & Megan .” 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. The United States was in the end able to seek to protect turtles in the Indian Ocean. WEA) V . although countries could use import barriers to protect themselves against environmental damage that would otherwise occur within their own borders. so-called Processes and Production Methods (PPMs). It says that the Parties should “strive to implement policies and measures. the controls would have minimized leakage.12 and (2) if major countries had remained outside.edu/events/2008/~/media/Files/events/2008/0609_climate_trade/2008_frankel. http://www. But things have changed. succeeding the GATT.subject. Mitchell. The Preamble to the 1995 Marrakech Agreement establishing the WTO seeks “to protect and preserve the environment. Is this an obstacle to the application measures against them at the border? I don’t see why it has to be. the migration of production of banne 101 Ellis.to minimize adverse effects…on international trade.. and acting for the protection of the environment .. The WTO regime is more respectful of the environment than was its predecessor. The drafters of each treaty showed more consideration for the other than do the rank and file among environmentalists and free traders. be acceptable under international law? Under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The WTO (World Trade Organization) came into existence. The controls had two motivations13: (1) to encourage countries to join. most international experts would have said that import barriers against carbonintensive goods. emissions in other countries. Jeffrey A. they could not use import barriers in efforts to affect how goods are produced in foreign countries. arms over this case. Frankel 2008 ..James W. "OPTIONS FOR ADDRESSING THE LEAKAGE/COMPETITIVENESS ISSUE IN CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY PROPOSALS". would necessarily violate international agreements.. not only exported products (Article XX). Environmentalists failed to notice or consolidate the PPM precedent.” The UNFCC features similar language.. The true import of a 1998 WTO panel decision on the shrimp-turtle case was missed by almost The everyone. Two precedents can be cited: sea turtles and stratospheric ozone. and to the contrary were misguidedly up in Another important precedent was the Montreal Protocol on stratospheric ozone depletion. to non-discrimination (Articles I & III)..
jobs based on clean energy and energy efficiency depend on American resources and cannot be shipped overseas.com/article/gwmCarbonEmissions/idUS363785493920090624.iberkshires.050 per household by 2020 and $4. 2454. the American Clean Energy and Security Act". And unlike other jobs. investments in a clean energy economy create four times as many jobs as investments in the oil and gas industry. 10 percent of the SEED (State Energy and Environmental Development) program is set aside for transportation programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.100 between 2001 and 2007. will create 1. according to an updated analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). 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. 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.a. and in many ways.400 per household by 2030. as outlined in this bill. The bill also changed the distribution of R&D funds. 2454.7 million American jobs over the next two years alone. the American Clean Energy and Security Act (a. And according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. and power plants will create 770. laborers. Waxman-Markey). Dollar for dollar.php?story_id=31496. 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. http://www. Mitchell. http://www. WEA) The federal energy efficiency provisions included in H. Less than two months later we approved a budget containing unprecedented support for mass transit and energy innovation.k. buildings. Olver 7/6/2009 .000 per household per year by 2030. We have passed legislation to green our schools and preserve 2 million acres of wilderness. As our nation faces high unemployment and an ailing auto industry. The Center for American Progress estimates that the transition from foreign oil to clean American energy. Teddy & Megan .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. 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. Efficiency mandates in the cap and trade bill solve any cost concerns. factories. In addition. Rueters 6/24/2009 ("Updated Energy Savings Analysis of H. Six months ago we passed an economic recovery act with investments in smart infrastructure and sustainable job creation. 70 percent of which will go to Advanced Energy Research and 30 percent of which will go to "Energy Innovation Hubs" at universities.R. the most important one yet. Housing and Urban Development (John W. "Letter From Olver: House Passes Comprehensive Energy Legislation".Massachusetts representative on the House Appropriations Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation. ACES represents the next step.000 jobs by 2030. Retrofits will employ building specialists and construction workers while burgeoning solar and wind industries will need machinists. as well as changes to the bill made in a Rule's Committee version of the bill released yesterday. this is the perfect opportunity to make significant investments in industries that will become the base of a new American economy. could save approximately $1. which raised the average American household's energy costs by $1.. 102 Ellis. which are estimated at over $4.com/story. This is a welcome change from the Bush administration energy plan. These estimates do not take into account savings from energy efficient appliances.R. and engineers.reuters.
ethiopianreview. WEA) • Protect consumers from energy price increases. reduce harmful carbon emissions.ethiopianreview. which equals 22 cents to 30 cents per day. in addition to raising the cost of using “dirty” energy. 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. "House Passes Landmark Climate Change Bill. Ethiopian Review.org/files/3-3-09climate.” Let’s quantify it—the most official studies cite the cost to consumers at 30 cents a day.” said Phil Angelides. Budget Office projected an annual cost of $175 for U.cbpp. In addition. 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. "House Passes Landmark Climate Change Bill.050 cumulatively and produce more than 300. Mitchell. 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. Stone et al 2009 . green jobs here at home and help revive America’s long suffering manufacturing sector. called the bill a significant step forward in creating a more equitable and secure country. households by 2020. 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. with the result that no significant “tax increase” occurs. http://www.000 jobs by 2020. the 27 nations of the European Union have operated a cap-and-trade system since 103 Ellis. According to estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency. the reductions in carbon pollution required by the legislation will cost American families less than a postage stamp per day. Calif.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. http://www. That claim is misleading because it focuses on just one aspect of the Administration’s cap-and-trade proposal. former executive director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. Chad Stone. A separate analysis from the Congressional Prefer our evidence—indicts of the proposal ignores offset mechanisms that blunt any economic impact.” Green For All CEO Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins said in a statement. Teddy & Megan .pdf.and create millions of green jobs that will put our citizens back to work and get our economy back on track. **BA in economics and masters degree in social work from U Michigan (3/3. “The American Clean Energy And Security Act is a giant leap forward to establish energy security. Now Heads to Senate". households up to $1.*Chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.”1 Several northeastern states have already implemented a cap-and-trade system on a regional basis as part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. "CAP AND TRADE CAN FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING EFFECTIVELY WHILE ALSO PROTECTING CONSUMERS". http://www. Hannah Shaw. households between $80 and $111 per year. CBO calculates that the legislation will cost the average household less than 50 cents per day. WEA) Oakland. It ignores the fact that. “This legislation American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Ethiopian Review. Bishu 7/17/2009 (Deswta. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.-based nonprofit Green For All.S. chairman of the Apollo Alliance. That is what the President’s proposal would do.com/articles/14962. 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. The U. 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. and Sharon Parrott. 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.S. 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.S.com/articles/14962. Now Heads to Senate".
104 Ellis.Climate Politics Page 104 of 156 7WJ – HPSW 2005. Mitchell. Teddy & Megan .
” she said. which will be a highly contentious issue going forward. NRG’s Crane said his company would not support the bill if it was all auction.” she continued. John Shimkus (R-Ill. EPA modeling tends to err on the conservative side and overestimate costs. “As biz leaders call for a climate bill. Jackson was asked the EPA had been able to estimate the costs of the bill to American households—$98 to $140 a year..) has said this aspect of the bill was left openended so committee members and interested parties like USCAP could weigh in. Mitchell. or 27 cents to 38 cents a day—even though the measure is incomplete. Ranking member Joe Barton (Texas) accused the majority of “trying to buy votes” in the process of determining how to give away allowances. Energy Secretary Steven Chu. The Obama administration has said it wants 100 percent auction. that represent the president.. 4/23/2009 (Kate Sheppard. But this approach has rankled Republicans on the committee. “Nothing is free. Cavaney of ConocoPhillips called for the entirety of the credits to be distributed free of cost in at least the first year of the program.” LaHood told reporters following their testimony. She said the agency based its figures on the assumption that approximately 40 percent of auction revenues would be returned to consumers through rebates. 105 Ellis. and believes that these allowance questions can be addressed.” During another panel session.) alleged that the lack of specifics is an “intentional move to deceive us so we can’t do the cost-benefit analysis.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. 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. “Though [President Obama] has how called for 100 percent auction. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Teddy & Megan . while the committee’s Democratic leadership has indicated that the final product is likely to be a balance between auctions and allocations. Bill coauthor Ed Markey (D-Mass. and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood offered the Obama administration’s support for the legislation. “Three important players in this issue. “The EPA’s economic analysis shows that there are no harbingers of huge job loss in this bill. Grist News. Jackson said.” said Jackson. he looks forward to working with this committee .” If anything. but the administration believes there will be only “modest impacts. believe the principles laid out in the bill are very strong and are principles the president and his team can work with. Jackson said the administration is willing to collaborate with Congress to develop an allocation and auction scheme.
" he said. not sell them. Bingaman said. “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. It should be something that is trying to achieve its objective of reducing carbon emissions in the country and that alone. said it is not yet “clear” what the government is going to do with the revenue made from auctioning carbon permits. 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. Representatives for rural cooperatives. who leads the District of Columbia's Public Service Commission. 106 Ellis. which represents 42 million consumers in 47 states. "Revenues associated with pricing greenhouse gases would be returned to the very consumers who would be at risk for paying higher energy prices. it Edison Electric Institute. “Well. told CNSNews. ranging from the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). When asked if he had an idea about how the revenue should be distributed." said Richard Morgan." said Glenn English. but beyond that I don’t think there’s any specifics agreed upon. more climate friendly energy sources. "Auction is not a good idea. however. electricity customers will face what Jeffry Sterba. utility commissions. The alliance further said that cap and trade is like a distribution of wealth program. 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. Mitchell.” he said. CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. which is comprised of more than a dozen organizations... electricity providers warned Thursday. as proposed by President Barack Obama.Climate Politics Page 106 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: C&T Kills Economy – Auctions Current bill leads to auctions CNS News. “Well. 4/30/2009 (Nicholas Ballasy. “Obama’s ‘Cap and Trade’ Plan Likely Will Raise Energy Prices." If the allowances are sold. Teddy & Megan . "We would discourage the committee from going down that road. called would be a windfall for shareholders. 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.” Auctions increase consumer spending AP. 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. 4/23/2009 (Dina Cappiello. I think there’s a general consensus we ought to return as much of it as possible to rate payers. . they could protect consumers from higher energy prices. Says Senate Energy Chairman”) The Climate Equity Alliance. "It should not be legislation that is designed to raise revenue. Bingaman. 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. and electric utilities told lawmakers that if they were given the allowances. 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.com that cap and trade is designed to increase energy costs so that consumers invest in alternative (or green) energy sources.
the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -.S. 107 Ellis. On balance. RAND Corporation. enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers. restoring strength and confidence to the American economy.newsweek. Finally. And the sun will set on those that fall behind.Climate Politics Page 107 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Good—Hegemony Cap and trade is vital to overall supremacy—we’re falling behind in the most important sector. Newsweek. free markets. threats of regional hegemony by renegade states. Spring. the Climate Security Act. Washington Quarterly. but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. http://www. a majority of senators voted to continue the debate. 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. 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. Presidential leadership can now ensure passage of the strongest possible law. First. including a global nuclear exchange. Senate. China. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival.S. Teddy & Megan . a bipartisan cap-and-trade bill. such as nuclear proliferation. The countries that lead in inventing and deploying clean-energy technologies will be the great powers of the 21st century. Nuclear wars Khalilzad 95 (Zalmay.S. technological leadership for decades to come.com/id/177439/output/print. 18:2. Much of the groundwork has been laid. Mitchell. and low-level conflicts. In 2008. 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. reached the floor of the U. Krupp 2009 . L/N) Under the third option. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.S. The decisions the president makes in his first crucial months will determine the course of U. most recently. “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold Water”. economy—and the planet. the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Nine of the world's 10 largest photovoltaic manufacturers are in Europe or Asia. But quick action is needed. which tripled production in 2007.S. The United States has already dropped in solar-cell manufacturing behind Japan. and the rule of law.President of the Environmental Defense Fund (1/31. save the country". Though it fell victim to Washington gridlock in the end. "Save the planet.democracy. That is the energy and economic policy America and the world need now. Germany and. Second. U. Fred. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself. U.
lower-level delegation to Johannesburg in an effort to "narrow the scope of the discussions. But the United States Development (WSSD). "We need to appear engaged. It is also an issue that is resonating here at home." After a week of deadlocks and multiple drafts. and insurance industries. "It is not in the United States' economic best interest. The letter made it clear that to the EU. But the final resolution endorsed such unsustainable technologies as clean coal and large-scale hydropower. Bush." said Michael Marvin. Mitchell. that he would no longer seek to regulate such power plant emissions. Bush received a stern letter from the fifteen-nation European Union condemning his action. leaders of countries in Europe and elsewhere declared that made clear a month before the summit what its position would be. Nine days after his announcement." wrote Jessica. Their agenda. Noting Bush's promise to provide an alternative plan to the Kyoto mechanism. The demonstrators' anger at the United States was noted by several foreign leaders." she said. Mathews. the EU voted to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. told the Washington Post. Not only did George W. In November 2000. this is a credibility issue for the U.S. oil. As Senator James Jeffords (I–VT) made clear. But failed to inform them of its plan before announcing it to the media was unequivocally dismissive. That relatively uncompromising position set the tone for a major conference in Johannesburg two years later. "If we're truly looking to change patterns of investment. grasslands. "Japan will be dismayed and deeply disappointed. Mathews. President George H. centered on plans both to boost renewables and to revive what was al-ready quickly becoming a moribund Kyoto process. Bush withdrew the United States from the Kyoto Protocol because. state and city governments. President. Under pressure from lobbyists in the coal industry. and within the business world as well. 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. 2001.. unilateralist and may appear in some areas isolationist.wattpad. just weeks earlier. In the run-up to Johannesburg. and European commissioner Margot Wallstrom warned that the pressure was now on the United States. 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." The president's response to the EU of Republicans. 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. T. The consequences of the "The U." she wrote in a March 6. Bush opened a gaping rupture between the United States and Europe on an issue of paramount importance to the Europeans—global climate change." That prediction was realized in September. Gelbspan 4 . The letter. as the WSSD approached. 2001. this doesn't do it.S. between Washington and many U. In refusing to support these compacts. executive director of the U.S. "We have lost an opportunity to move forward substantially on renewable technologies internationally. signed by European Commission president Romano Prodi and Swedish prime minister Goeran Persson. the White House would try to "keep global climate change off of the agenda" at the Johannesburg meeting. that the EU would get most of its reductions from new renewable energy installations rather than from the dubious and less reliable mechanism of international emissions trading.. she asserted . Six days after receiving the letter from the EU. an agreement "leading to real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions is of the utmost importance . "Economically." Her fears were well founded. it required no deadlines or timetables for action. the delegates finally agreed on the role of energy in future development." Margot Wallstrom. put the issue of renewable energy near the top of the world's sustain-ability agenda. called Bush's decision "very worrying. challenged Bush to find the "political courage" to tackle the climate crisis. the world's biggest single emitter of greenhouse gases. the United States. the biodiversity treaty. That split over the climate crisis would be reflected in growing divisions between the United States and the rest of the world. President George W." Swedish prime minister Goeran Persson was sharply critical of Bush. in the international community. 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. memo. the European Union environmental commissioner. "The EU is willing to discuss details and problems. pushed through a resolution that would maintain coal and oil as the world's primary fuels. and despite the fact that a predecessor summit in 1992 in Rio had been attended by his father." EU spokeswoman Annika Ostergren told Reuters News Service. it has rippled throughout the political. acting through the Saudi Arabian and Venezuelan delegations. The European diplomats were particularly stunned by the fact that the administration had . the Europeans continued to pursue a policy to slow global warming." Persson said. In 2002.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. Chretien vowed that Canada would proceed to ratify the protocol.Climate Politics Page 108 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. and the Biological Weapons Control Treaty. in the words of the president's press secretary. [The Kyoto treaty] is very serious and important. Jeffords. including then treasury secretary Paul O'Neill. In an article in Foreign Policy. exposing deep differences within the auto. a top official in the Japanese embassy in Washing-ton. the ban on antipersonnel land mines. consequences. Bush announced on March 13. a European affairs specialist at the Brookings Institution. Christine Todd Whitman. a strong proponent of aggressive climate policies. The ratification by the European Union followed a declaration. "It will have a tremendous impact . eighteen months earlier. It has a larger population than the 108 Ellis. as well as climatic. allies when.. But near the end of the meeting. because it would have sent an extremely strong signal if the U. noted that the Bush administration turned its back not only on Kyoto but also on four other major international compacts: the International Criminal Court. 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. and business arenas—pitting nations and industries against each other and even setting the federal government against many states. prime minister of Canada.editor and reporter for the Philadelphia Bulletin Washington Post and Boston Globe. a month after his inauguration. 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 United States was ignoring the accelerating integration of Europe. Most tellingly. but it's also about international relations and economic cooperation. Teddy & Megan . however. when Bush refused to attend the 191-nation summit—despite the presence of an array of world leaders. Within a month of taking office. Bush's EPA administrator." according to Helmut Sonnenfeldt. but not to scrap the whole protocol.S. Bush refrain from attending. telling reporters that Bush's position was a heavy blow to the international effort to curb global warming. Business Council for Sustainable Energy. as well as from conservative members of the Republican Party. The Bush reach of international governance institutions. including a skeptical Jean Chretien. intransigence. Bush's withdrawal from the Kyoto process created the impression that Bush "[is] hawkish. to demonstrate their wish to change. had stuck with the Kyoto protocol. a number of countries. 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. Endowment for International Peace. covered the Stockholm UN Conference on the Environment in 1973 and addressed the Davos World Economic forum in 1998 ("Boiling point". "Sometimes people think this is only about the environment. "The European Union urges the United States to reconsider its position. In preparing for the summit. mainly from European countries. led by the EU. Climate Kt Leadership Inaction on climate threatens overall leadership. who is president of the Carnegie Bush administration's behavior—on this and other fronts—may well have far-reaching diplomatic. and other forms of vegetation that absorb carbon—for countries to meet emissions reduction targets.S. 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. to step up to the challenge." Despite U." Regardless of the substance of any proposal by the Bush administration.W. the EU is no longer a junior partner. to demonstrate their concern.. Ironically. She demanded a tight limit on the use of so-called carbon sinks—forests. http://www. he reversed his campaign promise to cap emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants. "Mr. The statement dismayed many Democrats—and a number the strongest negative response came from across the ocean. diplomatic. bemoaned the fact that the administration would send a small. a Vermont Republican turned In-dependent who chaired the Senate's environmental panel.S. decision on Kyoto could become a turning point in trans-Atlantic relations. Chretien said he would listen to an American proposal but "was not waiting for it.S." Kazuo Asakai.
' 109 Ellis. leadership. could well result in the loss of Americas position as global political leader. Her conclusion: The current U. . political or military supremacy. Teddy & Megan . are better served by [participating] in shaping rules and procedures rather than in sulking outside the tent. which is epitomized by the U. .S. Though Europe cannot challenge U. Mitchell.S. 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. into a community of Western democracies and Third World dependents ready to fall into line behind U. posture. 'America's interests. the world's single superpower must acknowledge that its power no longer translates . 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. not to mention its legitimacy and capability as a world leader. and approximately equal gross domestic product. a larger percentage of world trade.S. Mathews wrote. position on climate change.Climate Politics Page 109 of 156 7WJ – HPSW United States. Climate change is the leading edge of an increasing number of problems that are truly global in scope." she wrote at the end of 2001.S.
110 Ellis. High carbon prices could tilt the competitive playing field in areas like steel.cfr. Michael A. CFR.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 . and chemicals toward unregulated (or less regulated) competitors abroad.David M. It would cushion the blow for trade-exposed heavy industry while maintaining the integrity of a U. "Trade and Climate Change". known as Waxman-Markey. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment at Council on Foreign Relations and Director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change (last updated 6/27. addresses that by providing rebates to firms in those sectors to blunt the cost. But the devil is in the details--and the current bill gets the details wrong..S. economic growth will still be able to power a vibrant and internationally competitive economy. The climate bill. emissions cap. http://www. in principle. cement. Mitchell. 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. Most companies will see at most limited changes in how they function day to day. meaning that robust U.org/publication/19674/. That approach is. The macroeconomic impact of smart climate policy will likely be small. WEA) Concerns about the possible competitive impact of climate regulations have been grossly exaggerated. reasonable. Nonetheless. aluminum.S.
wind. and unlock the immense amounts of capital needed for America's innovators and entrepreneurs to remake this $6 trillion industry. Krupp 2009 . The right policy to protect our planet is also the best policy to revitalize the U.000 parts—including bolts.S. A carbon cap would unleash America's greatest strengths—its spectacular capacity for innovation. geothermal Hundreds of billions more are poised on the sidelines. save the country". That might seem too much to manage all at once. The supply chain behind each of these renewable technologies winds its way through the heart of U. contains 8. customers and jobs. the biggest business in the world. concrete foundations and steel towers." To make good on this promise. assuming oil averages roughly $50 a barrel. Congress passes comprehensive. indeed. global—manufacturing. would allow American business to make the transition gradually.President of the Environmental Defense Fund (1/31.S. he could strike a definitive blow for the forces of change: "America will cap its global-warming pollution. Newsweek.S.com/id/177439/output/print. Hundreds of millions of dollars of venture capital have already flowed into the emerging technologies for capturing energy from the sun. mobilize the market to find the quickest and cheapest way to reduce emissions. ball bearings. he must ensure that the U. Fred. Those companies are just the tip of a giant iceberg. and 111 Ellis. but the three are best dealt with together. 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. companies to profit from reducing that pollution. its entrepreneurial spirit and the immense power of its markets and workforce. for instance. economy—the real economy. Obama must attack them together. Mitchell. Teddy & Megan . WEA) The new administration will face three closely linked problems—a badly damaged economy. to meet all these challenges.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. and for making more efficient use of energy. In other words. http://www.newsweek.—and.S. a dependence on imported oil and a rapidly deteriorating environment. copper wiring. "Save the planet. Each wind turbine. not the paper one that went up in flames this past fall.000 pieces. With seven words. striving to do no less than transform the world's energy economy. The right policy to confront climate change is also the best policy to achieve energy independence and enduring national security. A carbon cap would also create vast new demand for low-carbon energy solutions. waiting for Congress to provide certainty that this new commodity—carbon reductions—will have enduring value. make those 8. The winners won't be only the obvious players—solar-cell companies and wind-turbine manufacturers. A cap heat and biofuels. Companies and workers a comprehensive cap-and-trade bill would deliver immediate benefits in new demand. world-changing climate legislation that establishes a declining cap on carbondioxide emissions and creates a market for U.
EIA predicts average electricity prices will increase under the bill from 6.7 Program-that emissions to year 2000 levels by 2015.0 in 2020 (about $108). no market penetration of new low-emission technologies (despite billions of federal R&D spending).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. and no continued federal and state emission reduction programs.com/pubs/4419. Environmental & Public Utility Practice Group of the Cozen O'Connor law firm (Peter J.. Teddy & Megan . Obviously. 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. By changing this single assumption from EIA's analysis MIT found that monthly costs to the average household would be only $15 to $20. such programs are likely to continue. and from to 9.1 in 2025 (about $200). Public Utilities Reports.7 to 8.co-chairs the Energy. EIA assumed. from 6. http://www.4 cents per kilowatt-hour to 6. 112 Ellis. Fontaine 2004 . unrealistically.pur. and will further reduce the bill's costs by independently contributing toward the bill's modest goal of reducing CO2 6. "Global Warming: The Gathering Storm". Also. no significant fuel-shift to natural gas (despite this market's historic unpredictability). Mitchell.cfm.8 in 2010 (about $33 per household per month). 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 . Mitchell.Climate Politics Page 113 of 156 7WJ – HPSW ***Climate Bad*** 113 Ellis.
Twelve have been under construction for 20 years or more. reports that the American nuclear industry is so unattractive that it is unable to attract private investment. At least 70 nuclear plants would have to be built in the next decade just to replace those that are projected to be closed. Vol. This is virtually inconceivable. given that only 14 are now under construction. reducing capacity by 36. Is Nuclear Viable?. 34 nuclear reactors were being built worldwide. lexis) A second myth is that nuclear is now gaining worldwide acceptance. Meanwhile. pg. 08 (Paul. The Star Pheonix (Saskatoon.000 megawatts in 2007. Global nuclear capacity stands at 372.5 per cent in 2007. 6/24. 6 –Christopher. Saskatchewan). “Nuclear industry spins new mythology”. but its growth rate is lower than any other energy source. Mitchell. While the red-hot renewable industry.Climate Politics Page 114 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Nuclear Power Decreasing Nuclear power is dead – growth is slow and leveling off Hanley. 12.000 megawatts. 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. because more than half the world's nuclear power plants are over 20 years old. more than 124 reactors have been retired by the commercial nuclear industry since 1964. Global nuclear power decreasing now Flavin. By the end of 2007. compared to 27 per cent for wind energy. reports the Worldwatch Institute. Meanwhile. that it is experiencing a kind of renaissance. Growth was just 0. July/august. a figure equivalent to just one-tenth of the new wind power installed globally that year. attracted $71 billion in private investment last year. President of World Watch Institute (“Brave Nuclear World?/Commentary: Nuclear revival? Don’t bet on it!”. A recent Time magazine article. global nuclear power capacity grew by less than 2.800 megawatts. 19. Teddy & Megan . including wind and solar. The reality is quite different. In total. 114 Ellis. Proquest) Globally. the nuclear industry attracted nothing. nuclear power is more likely to decline than to increase in the coming years.
At that moment something happened to us. an alchemy transmuting common lead into unlimited quantities of gold. Out of guilt. Mitchell. Children have been living under the fear of the possibility of not being survived by anybody. A thorn of violence stuck in the flesh of our Earth and started to infect us." It is a dream of unending wealth and power. American scientist Glenn Seaborg succeeded in isolating plutonium. But we all know that small bands of fanatics or terrorists might. In Japan this is called "the dream energy. No civilized nation would use them on the cities of an adversary. head of the U.products and released tremendous power. After more than fifty years of the Nuclear Age. John Bradley. 2000 – Lecturer at the United Nations NGO Forum and Women of Vision Conference in Washington. nuclear energy came to the world. ed. “From Nuclear Patriarchy to Solar Community” from “Learning to Glow”. 115 Ellis. We face the extinction of our species. the scientists felt there had to be some peaceful use. Decades of research led finally to fuel reprocessing and prototype fast-breeder reactors that forever produce more fuel than they use. Fear of total nuclear death is the source of the violence of our time. Until we remove the thorn of plutonium from the world. as well as founder of the organization Plutonium Free Future (Mayumi. we are truly facing nuclear terror. pg. Splitting the atom created extremely toxic by. and now that the Cold War is over. Aerospace Defense Command. In 1941. 292-293) General Charles Horner. D.Climate Politics Page 115 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Nuclear Power Bad – Extincion Nuclear power risks extinction Oda. Teddy & Megan . has admitted to the world at large that nuclear weapons are obsolete. that wound of violence will fester and never heal. the oldest dream of mankind. Gaining the power of gods. Thus. some way to redeem the horror they had created. the myth of Midas and of Faust.S. we left a lethal legacy to our children and future generations. just as King Midas inadvertently sacrificed his daughter to his greed. an element whose nucleus can be split.C. This lethal legacy is about to become out of control.
In the context of promoting nuclear energy. it has offered dozens of countries nuclear technology and access to nuclear power fuel. States.fast -. And -. Israel. 07 . stating that it will use them preemptively even against non-nuclear nations. 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. Nuclear Power is not the answer.(inaudible) -. I think we should -. pg.former deputy director of the U. Turn .expanding nuclear leadership increases tech transfer – this increases prolif Keeny. KEENY: I'd just like to add one point. L/n. France. and by encouraging it on our terms we would have a better role. And I think that with based on a misunderstanding status for nuclear power at that time that led to a different -. These really poor undeveloping countries can't afford the capital costs of any kind of nuclear program. It is instrumental in denying the right to build nuclear weapons to all but a handful of countries. 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. rday) MR.how to use them.last couple of decades trying to retrieve the remnants of that program. SUBJECT: CAN NUCLEAR ENERGY GO BEYOND THE ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005? June 18. Then we proceed into the age of nuclear terrorism. nuclear leadership fails – overall nuclear hypocrisy makes prolif and terrorism inevitable Caldicott. which can then be separated by reprocessing and converted to fuel for nuclear weapons. 134135) In light of terrorist attacks using conventional weapons. The United States has adopted three contradictory stances at the same time: It is aggressively forging ahead to build more nuclear weapons. Going back half a century. 116 Ellis. and Pakistan-possess their own nuclear arsenals. Meanwhile. 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen.not totally analogous but should carefully examine what we do in introducing -. PANEL II OF A COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS SYMPOSIUM.S.Climate Politics Page 116 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Nuclear Power Leadership U.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 -. India. China. 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) -. it is Thus.intentioned and was based on a thesis that nuclear power would be so commonplace that it had to be accepted as a worldwide phenomenon. Mitchell.(inaudible). The fission process makes plutonium. Britain. with the world awash in plutonium and highly enriched uranium. it is only a matter of time before someone steals enough plutonium to make an adequate nuclear weapon. Teddy & Megan . eight nation-states-Russia. 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. President Eisenhower had a well-intentioned unfortunate initiative and that his "Atoms for Peace" proposal and it was well. While the Bush proposal includes taking the spent fuel back to the United not clear that that process can be undertaken with no cheating. even as there is much hand-wringing at the United Nations about the possibility that Iran and North Korea may be developing nuclear weapons.(off mike) -because we're going to have to subsidize it.not necessarily stay under our control because I think -.S Arms Control and Disarmament agency (Spurgeon.(off mike) -. the United States.I sort of see that theme emerging again and themes that are strangely reminiscent of that -.
and the more reliant that countries become on nuclear power. 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. Caldicott. pg. Ironically. said recently when referring to the United States. "It cannot be that some countries that have developed nuclear energy prohibit those of the third world from developing it. new technology and conservation to control its emission – will drive another existential threat: the risk of nuclear proliferation. In addition to Iran and North Korea. Nuclear energy provides the perfect cover for nuclear weapons development by militarizing states. it's others who do that. A 1." collateral consequences will include the proliferation of nuclear weapons. 141142) As for those nations currently vying to add nuclear capability to their arsenals. as well as the risk of materials and technology getting into the hands of terrorists. 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen. suitable for bomb fuel. Higher energy and carbon prices will make nuclear power a more attractive option in national energy strategies. this chapter will look at three of the nuclear-haves who built their nuclear weapons arsenals using various components of the nuclear fuel cycle. Teddy & Megan . The risk of breakout from civilian power to weaponization would increase dramatically. or even to reprocessed plutonium from spent fuel. Many countries are angry about the paternalism and arrogance are suspicious of our nuclear activities? . Mitchell. As the global nuclear industry pushes its nefarious wares upon developing countries with the patent lie about "preventing global warming. 6 – Founder and President of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute (Helen. India created a nuclear arsenal from heavy water nuclear power plants. http://www. January.. and Pakistan developed nuclear weapons largely from uranium enrichment facilities. displayed over the years by the nuclear-haves.brookings. 117 Ellis. We are not the ones developing atomic bombs. Nuclear Power is not the answer. 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. high oil and gas prices and the actions that must be taken to address climate change – namely.aspx) pricing carbon at a cost that will drive investment. the more they will want to control the fuel cycle.Vice President and Director for Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution (Carlos.. Nuke power causes terrorism and prolif Pascual. Nuclear Power is not the answer) Adding to the danger. “The Geopolitics of Energy: From Security to Survival”. A crude atomic bomb sufficient to devastate a city could certainly be crafted from reactor grade plutonium. As the new president MahmoudAhmadinejad of Iran.Climate Politics Page 117 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Nuclear Power Bad – Prolif Nuclear power plants are bomb factories risking prolif Caldicott. nuclear power plants are essentially atomic bomb factories. 2008 . nuclear power plants offer the perfect cover."! Hugo Chavez of Venezuela displayed similar feelings when he said recently. Israel developed a very large nuclear arsenal from plutonium created in a reactor specifically designated for that purpose.000 megawatt nuclear reactor manufactures 500 pounds of plutonium a year. a situation that will further destabilize an already unstable world.edu/papers/2008/01_energy_pascual. normally ten pounds of plutonium is fuel for an atomic bomb. "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. 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).
and it would open the door to a so-called "plutonium economy" in which breeder reactors would run on the recycled fuel. 6 – Senior news editor for the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (William. greatly reduces the physical quantity of waste that must be permanently stored. however. Teddy & Megan . is too radioactive to be readily handled by a criminal gang. producing more energy than they consume.Climate Politics Page 118 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Reprocessing Solves Prolif Reprocessing makes prolif and terrorism more likely Sweet. left alone. 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). 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. while in some ways complicating the whole situation by creating more streams of different radioactive materials that all have to be specially handled. pg. As for the stretching of nuclear fuels. 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. When plutonium is extracted from spent fuel commercially. 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. it is argued. partly to stretch fuel resources. 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. 118 Ellis. Spent fuel from reactors. 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 create an impression that the disposal problem is solved. Mitchell. Kicking the Carbon Habit: Global Warming and the Case for Renewable and Nuclear Energy. Extraction of re-burnable uranium and plutonium from spent fuels.
a national nonprofit organization committed to reforming U.245 A conventional 500 MW coal plant. Perhaps the most important—and least discussed—advantage to a federal RPS is its ability to displace electricity generation that is extremely waterintensive.913 gallons of water for every MWh of electricity it generates. These vulnerabilities relate to: Nuclear weapons proliferation: Nuclear power technology has a large overlap with nuclear weapons technology. 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. Nuclear waste management: Wastes associated with nuclear power. Newer technologies. less efficient plants can be much worse. coal.org/pubs/atomicmyths. the 3. actually consume more. In 2006. Advanced power plant systems that rely on re-circulating.org/dev/uploads/Renewing%20America_NNEC_Final. Thus.pdf) If projected electricity demand is met using water-intensive fossil fuel and nuclear reactors. roughly equivalent to all the water withdrawals for irrigated agriculture in the entire United States. while they withdraw less water. notably water resources.*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). if new power plants continue to be built with evaporative cooling. America will soon be withdrawing more water for electricity production than for farming.250 Waste from nuclear power contaminates water resources. consumes around 7.” 2004. care of construction.or ground-water source). for example. Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).400 MW Sherer coal facility consumes as much as 9. Coal plants also use water to clean and process fuel. withdraws an average of 57 million gallons every day from the Altamaha River. http://www. Because much of the water is turned to steam..S. in engineering (specialization: nuclear fusion) from the University of California at Berkeley (Arjun. “Atomic Myths. require massive supplies of water to cool reactor cores and spent nuclear fuel rods. from mill tailings to spent fuel. June. This staggering amount is equal to the entire country’s water consumption in 1995.244 In 2006. Makhijani. http://www. Teddy & Megan . energy policy (Benjamin and Chris. Severe accidents: Severe accidents on the scale of Chernobyl can occur with nuclear power plants. enough to service more than 196.3 billion gallons per day. and all traditional plants lose water through evaporative loss. 07 .249 With electricity demand expected to grow by approximately 50 percent in the next 25 years. Mitchell.248 Nuclear reactors. Closed-loop systems also rely on greater amounts of water for cleaning and therefore return less water to the original source. for instance. and degree of independent oversight and regulation.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. to 7. holds a Ph. continuing to rely on fossil fuelfired and nuclear generators could spark a water scarcity crisis. even though the details of accident mechanisms and accident probabilities vary with design. the Department of Energy warned that consumption of water for electricity production could more than double by 2030. 4 .President of IEER.3 billion gallons of water each day. Nuclear power plants create weapons usable materials .ieer. are very long-lived and threaten essential resources.D. natural gas. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.000 Georgia homes. and nuclear facilities consume about 3.000 gallons of water per minute. in particular. they accounted for almost 40 percent of all freshwater withdrawals (water diverted or withdrawn from a surface. 119 Ellis. substantial amounts are lost to the local water table entirely. Conventional power plants use thousands of gallons of water for the condensing portion of their thermodynamic cycle.plutonium in current designs. Radioactive Realities: Why Nuclear Power Is a Poor Way to Meet Energy Needs.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. The nation’s oil. they contribute even more to the nation’s water scarcity. One nuclear plant in Georgia. while modern power plants may reduce water withdrawals by up to 10 percent.newenergychoices. or the equivalent of 17 Olympic-sized swimming pools every day.246 Older. but actually “consumes” (primarily as lost water vapor) 33 million gallons per day from the local supply. closed-loop cooling technology convert more water to steam that is vented to the atmosphere. In Georgia.
"cause domestic production to shift abroad. "But it won't cost you anything. I think we are witnessing the destruction of our country. What happened? Labor left America. BECK: Well. It is the economics of it. There is no way in which the increase in costs in America will ever remain — will keep us productive and keep us competitive. They won't. but we are seeing unsustainable ideas happening here. Fox News. We are seeing — even these environmental bills with no science and no way to pay for them — fully validated.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 know if you are as pessimistic as I am. DAVID BUCKNER. The thrust of the argument is the increase in talks. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR: How are you doing? BECK: Well. but also. if it doesn't cost anything. oh. for America to say we can solve the global changes. "Well. so they won't feel the public wrath. Production?”. is what he's saying. http://www. I'm good. the arguments on both sides are intellectually and economically dishonest.foxnews. they're saying. this is from the governor of Virginia. (CROSSTALK) BUCKNER: Because it's going to be — well. it loses the thrust of the legislation. and we can't convince them to do it. the — it's not an environmental plan. but we could never pass it just as a state. BUCKNER: You slide in on a Friday night so it doesn't hit the news cycle until Monday. It can't be. So. I don't think I could design anything like this. BECK: Not even that. talked about this and he said.And so.com/story/0. I don't — I don't know if it's in two months.. 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.00. We don't know whether it can ever resolve that. I am. So. Labor unions exercise their right to petition for greater salaries and they got them. too? But how does it work nationwide if it doesn't. That will actually increase greenhouse emissions. On the other side.BUCKNER: You slide it in on a Friday. BECK: If I — if I look at this — I mean.. On the one side. Copenhagen in December. You saw when our labor costs went up." They're going to take the markets..S.. According to the EPA — EPA. you know — I mean. I have — I have to tell you.2933.Professor of Organizational Leadership at Columbia University (David. 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. and next week is a holiday.html) Cap-and-trade might not only hurt American competitiveness. they're saying it's not going to cost us anything. we just — we have to get this passed as a nation. And it's not just about politics. Teddy & Megan . And the reality of it is. On the flip side of it. do the exact opposite of what it sets out to do. where is it. India and China aren't raising their labor costs. It will shift our production overseas. There is not economic honesty in the dialogue. BECK: So. 6/29/09. That's what concerns me. June 29th 2009. Why? BUCKNER: So. you go on vacation — they go on vacation after this. the president said that we have to act first. they're gone for a week. we need to give more money to our people. I really do.529487. they're saying that prices have to be inherently increased so that will be an incentive to not produce products. 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. the ones that get hurt. BUCKNER: How does it work for the federal. that we — that China and India — we can't go to. we're going to take the cost on us. And everyone will follow. it went to India and China. they're going to will wind up in countries." I mean. would you? BECK: Yes. BECK: David.. BUCKNER: No. the policy may.. without capand-trade rules because they can make their products cheaper there. I agree with that. 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." It can't be. We increased minimum wage. two years or 20 years. And not only that.. They're not running around going. 120 Ellis. “Will Cap-and-Trade Cripple U. quote. most likely. This is an exportation of labor.. how long does it take — I mean. BUCKNER: We are seeing the cannibalization of capitalism. Here's what they'll do. we're going to shift — it's a redistribution. because that would hurt us competitively and we'd lose business here. What they don't recognize here is that we're not seeing the full picture. Mitchell. "You're right. we're going to even it out across the country. it's actually saying for these states that it wouldn't work independently." Why would that happen? When those companies take their businesses overseas. BUCKNER: Yes. I mean.
" DA can’t solve warming. “G8 falls flat on Carbon Ban”. They are ready to go. Review Messenger.grandforksherald. In Italy. acting alone through the job-killing Waxman-Markey bill would impose severe economic burdens on American consumers. D. under tight questioning from Oklahoma's Republican Sen.S.” I think it is the wrong solution.US Senator (Byron. Supporters call it a “market-based solution. the Obama administration faced setbacks to impose cap-and-trade legislation on the United States and on the world. By failing to reach an accord on shorterrange targets. I have little confidence that the large financial markets are free or fair enough to trust them with a new. in Political Science from Harvard (Jerome R. no". the unseemly speculation in mortgage backed securities or the exotic and risky financial products such as credit default swaps that pushed our economy into the ditch. confirmed that an Environmental Protection Agency chart did show that unilateral U.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1997:g8-fallsflat-on-carbon-ban&catid=19:guest-opinion) Last week. Don’t’ get me wrong. "I am encouraged that Administrator Jackson agrees that unilateral action by the U. India and the developing countries go along. But I don’t support the “cap-and-trade” plan now being debated in the Congress. Grandforks Herald. this cap and trade plan will be the answer to their prayers. Teddy & Megan . "Dorgan: Reduce CO2." Sen.Climate Politics Page 121 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Can’t Solve Warming Cap and trade can’t solve warming. That speculation drove the price of oil from $60 to $147 a barrel and gasoline to more than $4 a gallon. The cap and trade plan does not meet that test for me. I’m willing to cap carbon to address the threat to our environment. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.S. 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. So. Mitchell.Ph. the G8 could only manage to set a target of reducing carbon emissions worldwide 80 percent by 2050. Here’s what I believe we need to do to protect our environment and make us less dependent on foreign oil: .China and India need to take action as well Corsi. But given recent history. US Senator D-ND.com/event/article/id/126797/group/Opinion/) I’m in favor of taking action to reduce CO2 emissions and to protect our environment. July 17th 2009. "With China and India recently issuing statements of defiant opposition to mandatory emissions controls.reviewmessenger. cap and trade. But it has to be done the right way. and I don’t support it. Staff reporter for WND. actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the global climate. In no time they’ll create derivatives. most of the investment banks have already created carbon trading departments. businesses. 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. large cap-and-trade carbon securities market. Then the same speculators forced the price back down and made money in both directions. In fact. and every day they were trading 20 to 25 times more oil than was being produced. December.. http://www.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. yes. line and sinker. and other developingcountry polluters – to backtrack from their own commitment to numerical targets they had planned to announce [at the G8 meeting]. all without any impact on climate. “Cap and trade” is an approach that would have the government set caps on carbon emissions from certain sources. The American public paid the price for it. will be all cost for no climate gain. noting James Inhofe.five other actions are more preferable Dorgan. India. Inhofe said. 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. Meaningful emission reductions can only occur if China. Just last year. 6/17/09." Meanwhile. I’m not! For those who like the wild price swings in the oil futures market. July 17th 2009. 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. http://www. swaps and more in that new market. then establish a market in which allowances for CO2 emissions would be bought and sold on a financial exchange. 6/17/09.com/index. as part of far-Left climate change agenda the Obama administration has bought hook. appearing before the Senate Environment Public Works Committee. The Wall Street Journal was equally honest. and families. I like free markets. I support capping carbon emissions. speculators overwhelmed the oil futures market.
We are a major energy producing state. we should move aggressively to maximize the production of renewable energy from wind.To fully reap the benefits of cleaner energy and reduced dependence on foreign oil. solar. . biomass and other renewable energy. biomass and other sources. solar.Climate Politics Page 122 of 156 7WJ – HPSW greatly reduce the CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.Even as we continue to decarbonize the use of fossil energy. .I propose we use the majority of the revenue from a plan that caps CO2 to provide refunds to those who would otherwise experience increased energy costs. We have the ability to produce large quantities of oil. And we have large deposits of coal. 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. . North Dakota and the nation have a lot at stake in this debate. Teddy & Megan . . . we need to move toward using electricity to fuel our transportation fleet. which is our country’s most abundant form of energy. 122 Ellis.We need to set an ambitious Renewable Electricity Standard along with longer term tax incentives for the production of wind. geothermal. We have the greatest wind energy potential of any state. Mitchell. We have the ability to produce a large quantity of biofuels.To move all of that new energy.
looked at the consequences and blinked. the EU emissions jumped by 3. creating direct incentives to develop and use less carbon-intensive fuels and more energy-efficient technologies. Given its impact on the European Union. The clearest illustration of the problems with cap-and-trade is the European Trading Scheme. legislators are currently pushing to impose a similar emissions scheme here in the States. Under cap-and-trade. Since the entire global permit market only currently amounts to some $60 billion. Burned by the political firestorm over his proposed BTU tax in 1993. Roll Call.com/news/31397-1. The system also has failed to establish a stable price for carbon — a goal widely considered a prerequisite for any effective climate change effort. American voters have heard this before. would attract speculation and new financial derivatives.html) We all have a moral imperative to get climate policy right. impose a carbon tax. 1/15/09. and lets a new market sort out the messy job of determining the prices of emissions. the increased costs under cap-and-trade will be hidden in the added costs of goods 123 Ellis. Climate Task Force (Robert. drafted the Kyoto Protocol. These are the main reasons why the father of climate-change politics. the incoming administration and Members of the 111th Congress will have to carefully weigh all the serious options being proposed to reduce carbon emissions. Volatility like the kind experienced in the ETS would translate into much more volatile energy prices. my former boss. Washington our economic growth was much stronger.Co-Founder of the U. have failed to meet their targets. This was the approach then-Vice President Al Gore proposed at the climate summit in Kyoto. in 1997. political resistance. While well-intentioned. As last Thursday’s House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing illustrated. One. (That’s even more significant when you account for the fact that Not only have the EU emissions policies missed their objectives. mandate a cap-andtrade system. continue the present approach that relies on higher efficiency standards. These regimes may offer the path of least current. arguing : “I tried [a carbon tax] once. voters should be thankful we passed. Roll Call. the prices for ETS permits are highly volatile. putting us at risk for another crisis. “The Real Choice Between Cap-and-Trade and CarbonBased Taxes”.rollcall. In the words of Yogi Berra. toward a carbon-based tax program with most of the revenues recycled in forms of tax relief. for example.S. Teddy & Megan . in the end. The treaty imposed deep cuts in emissions for developed countries.) has three options.” More than a decade ago. Between 2000 and 2006. a system that sets a limit on emissions. Chief Executive Officer at Marshall Institute. The best way to do both is to give up cap-and-trade and learn to love carbon-based taxes. According to a new report by the Government Accountability Office. trillion-dollar risks for the financial system. based on the Kyoto protocols covering most of Europe. http://www.3 percent. there’s little if any evidence that the ETS has had any effect at all on emissions in Europe. To achieve that. traded on financial markets. issues emission permits to covered industries and creates a market for trading permits. while America’s carbon dioxide emissions only increased 2. cap-andtrade systems are riddled with daunting problems. permits prices moved up or down by an average of 17. such volatility doesn’t threaten economic stability. to break a deadlock and gain support from Russia and other developing nations that were effectively exempt from reducing their emissions. new auto technology and lower emission technology. with strong support from Vice President Al Gore. The Democratic Congressional leadership supports cap-and-trade. Two. and in that time almost all EU nations. Three. According to a recent study in Nature. Al Gore now prefers carbon-based taxes over cap-and-trade. One reason is that major emitters such as Germany simply exempt many of their facilities generating greenhouse gases. A cap-and-trade system is very unlikely to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions — and more likely to introduce new. were to join Europe — and China as well — in cap-and-trade. “Time for a Fresh Debate Over America’s Climate Policy”. including governments. it’d be a different story entirely. A carbon tax system would apply a stable price to carbon.5 percent. “This is like déjà vu all over again. Despite all of these environmental and economic failings of the EU cap-and-trade system. leaving everyone better off. Eleven years have elapsed. given its support by some environmental groups and a number of European governments. it seems that some politicians have already made up their minds before real debate has even begun. and it’ll destroy the economy Shapiro.” But here’s the catch. the debate will largely boil down to the last two choices. the major Kyoto signatories. proposing a 2012 target for the U. that was 7 percent below 1990 levels. Going forward. they have increased energy costs. and global financial systems clearly point in a different direction. Head of the Economic Advisory Firm Sonecon and Undersecretary of Commerce in the Clinton Administration. In that respect. but still allowed to sell “excess” permits to us and Europe.S. if the U. But the Clinton administration never even sent the Kyoto treaty to the Senate for approval. themselves exempt from caps.Climate Politics Page 123 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Can’t Solve Warming Can’t solve warming – too many daunting problems. once we set aside those offsets. President Bill Clinton. In the first two years of the EU cap-and-trade system. To the contrary. the United Nations. unsettling everyone’s markets and undermining investment. The core idea is that businesses that can cut their emissions targets most cheaply will do so and sell permits to those who cannot. 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.com/news/32007-1.rollcall. However.5 percent per month. some U. reduces that limit over time. Can’t solve warming – cheating is inevitable O’Keefe. Japan. Even more regulations cannot eliminate most of cap-and-trade’s inherent price volatility or the incentives for its participants. stunted economic growth and spawned cheating in the carbon trading system. Though both policies will raise the price of energy. emissions under the ETS have actually increased by 10 percent. But basic economics punctuated by the developments now gripping the U. It didn’t work for me. the government sets an annual “cap” on greenhouse gas emissions.html) Politics and baseball have a great deal in common. President-elect Barack Obama is committed equally to fighting climate change and restoring economic growth. can sell to other ETS members.S. However. Another factor is the “offset” permits that European “transition” economies. 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. The Clinton/Gore administration made the same promise but. And the volatile prices for the permits themselves.S. to evade or manipulate the system. And since it’s unlikely that politicians will opt to maintain the status quo. with daily price shifts as great as 70 percent. Mitchell.S. http://www. still pushes forcefully for a cap-and-trade scheme. 2/3/09 (William. gives away or auctions permits to produce those emissions.
it’s a stealth tax. understand why so many continue to favor a more complex. cap-and-trade spawns vested interests that will lobby hard to protect their interests and preserve the system. opaque system over a simpler. So before America’s leaders drag the public through a decade-old debate “all over again. administer and enforce it. In reality. These taxes add to the cost of emission-producing energies and. In his inaugural address. A carbon tax. as such. the government policies responsible for higher prices under a carbon tax are clearly visible to consumers. more transparent one. Good public policy makes for good politics. It requires an elaborate bureaucracy to operate. options. and careful look at all of our policy to date.” Congress should take a fresh. the resulting increased prices could be offset by reducing the payroll tax. create incentives to find alternatives without In contrast to a CO2 trading market. places a price on carbon and then allows the market to respond. the option favored by an increasing number of economists and analysts. there’s less chance of accountability. 124 Ellis. putting more money into the hands of workers. Obama indicated he would oppose government programs that don’t work. leaving voters vulnerable to further exploitation of financial instruments. There are serious doubts whether it will accomplish either. it’s difficult to enriching traders and promoting the kind of lobbying that’s inevitable with cap-and-trade. Mitchell. Teddy & Megan . On top of that. Given the current economic pain and disruption generated by the financial sector meltdown.Climate Politics Page 124 of 156 7WJ – HPSW and services. And the advantages of a carbon tax are good public policy. Without transparency. That means this policy will advantage average Americans rather than Wall Street traders while still discouraging carbon emissions. objective. And there’s no convincing evidence that cap-and-trade will work or that it would work as well as a carbon tax. In theory. cap-and-trade is intended to stabilize energy prices and provide incentives to develop new technologies. And unlike a direct tax.
There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity have in the past. 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. as well as Greenpeace’s adamant opposition due to all the corporate handouts in the bill should be telling signs that the environmental benefits are nonexistent. sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change.com/news/2009/jul/18/beware-consequences-cap-and-trade/) As far as scientists supporting cap-and-trade to stop global warming. 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. "Beware the consequences of cap-and-trade". 10. In conclusion. Mitchell. and other countries are key The Foundry. independent of the actions of humans.000 years. This letter made three declarations: ■ 1. Sen. now or will ever cause catastrophic climate change. Teddy & Megan . Jim Webb and Sen. and there has been no net global warming since 1998. and carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life. 125 Ellis.” He covers much information refuting the global-warming mantra. there are many against this bill.org/2009/07/21/a-baker’s-dozen-of-reasons-to-oppose-cap-and-trade/) There’s no environmental benefit. July 21st 2009. 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.tidewaternews. a hundred scientists wrote a letter to the secretary-general of the United Nations.doesn’t low temperatures. Leading scientists acknowledge that computer models can’t predict climate. ■ 3. Mark Warner and urge them to vote against cap-and-trade. July 18th 2009. http://blog. cause electric bills and fuel prices to sharply increase. I suggest all concerned taxpayers contact U. ■ 2. I challenge The Tidewater News to obtain and reprint an article written in 2008 by Eric Creed entitled “The Greatest Hoax Ever Perpetrated. The Foundry.S. 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. In short those few who earn the money to pay the taxes can‘t afford to perpetuate this hoax. 2007. http://www. 13. and be highly susceptible to fraud and corruption in a time when Americans can’t afford it.Climate Politics Page 125 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Can’t Solve Warming Cap and trade won’t solve warming.heritage. Recent observations of the phenomena such as glacial retreats. 7/18/09 (Ed. cap-and-trade is wrong because it’s a massive new energy tax. 7/21/09 (“A Baker’s Dozen of Reasons to Oppose Cap and Trade”. 2008. in an International Conference on Climate Change. It will kill American jobs.) No impact to warming – average rates are natural and CO2 emissions aren’t out of control Hartman. and none of the changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
environmental benefit.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2407.*senior policy analyst in Energy and the Environment for the Heritage Foundation. Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2407. 126 Ellis. **research assistant in the Thomas A. Mitchell. analysis by the architects of the endangerment finding. http://www.cfm. "Five Reasons the EPA Should Not Attempt to Deal with Global Warming".1 to 0. Teddy & Megan .2 degrees Celsius by 2095. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (4/23. if any. In fact. WEA) The extraordinary perils of CO2 regulation for the American economy come with little. the EPA. strongly suggests that a 60 percent reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2050 will reduce global temperature by 0.Climate Politics Page 126 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Can’t Solve Warming Cap and trade only reduces temperature by .2 degrees Loris and Lieberman 2009 .heritage.
com/news/stories/0709/24837.Climate Politics Page 127 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Fails – Warming Even if they win all of their arguments. the bill will result in diminished competition. by far. First. or ACES. Politico. shutting out many qualified minority. will add costs and distort the workings of the carbon market the bill would establish. and-trade system is the best approach. made the argument that a “well-designed” cap- the American Clean Energy and Security. A feasible cap-and-trade system might work.S. http://www. Teddy & Megan . “Waxman-Markey bill: 'this isn’t the best of U. and nonunion businesses from the entire market. A few months ago in The Wall Street Journal. the EDF — and many other cap-andtrade backers — praised the passage of the Waxman-Markey bill not because it is an effective piece of legislation.politico.html) The U. Second. international cooperation remains a major stumbling block to addressing global climate change. July 13th 2009. Mitchell. ACES contains dangerous provisions that could lead to widespread lawsuit abuse. picking technology winners and losers is not the way to go about it.the current version of cap and trade will fail – carbon fuels are inevitable and international cooperation is more important Kovacs. Furthermore. of course. but because “it’s the best we can do. Chamber Of Commerce (William.” This may be the greatest indictment issued against the legislative branch since Joseph Welch questioned Joe McCarthy’s sense of decency. president of Environmental Defense Fund. based on a failing European model that they themselves are looking to abandon. The bill fails to equitably allocate credits to the refinery sector. 7/13/09.U. The question. among other weakness. 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. 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.S. nor does it adequately preempt state and regional greenhouse gas programs. the renewable electricity standard.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly supports comprehensive legislation to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases while providing for a strong American economy. and here are four quick reasons why.S’. carbon-based fuels are and will remain for decades the backbone of the U. Fred Krupp.”. Fourth. along with many of the other mandates in the bill. small. This bill is not the best we can do. Third. energy system until cost-effective and reliable alternative energy sources are developed. but what we got with 127 Ellis. is how to accomplish that goal. or RES. And by applying the Davis-Bacon Act. If the objective is to allow the market to work to find the lowest-cost solutions. Act was deeply flawed. Chamber Representative. It does not fully and permanently protect America’s 27 million small businesses from being forced to comply with costly standards. ACES does not do a good job of ensuring those alternatives will be available. Nonetheless.
gives away or auctions permits to produce those emissions. increasing number of economists and analysts. In the first two years of the EU cap-and-trade system. and in that time almost all EU nations. drafted the Kyoto Protocol. but still allowed to sell “excess” permits to us and Europe. still pushes forcefully for a cap-and-trade scheme. arguing : “I tried [a carbon tax] once. Three. and global financial systems clearly point in a different direction. Burned by the political firestorm over his proposed BTU tax in 1993. were to join Europe — and China as well — in cap-and-trade. it’s a stealth tax. Volatility like the kind experienced in the ETS would translate into much more volatile energy prices. and lets a new market sort out the messy job of determining the prices of emissions. One. it’s difficult to understand why so many continue to favor a more complex. once we set aside those offsets. can sell to other ETS members. voters dioxide emissions only increased 2. The clearest illustration of the problems with cap-and-trade is the European Trading Scheme. Two.com/news/31397-1.) Not Clinton only have the EU emissions policies missed their objectives. some U. Teddy & Megan . But basic economics punctuated by the developments now gripping the U. the prices for ETS permits are highly volatile. President Bill Clinton. cap-and-trade spawns vested interests that will lobby hard to protect their interests and preserve the system. Between 2000 and 2006. Another factor is the “offset” up or down by an average of 17. Roll Call. Since the entire global permit market only currently amounts to some $60 billion. It didn’t work for me. for example. themselves exempt from caps. 2/3 http://www. while America’s carbon But the administration European Union.5 percent per month. These taxes add to the cost of emission-producing energies and. Under cap-and-trade.S. permits prices moved permits that European “transition” economies.rollcall. they have increased energy costs. leaving voters vulnerable to further exploitation of financial instruments. unsettling everyone’s markets 128 Ellis. “Time for a Fresh Debate Over America’s Climate Policy”. never even sent the Kyoto treaty to the Senate for approval. the major Kyoto signatories. such volatility doesn’t threaten economic stability. A cap-and-trade system is very unlikely to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions — and more likely to introduce new. Cap and trade fails – evasion and manipulation Roll Call. Given its impact on the should be thankful we passed.com/news/32007-1. Kyoto protocols covering most of Europe.3 percent. more transparent one. mandate a cap-and-trade system. The system also has failed to establish a stable price for carbon — a goal widely considered a prerequisite for any effective climate change effort. impose a carbon tax. Eleven years have elapsed. opaque system over a simpler. issues emission permits to covered industries and creates a market for trading permits. Given the current economic pain and disruption generated by the financial sector meltdown. Japan. toward a carbon-based tax program with most of the revenues recycled in forms of tax relief. And unlike a direct tax. Washington has three options. It requires an elaborate bureaucracy to operate. create incentives to find alternatives without enriching traders and promoting the kind of lobbying that’s inevitable with cap-and-trade. According to a new report by the Government Accountability Office. have failed to meet their targets. trilliondollar risks for the financial system. the resulting increased prices could be offset by reducing the payroll tax.S. a system that sets a limit on emissions. as such. And since it’s unlikely that politicians will opt to maintain the status quo. There are serious doubts whether it will accomplish either. given its support by some environmental groups and a number of European governments. 9 (Robert. legislators are currently pushing to impose a similar emissions scheme here in the States. Chief Executive Officer @ Marshall Institute. that was 7 percent below 1990 levels. if the U. reduces that limit over time.rollcall. continue the present approach that relies on higher efficiency standards. To the contrary.Climate Politics Page 128 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: C&T Solves Warming Won’t solve warming – EU system failed O’Keefe. However. political resistance. The Democratic Congressional leadership supports cap-and-trade. leaving everyone better off. the government sets an annual “cap” on greenhouse gas emissions. The treaty imposed deep cuts in emissions for developed countries. In contrast to a CO2 trading market. One reason is that major emitters such as Germany simply exempt many of their facilities generating greenhouse gases. the option favored by an administer and enforce it.html) While well-intentioned. my former boss. (That’s even more significant when you account for the fact that our economic growth was much stronger. the government policies responsible for higher prices under a carbon tax are clearly visible to consumers. In reality. with daily price shifts as great as 70 percent. cap-and-trade is intended to stabilize energy prices and provide incentives to develop new technologies. the United Nations. Without transparency. based on the According to a recent study in Nature. 9 (William. Despite all of these environmental and economic failings of the EU cap-and-trade system. These regimes may offer the path of least current. to break a deadlock and gain support from Russia and other developing nations that were effectively exempt from reducing their emissions. Going forward. it’d be a different story entirely. This was the approach then-Vice President Al Gore proposed at the climate summit in Kyoto. in 1997. there’s less chance of accountability. stunted economic growth and spawned cheating in the carbon trading system. with strong support from Vice President Al Gore. Though both policies will raise the price of energy.5 percent. the debate will largely boil down to the last two choices. the EU emissions jumped by 3. new auto technology and lower emission technology. On top of that. the increased costs under cap-and-trade will be hidden in the added costs of goods and services.html) More than a decade ago. Mitchell. putting more money into the hands of workers.S. The core idea is that businesses that can cut their emissions targets most cheaply will do so and sell permits to those who cannot. proposing a 2012 target for the U.” But here’s the catch. In theory.1/15 http://www. places a price on carbon and then allows the market to respond. That means this policy will advantage average Americans rather than Wall Street traders while still discouraging carbon emissions. emissions under the ETS have actually increased by 10 percent. cap-and-trade systems are riddled with daunting problems. “The Real Choice Between Cap-and-Trade and Carbon-Based Taxes”. A carbon tax.S. there’s little if any evidence that the ETS has had any effect at all on emissions in Europe.
traded on financial markets. And the volatile prices for the permits themselves.Climate Politics Page 129 of 156 7WJ – HPSW and undermining investment. Mitchell. Even more regulations cannot eliminate most of capand-trade’s inherent price volatility or the incentives for its participants. including governments. These are the main reasons why the father of climate-change politics. Al Gore now prefers carbon-based taxes over cap-and-trade. would attract speculation and new financial derivatives. putting us at risk for another crisis. 129 Ellis. to evade or manipulate the system. Teddy & Megan .
130 Ellis. as they have so many times in the past. These investments include extending floodway easements. The real impact would be on man-made structures. p. Actually. The sea level rise. since there are only about 11. among other actions. 160-161) A continued slow rise in sea levels is probably the biggest problem for humans likely to arise from a moderate global warming. And. Six inches per century is slow. the Tuvaluans There will always be an ebb and flow between land and water. But if they were. but the storm surges from huge tropical cyclones that have hit the country every three to four years in recent decades. The point here is that we live on a planet where the climate has been changing constantly for the past billion years. Coastal areas threatened today will be threatened in the future. President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project and Distinguished Research Professor @ George Mason. and Dennis. and it would have to be done with great sensitivity to the coastal wetlands. this is a smaller problem than the alarmists have claimed. infrastructure that can withstand the severe weather events that we know are going to continue. the floods of salt water often stay for weeks. The world wouldn't lose its wetlands due to rising sea levels. Alabama state climatologist. How many buildings near coasts are built with the expectation that they will last 100 years. improvement in storm water drainage systems and avoiding hurricane-prone coastal development. halting economic activity. whether or not sea levels are rising. building a dike around Bangladesh may not be a bad idea anyway. Even here. emigration does not present insurmountable problems. bridges. and their interface will be rich with competing organisms. biting flies. or even 50 years. The amount of land involved would be trivial. Emeritus Environmental Science @ UVA and First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service. The main point I stress. Prof. Tougher zoning for low-lying areas and tougher building codes for areas within reach of storm surges make sense. Director of Global Food Issues @ Hudson Institute. recently testified before Congress: One of my duties in the office of the State Climatologist A sea level rise of 6 in. and water systems. The wetlands and their species would simply move slightly upslope. if one is able to survive the storms. which will continue. the Tuvaluans do not appear to be threatened by rising sea levels. Still. which would have to be abandoned or moved inland. and inflicting massive amounts of physical damage on buildings. roads. over 100 years. and remind us that normal hurricane risks are amplified as our cities grow and our people seek waterfronts on which to live and play. “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1. At the very least. The problem is not sea levels per se.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. is miniscule compared with the storm surge of a powerful hurricane like Fredrick or Camille. mosquitoes. We expect a continued abundance of the corals. Teddy & Megan . say. 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 perhaps it will need to be done. and beach combers.500 Years”. we will avoid encouraging new building and development in low-lying coastal plains.000 Tuvaluans. the problem is not great. However. Mitchell. Bangladesh has built a large number of "typhoon towers" that allow the population to climb above the floods with the belongings they can carry. might even prefer it. poisoning soils. it would cause significant coastal changes. What about low-lying islands? As previously noted. coastal forests. to state and local agencies as well as industries. I am very frank in pointing out the dangers of beachfront property along the Gulf Coast. but if it continues for the next five hundred years. is that they invest today in is to inform developers and industries of the potential climate risks and rewards in Alabama." 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. 200 years. will be very slow and thus give decades of opportunity for adaptation. or even longer? If we are wise. spreading disease. America should stop encouraging high-risk waterside building through government-financed flood insurance. John Christy. A dike would be expensive. and horseshoe crabs—not to mention sand fleas.
and the Media”.." As a review. Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies @ Cato and Prof. p. 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. In today's climate. Teddy & Megan . antibiotics. the article was a compendium of many researchers' previous work and therefore included little that was scientifically new. In fact. Politicians. as scientific writing should be when it is about something as nebulous as how climate might potentially affect disease. Change in climate is so small by comparison that it is nearly irrelevant. 131 Ellis. We found no unequivocal examples of natural changes in severity or prevalence resulting from directional climate warming per se. “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists. Environmental Sciences @ UVA. Here are some excerpts: Associations between climate and disease do not necessarily imply causation. 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.Climate Politics Page 131 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Disease Spread Climate plays a tiny role in disease spread Michaels 4 (Patrick. as is predicting future distributional changes in disease prevalence. 187) The plain truth is that climate plays an extremely minor role in the transmission of pathogens. Difficulty in separating directional climate change from short-term controversial. 2002. that's a major scientific disease vector. Mitchell. Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies @ Cato and Prof. 186-187) The June 21. The paper is filled with caveats like those.. to name a few things that sure aren't "equal" over time and distance. 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. expansion variation has made it challenging to associate climate warming with disease prevalence or severity. Environmental Sciences @ UVA.g. genetic engineering and sanitation. After all. Everything else being equal. given a small change in climate. Rather. some diseases will spread somewhat and others will recede somewhat. Politicians. Whether [vector-borne disease] expansions are due primarily to climate change or other anthropogenic influences (e. Think about technology. 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.. “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists. 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. But to assume everything else will be equal is a poor scientific assumption.. p. Scientific studies prove there is no clear relationship between warming and disease spread Michaels 4 (Patrick. and the Media”.
Climate Politics Page 132 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Drought No increases in drought ---. there is no apparent relationship between temperature and dryness (or wetness) in Northern Hemisphere data. dated 12 November 2003: • “An inspection of the maps shows that droughts similar to the 1950s. in terms of duration and spatial extent. during the 1860s. or the same droughts.” 132 Ellis. Asia. dry and wet periods have alternated during periods of both warming and cooling.it doesn’t correlate to temperature Lewis 6 (Marlo. occurred once or twice a century for the past three centuries (for example.” • “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. 4-28.” • “Coincident droughts. by the staff of the NOAA Paleoclimatology Program. a long time for such severe drought conditions to persist in this region of North America. Mitchell. “Scare Mongering as Journalism: A Commentary on Time’s “Special Report” on Global Warming”.org/pdf/5288. and Europe fail to confirm a link between warming and drought. http://cei. published in Moberg et al. Senior Fellow @ Competitive Enterprise Institute. 1820s. and from California to the East Coast. are apparent in tree-ring records from Mexico to British Columbia. but analyses of climate data from Africa. including the 1930s drought… These droughts were extremely severe and lasted for three to six years. Teddy & Megan . For centuries. 1730s). (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. Similarly. Consider Comment: Climate the table below.pdf) alarmists claim that global warming makes droughts more frequent and severe.
the average was a little around 5 million acres per year going up in smoke.13 is decadal average precipitation over the United States. Politicians. or in the current era of irrational fire suppression. “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists.000. By the 1990s that moved up to 30. How about this one: Acreage burned = X (temperature) – Y (rainfall). The computer calculates that X is approximately equal to 700. This isn't just a straw doe.000 acres is a needle buried in an annual 5. the 0.Climate Politics Page 133 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Forests No increase in forest fires ---.) reduced fire in the United States." First. That's part of the reason why. it was also around 5 million. a rise of about 0. Despite our straightforward math. an average of 25 million combusted in the 1920s.5. We hear more about it.9°F in the period.they’re decreasing burned acres Michaels in ‘4 (Patrick. 142-145) It is also one of the easiest to dispute.) Before the 1942 release of Bambi. the cartoon deer who probably spawned more ecological mismanagement and traffic fatalities than any other animal in cinematic history. and burn data and turn it into a mathematical "model. It's not very hard to take the temperature. Teddy & Megan . and Figure 6. Since 1960. rainfall. and the Media”. There is a warming trend. So every inch of rain above normal reduces the annual burn by 400. Figure 6.000 more burned acres. on the average. But. Figure 6.000-acre foreststack. which means. 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. say. Consider what's happened since Bambi. That net change of minus 300. the 1930s. you can't tell the climate signal from the random noise. about 38 million acres went up each year.12 shows summer (June— September) temperatures since 1960. (And don't assume your 133 Ellis. In the 1960s. 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. (In the cool 1960s. Mitchell.14. and rain.3 inches.11 shows 10-year averages for acreage burned in the United States. It's shown graphically in Figure 6. or a rise of 2. but that doesn't mean there's more to hear about. Y is equal to 400.000 more acres per year. Scientifically speaking. we used to just let things burn. heat. you specify an equation that defines a hypothesis about the way something works.3-inch rise in rainfall means that we're burning 930. that a year that is one degree warmer than normal will have 700. the total "change" in the climate-related signal according to our model is minus 300. But there's also an increase in precipitation.000fewer acres because of the increased moisture.9 degree rise in temperature means that we are burning 630.000. the 2. Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies @ Cato and Prof. Environmental Sciences @ UVA. In other words.000 acres. when we look at.000. we averaged about 28.000 acres. This little "model" explains a bit less than half of the total year-to-year variation in acreage burned in the United States.3 inches of rain per year. p. In the warm 1990s.
For instance. But all this CO2 can only account for between one and 3.2 degrees Fahrenheit) in just a few thousand years. But these "feedbacks" are poorly understood and some scientists believe there could be others still to be identified." 134 Ellis. attaining a concentration of between four and five times that of today. What seems clear is that a huge amount of heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases -.3 F) of PETM's warming if the models for climate sensitivity are right. The Arctic Ocean warmed to 23 C (73 F). "Mystery mechanism drove global warming 55 million years ago". scientists said on Monday.google. A trio of Earth scientists. this exposes the uncovered sea to sunlight. which leads to the loss of more ice. AFP 4/13/2009 (Agence France Presse." warns Zeebe's team.5 C (1. The theorised sources include volcanic activity and the sudden release of methane hydrates in the ocean. try to account for the carbon that was spewed out during PETM. http://www. "Our results imply a fundamental gap in our understanding about the amplitude of global warming associated with large and abrupt climate perturbations. That causes the sea to warm.natural. as opposed to man-made -.8-6. How PETM happened is unclear but climatologists are eager to find out.Climate Politics Page 134 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Greenhouse Theory Flawed The dominant greenhouse theory is incomplete—it fails to explain past warming. Teddy & Megan . Previous research into this period. when a patch of Arctic sea ice melts. Even though there are big differences between Earth's geology and ice cover then and now. which in turn helps the sea to warm.700 parts per million (ppm). led by Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii. They believe that levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) rose by 70 percent during PETM's main phase to reach 1. There must have been some other factor that stoked temperatures higher. 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. the team found.were disgorged in a very short time. depriving it of a bright. and so on. or about the temperature of a lukewarm bath. as this could shed light on aspects of global warming today. called the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. reflective layer. estimates the planet's surface temperature blasted upwards by between five and nine degrees Celsius (nine and 16. or PETM. the findings are relevant as they highlight the risk of hidden mechanisms that add dramatically to warming. "This gap needs to be filled to confidently predict future climate change.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jXKGlsM4aZXPmItKk9TowSECsEYg. Some of these so-called "positive feedbacks" are already known. says the paper. Mitchell.
As the levels of carbon increased.Climate Politics Page 135 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Climate Models Bad Climate models are inaccurate—newest journals flow our way. is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of this ancient warming. study co-author and professor of Earth Science at Rice University in Houston. Rice 7/14/2009 (Doyle. What caused the remainder of the warming is a mystery.caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM. for unknown reasons. USA Today Science Fair.000 years. Dickens said. global surface temperatures also rose dramatically during the PETM. "In a nutshell. The conclusion. This makes the PETM one of the best ancient climate analogues for present-day Earth. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models. "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 -. WEA) Could the best climate models -.com/sciencefair/2009/07/could-we-be-wrong-about-global-warming.html. the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. The report found that only about half of the warming that occurred during a natural climate change 55 million years ago can be explained by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." In their most recent assessment report in 2007. "Could we be wrong about global warming?". Average temperatures worldwide rose by around 13 degrees in the relatively short geological span of about 10. known as the “Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum” (PETM)." says oceanographer Gerald Dickens. Teddy & Megan .all be wrong? Maybe so. Mitchell. 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 ones used to predict global warming -. 135 Ellis. theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record. http://blogs.usatoday. says a new study published online today in the journal Nature Geoscience." During the warming period.
Climate Politics Page 136 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Bad – Economy Cap and trade kills the economy.org/2009/07/21/a-baker’s-dozen-of-reasons-to-oppose-cap-andtrade/) 136 Ellis. The Foundry. 7/21/09 (“A Baker’s Dozen of Reasons to Oppose Cap and Trade”. GDP.jobs. July 21st 2009. Teddy & Megan . http://blog.heritage. businesses The Foundry. Mitchell. energy costs.
500. projects that cap and trade will increase unemployment would by 0. Nothing could be further from the truth. Brookings predicts GDP in the United States would be lower by 2. and thus doing damage that no check would cover. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that. we find that the average per-family-of-four costs rise by almost $3. the poor suffer most. 2.4 trillion (in 2009 dollars). job loss will be 1. saying. All three aforementioned studies found significant losses in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). the higher energy prices would reduce economic activity by forcing businesses to cut costs elsewhere. however. You hear it’s a jobs bill – that investing billions of dollars in new green technologies that will create or save millions of jobs.” Policymakers sought to protect consumers.) More subsidies for unproven technologies and energy sources. 5. cap and trade would be massive tax on energy consumption. has become a numbers game. the accumulated GDP lost is $9.) It will increase your energy bills. If only a small portion (15 percent) of the energy tax revenue is given back to the consumer. electricity prices go up by 22% and gasoline increases by 23 center per gallon.7 million jobs in each year of the policy through 2030–after accounting for “green job” creation. a supporter of a carbon tax.15 million jobs. since low-income households spend a larger percentage of their income on energy. Heritage found the average GDP lost is $393 billion.) It hits low-income households hardest. Heritage’s CDA found that by 2035 gasoline prices would increase 58 percent. Since 85 percent of America’s energy needs come from carbon emitting fossil fuels.3-2. electricity prices would jump 90 percent. If cap and trade were so sure to work. our primary measure of economic activity. the years in which we modeled the bill. CRA’s and the Black Chamber’s study found that relative to the baseline.) It will destroy 1. Washington is forcing costlier energy options on the public.) It will cost a family-of-four an additional $3.S. home heating oil would increase 56 percent.7 million fewer jobs than without cap and trade. there is a projected 2. By 2035. natural gas prices would rise by an estimated 16%. 1. Mitchell. Although upper income families tend to use more energy (and thus emit more carbon per household). Cap and trade is an energy tax that falls disproportionately on the poor. 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. 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. In effect. The carbon dioxide reduction targets are still the same at the end of the day. That’s a lot of postage stamps—162. Teddy & Megan . all in the year 2030. that’s equivalent to about 1.1 million greater than the baseline assumptions.5 percent in 2050 and the National Black Chamber estimates that in GDP will be 1.3 percent ($350 billon) below the baseline in 2030 and 1. Using U. A federally mandated RES is proposed only because renewables are too expensive to compete otherwise. the other says it’s expensive.5% in the first decade below the baseline. it’s about $71. by reducing their workforce for example. When all the tax impacts have been added up. Proponents of a carbon cap acknowledge this. 4. In the year 2035 alone. selective hearing can dictate what you believe Waxman-Markey will do to the economy and how it will affect global warming. why is all this even necessary? 137 Ellis. Here are thirteen reasons to oppose cap and trade. hitting a high of $662 billion in 2035. 6. and the way they will be met is by raising the price of energy high enough so people use less. a national mandate will cost Americans both as taxpayers and as ratepayers. “Relative to total expenditure.Climate Politics Page 137 of 156 7WJ – HPSW The cap and trade debate.5 million fewer jobs than without a cap-and-trade bill. Census population projection estimates. natural gas prices would increase 55 percent. Rebates or not. especially the poor. From 2012 to 2035. the burden on the poor obviously becomes heavier. the poor pay more […]. Depending on what side of the political isle you fall on.500 to be exact. You hear it won’t cost Americans families very much – about a stamp per day is what proponents of the bill say. for the average year over the 2012-2035 timeline. and worst of all. stimulating the economy while igniting a green revolution. A study done by Charles River Associates prepared for the National Black Chamber of Congress projects higher unemployment of 2. 3. Since renewables are lavished with substantial tax breaks.) It will reduce economic growth. the tax impact is $4. One side says it’s cheap. The Brookings Institute. like most debates in Washington.5 percent ($730 billion) below the baseline in 2050.000 per year.000 per year. from higher energy prices by handing out rebate checks or tax cuts. And if you add up the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035.600. But Heritage isn’t alone in these estimates.
WEA) any attempt to reduce carbon dioxide would be poison to an already sick economy. increased unemployment. whether consistent with WTO agreements or not. the potential for nations to retaliate against U. it is clear that the adoption of protectionist polices as a part of a U. Since 85 percent of the U. 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. whose profitability will have been destroyed by new climate change regulations. trade measures is very real. High energy costs result in production cuts.Climate Politics Page 138 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext.org/Research/tradeandeconomicfreedom/wm2408. since low-income households spend a larger percentage of their income on energy. http://www.Jay Van Andel senior trade policy analyst int he Center for International Trade and Economics at Heritage (4/24. reduced consumer spending. the EPA's proposed global warming policy would severely limit economic growth. "Climate policy: free trade promotes a cleaner environment". If Congress and the President do embark on such a potentially treacherous course. 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. companies and policymakers may find it fair for the government to prop up domestic businesses.S. But importantly. ensures billions of dollars lost from the GDP each year and increases unemployment Loris and Lieberman 2009 . Above anything else. consumers and producers will find no relief from artificially inflated prices by turning to lower-cost imports. C&T Kills Economy Climate bill will decimate economic growth – higher costs and trade restrictions Markheim 2009 . Some U. 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).org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2407. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (4/23. **research assistant in the Thomas A. Hard-pressed U. America's trade partners are unlikely to agree.S. households and firms will face much higher costs for energy and energy-intensive goods. Many such trade restrictions could violate World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and lead to legal sanctions against the U. against foreign competitors whose governments have chosen to be less draconian. energy cost increases of 30 percent or more. Cap and trade destroys economic growth – taxes all energy use.cfm.S.*senior policy analyst in Energy and the Environment for the Heritage Foundation. WEA) The projected cost of a climate scheme on the U. as the climate change zealots propose to erect trade barriers to raise the costs of foreign products produced under less severe environmental policy constraints. single-year GDP losses exceeding $600 billion in some years (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).cfm. climate regime does far more harm than good and should be avoided.heritage.S. higher energy prices fall disproportionately on the poor. imposing a cost on CO2 is equivalent to placing an economy-wide tax on energy use. Even if some of the proposed measures hold up against legal scrutiny in the WTO.S.heritage. WebMemo #2408.S. and annual job losses exceeding 800. Daniella. which will see job losses in some industries that exceed 50 percent. categories that include virtually every product in our economy. Heritage Foundation. Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2407. "Five Reasons the EPA Should Not Attempt to Deal with Global Warming". and ultimately a much slower economy. economy runs on fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide. Hit particularly hard is manufacturing.S. When all these negative effects are taken into account. 138 Ellis. Mitchell. http://author.000 for several years. Teddy & Megan . restrictions. Any U.S. Even when the economy does recover.
" Feldstein wrote recently in the Weekly Standard." Admitting that a cap-and-trade program amounts to a "carbon tax. "Human activities are producing increasingly large quantities of greenhouse gases. The effect is the same as if they had had their taxes raised. Mitchell.zwire. July 17th 2009. Teddy & Megan . D-W.000. in Political Science from Harvard (Jerome R. contemplate going to countries such as China where carbon emission caps are unlikely to be taken seriously. The Heritage Foundation concluded that it would slow long-term growth by almost $10 trillion over 26 years. http://www. When the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analyzed the cost of reducing carbon emissions by 15 percent below 2005 levels. when he was the director of the Congressional Budget Office in the Bush administration. whose government has invested heavily in "green" jobs. From his testimony before he joined the Obama administration. similar legislation went down to defeat. Rather than directly raising taxes on Americans. Review Messenger. The increase." he testified.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. “President Obama has pledged not to raise taxes on middle- income Americans. 6/17/09. Senate could take up the House legislation. director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama administration. 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. Robert Byrd. Proponents of the cap-and-trade proposal argue that job losses will be offset by the creation of new." atmosphere. the House of Representatives passed legislation described by Harvard University economist Martin Feldstein as "a stealth strategy for a massive long-term tax All Americans. That would give all Americans time to register their opinions on the bill. "I remain bullish about the future of coal. regardless of income.600 a year.600 that families won't be able to spend or invest in the economy. And jobs would be lost.Climate Politics Page 139 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. http://www.S.Ph. "The tax imposed by the cap-and-trade system is therefore equivalent to raising the family's income tax by about 50 percent. though it may not do so until September. In 2008. two jobs are lost for every green job created. They would be bad for families and would slow the economic recovery as well.600 carbon tax in perspective. over 30. At a time when the economy remains shaky and unemployment has reached a 25-year high. but legislation he and congressional Democrats are backing would do just that”." 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. C&T Kills Economy Cap and trade kills the economy—taxes would prevent consumer spending and thousands of jobs will be lost Kyl. Economist Peter Orszag. according to a Spanish economist. Congress should not be considering new taxes.US Senator (Jon. July 16th 2009. In Spain. perhaps even catastrophic problem. "The accumulation of these gases in the atmosphere is expected to have potentially serious and costly effects on regional climates throughout the world.000 in the first year alone. and this year's version will once again face opposition from Senate Republicans and some moderate Democrats. "To put that $1." That's $1..Va. it estimated a family's cost of living would increase by $1.cfm? newsid=20346352&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept_id=222077&rfi=6) On June 26. let alone make up for the jobs that are lost. If Americans communicate their opinions about this bill to their representatives in Congress. Eloy News.reviewmessenger. This year won't be the first time that the Senate has considered cap-and-trade. blasted the cap-and-trade legislation. 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. The Heritage Foundation's analysis found that Arizona would lose thousands of jobs." West Virginians may not be the only Americans that will suffer economically if cap and trade passes the Senate. I am convinced it can be defeated again.. will feel the effects of this tax hike. Americans would also feel the pinch because cap-and-trade will hurt economic growth. cap-andtrade raises the cost of living for everyone by raising energy costs and consumer prices for virtually everything.000 now pays an income tax of about $3. Staff reporter for WND." Byrd insisted that clean coal can be a "green energy. 7/16/09. In addition to the tax increase. "green" jobs. mandatory limits on carbon emissions from various sources (like electric utilities). known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act. But it's not certain those jobs will materialize. testified before Congress on cap-andtrade in 2008. a typical family of four with earnings of $50. R-AZ.com/site/news. particularly CO2. Sen. “G8 falls flat on Carbon Ban”. it was clear Orszag believed global climate change resulting from human causes was a serious. saying in a statement that "I cannot support the bill in its present form. Those sources would then either reduce carbon emissions or buy or trade emission allowances to achieve the required overall emissions reductions. D." Byrd said. Cap and trade prevents growth—businesses and families won’t be able to compete in the global economy Corsi.com/index. and am so very proud of the miners who labor and toil in the coalfields of West Virginia." "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.
at a time the businesses are trying to compete in a global economy.Climate Politics Page 140 of 156 7WJ – HPSW that would require across-the-board emission reductions by all firms. the imposition of what amounts to a cap-and-trade tax may further depress the economy. Moreover. 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. 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. Orzag testified that "price increases would be essential revenue for the federal government. Mitchell. including manufacturing companies. 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. Red Alert recommends we concern ourselves with the climate change catastrophe later. including those involved in raising children. 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. at a time when families are struggling just to keep jobs. Businesses that emit carbon dioxide. will face yet one more cost of operations in paying cap-and-trade costs. Teddy & Megan . In the meantime. not lose homes and pay monthly living expenses." The truth is that: Cap-and-trade will increase gasoline prices and the cost of energy in the 25 states that get more than 50 percent of their electricity from coal. 140 Ellis. when the science behind climate hysteria is more certain.
too. Teddy & Megan . “Electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” under this program.T. On Page 1. 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. Does Congress expect more damage to these two programs by this bill? Where will the money come from for any of it? The Congressional Budget Office has estimated this bill would cost each household $175 in 2020. July 18th 2009.193. if you fall within a socioeconomic level of no more than 150 percent of the poverty line. C&T Kills Economy Kills the economy. how could anyone justify putting more people out of work? In addition.” It allows the administrators of Medicare and Social Security to access the general revenues of the U. The E.T. The Heritage Foundation estimates that the cost will range from $426 in 2012 to $1. In an economy that’s losing many jobs a month.I. 443: “Protection of Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. On Page 1. July 15) that the cap-and-trade bill will cost Americans jobs and further damage the economy.C. What does a so-called “energy bill” have to do with E. The authors of this onerous bill know that American workers will be displaced and that it will cause energy costs to soar. This cost will be passed to the consumer. Tidewaternewsdotcom. I do not want to scramble for additional funds to cover outrageous electric or fuel bills. http://www.C.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. presidential candidate Obama admitted.241 in 2035. The cost of transporting goods to market will drastically increase.209 this bill references the Earned Income Tax Credit. the government will be here to bail you out.? Nothing but pandering! Another interesting section is No.I.Climate Politics Page 141 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext.com/news/2009/jul/18/beware-consequences-cap-and-trade/) I agree with Bob Edwards (“Reader disagrees with cap-and-trade talk. 7/18/09 (Ed.tidewaternews. government if it’s determined that the capand-trade bill resulted in the reduction of revenues going into these two trust funds.increases energy costs and destroys consumer spending Hartman. In our faltering economy.” Wednesday. the “Energy Refund Program” will allot monthly cash payments to offset the additional burden of energy costs caused by this bill. In January 2008. "Beware the consequences of cap-and-trade". Yet.S. for an individual with no dependents will double and include annual inflation adjustments. 141 Ellis. energy rates will drastically increase. On Page 1. That is three years that our government will knowingly force Americans out of work. Mitchell.
142 Ellis. I can tell you from bitter experience that in my district. 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.en/) I had a strange sense of deja vu as I watched the self-congratulatory rhetoric on the House floor tonight.truthabouttrade. because it imposes new taxes on an infinitely larger number of domestic products on a scale that utterly dwarfs Smoot-Hawley. this is deadly serious stuff. Gov.2 pounds of carbon dioxide every day — just by breathing. We need to understand what that means. It has profound implications for agriculture. California’s unemployment numbers tracked very closely with the national unemployment rate. EPA-approved coal-fired electricity plant in Utah. When you discuss the folly of the Hoover administration — how it turned the recession of 1929 into the depression of the 1930s. Let me give you one example from my district. So applying a tax to the economy designed to radically constrict carbon dioxide emissions means radically constricting the economy. Ignore all of that and still we are left with one lousy sense of timing. Three years ago. the first thing that economists point to is the SmootHawley Tariff Act that imposed new taxes on more than 20. Schwarzenegger assured us that AB 32 would mean an explosion of new. that is a historical fact. 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. Today. In California. two things are certain. in January of 2007. but the objective is the same: to force a dramatic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Madam Speaker. construction. Assembly Bill 32. July 9th 2009. It transcends ideology and politics. First. our planet will continue to warm and cool as it has been doing for billions of years. why would they want to do the same thing to our nation? Madam Speaker. Until that bill took effect. exactly the opposite has happened. But then. 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. was about to sign a long-term power contract to get its electricity from a new. I stood on the floor of the California Senate and watched a similar celebration over a similar bill. and at its highest point since 1941. 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. AB 32 and companion legislation caused them to abandon that contract.. Teddy & Megan . http://www.org/content/view/14249/54/lang. And this brings us to the fine point of it. that’s not a future prediction. The replacement power they acquired literally doubled their electricity costs.000 imported products.US Congressman (Tom. baking and brewing — all of which produce enormous quantities of this innocuous and ubiquitous compound. 7/9/09. 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. Calif. California’s unemployment rate is more than two points above the national rate. “Waxman-Markey Is Our Smoot-Hawley”. it’s worse. Congress will have delivered a staggering blow to our nation’s economy at precisely that moment when that economy was the most vulnerable. R-CA. And I have spent the last three years watching as that law has dangerously deepened California’s recession. green jobs — exactly the same promises we’re hearing from cap and trade supporters.Climate Politics Page 142 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. It uses a different mechanism than cap and trade. In fact. California’s unemployment rate began a steady upward divergence from the national jobless figures. What is it that happened in January 2007? AB 32 took effect and began shutting down entire segments of California’s economy. Mitchell. energy production. Second. If this measure becomes law. 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. Waxman-Markey is our generation’s Smoot-Hawley. So when economists warn that we can expect electricity prices to double under the cap and trade bill. every human being produces 2. In fact. cargo and passenger transportation. This House has just made the biggest economic mistake since the days of Herbert Hoover. Can’t Solve Warming/Economy Cap and Trade doesn’t solve warming or the economy – California’s attempt at reducing emissions proves McClintock. and I feel compelled to offer this warning from the Left Coast. The city of Truckee.
“Kill cap and trade before it kills growth”. which makes up the greatest share of the gross domestic product. Obama’s latest tack is refuted by statements he made earlier this year. but — because energy costs raise production costs generally — it would make the prices of almost everything else rise as well. The bill would not only make energy prices go up. which now goes to the Senate. Obviously. the usual rationale for a carbon cap is that. Thomas. the New York and California delegations provided 26 percent of the support for cap and trade in the House. The bill’s prospects in the Senate. yes. the recession has caused the price of carbon permits to plummet.Editor at Kansas City Star (E. In Europe. That will add even more uncertainty to the business of energy production. but we have to understand that the short-term costs would be far less than the dire. fortunately. 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. That has undercut the competitiveness of solar. If Republicans hang together and peel off a few Democrats. those states together make up only 4 percent of the membership.com/275/story/1306026. Mitchell. 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. selfinflicted wound. Over time. you don’t. Thanks to the Senate’s rules. Kansas City Star. That won’t spur economic growth. it would involve economic pain. 7/4/09. the cap would become more restrictive. the price of carbon permits will fluctuate.S. As Jay Cost points out at the Real Clear Politics site. Now we’re told there won’t be any economic pain at all. when he remarked that under his cap-and-trade plan. the measure will need at least 60 votes. It will retard it. For the sake of the economy’s health. are grim because the same political dynamic that worked in the House won’t apply in the Senate. Like any commodity.” How do you end up with a vibrant economy and lots of net job creation by forcing people to pay higher energy prices? Well. impose an overall limit on emissions of greenhouse gases. Industries would then buy and sell permits to emit carbon. they can stop the bill dead in its tracks. Teddy & Megan .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. The legislation. and that’s why this measure is one of the biggest threats to the U. lowering permit costs and the cost of using fossil fuels. July 4th 2009. But in the Senate. by slowing the growth of consumer spending. they had better succeed. which seems likely.kansascity. (Lower-income households would get a rebate reducing their energy costs by $40. 143 Ellis. Cap-and-trade would be a crippling. wind and other new technologies aimed at boosting conservation. long-term consequences of doing nothing about global warming. and those price movements could be violent. would What’s more interesting is the change in approach.) The Heritage Foundation pointed out that incredibly the CBO study failed to include in its calculations the overall effect on economic growth. http://www. reducing CO2 emissions.html) Up to now. The whole purpose of the bill is to force people to pay more for energy. In fact. Not only that. “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Nor is it likely to work as its authors intend. The result will be lower output and fewer jobs. the two arguments are contradictory. economy ever to emerge on Capitol Hill. The House barely passed cap and trade — the vote was 219-212.
there is no doubt that imposing limits on energy will affect all other sectors of the economy. Since energy is the largest sector of the U. http://egpnews. President Barack Obama is calling on the Senate to act.000 job losses by 2014. Experts predict that more than nine million families will fall into poverty. these numbers are likely to increase.S. 144 Ellis.241 a year in additional energy costs as a result of cap-and-trade. Moreover. July 16th 2009. The President’s goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020 and by 83 percent by 2050. But the cap-and-trade system will create huge job losses and negatively impact an already failing economy. Not Emissions”.our evidence assumes green job increases Rosales. When the prices for daily commodities increase. Teddy & Megan .S. with 24 percent of African-Americans and 21 percent of Hispanics falling in this category. Small businesses in our community are struggling to survive. not reduce them. According to the U.Climate Politics Page 144 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: C&T Solves Economy – Green Jobs Cap and trade kills the economy . Census Bureau. will have to pay about $1. cap and trade is likely to increase greenhouse gases.S. on average. They are the ones who will have the greatest difficulty making ends meet. This legislation would cap the amount of carbon emissions permitted. the House of Representatives has passed a bill to reduce global warming emissions through a capand-trade system. With the cost of living increasing due to taxes imposed from this pending legislation. jobs in energy and manufacturing which will be lost will be replaced with less paying renewable energy jobs. For example. and housing). As some Republicans and Democrats who oppose the bill rightly argue. EGP News. Firms that reduce their emissions below the allowed amount would be able to trade their remaining credits to other companies. consumers will end up paying “hidden taxes” in other areas (like food. That’s over $100 per month. Poor and single-parent families I counsel are stretching to make ends meet. there are more than 37 million people living in poverty. And the jobs that will be lost because of cap and trade will likely go overseas to countries that do not have emissions caps. “Climate Change Legislation Caps Poor. all for a possible decrease in global temperatures of less than one-tenth of one degree by 2050. and Senate leaders say a vote will come this fall. A Sure Foundation. Due to the current economic recession. According to a study by the University of Massachusetts. transportation. A report by the National Association of Manufacturers estimates that limiting emissions by the projected amounts for 2050 will reduce U. it’s the poor who suffer the most. Small business owners will also struggle to stay afloat. Mitchell. which would decline over time. an independent study by the Heritage Foundation finds that every American family. Ironically at this time of economic difficulty. the average wage in “green energy” jobs is about 65 percent less than regular energy jobs. 7/16/09 (David. Ironically. gross domestic product by $269 billion with 850.com/?p=11346) Members of my congregation are concerned about losing their jobs. economy. low-income families will have a hard time putting food on the table.
S. Trucking is a highly competitive industry with very low profit margins. Inc. construction. Our industry can not absorb rapid increases in fuel costs. Department of Transportation. That is why the trucking industry is extremely sensitive to how climate change legislation may further escalate fuel prices. Committee on House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) This hardship surprises few in the industry.Climate Politics Page 145 of 156 7WJ – HPSW 2NC Trucking Industry Module Cap and trade will jack the trucking industry. service. all of whom operate in extremely competitive business environments with narrow profit margins. Vice President. Provisions to release more allowances to help mitigate fuel price spikes will not provide timely relief to our industry. while the price of diesel has nearly tripled during the same time period. Trucks haul nearly every consumer good at some point in the supply chain. public utility. Inc. According to the U. Trucking generates approximately $646 billion in revenue and represents roughly five percent of our nation's Gross Domestic Product. Even fewer are aware of the significant employment. 6/19/2008 (C. Over the past five years. ATA urges Congress to carefully evaluate other approaches to evaluate and address fuel price impacts that result from climate change legislation. Vice President. Committee on House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) With more than 750. One out of every 13 people working in the private sector in our country is employed in a trucking-related jobs ranging across the manufacturing. The trucking industry is composed of both large national enterprises as well as a host of small businesses. and tax revenue generated by the motor carrier industry. 96 percent of motor carriers have 20 or fewer trucks and are characterized as being small businesses. For most truckers. if they are making a profit at all. This explains why many trucking companies are reporting that higher fuel prices have greatly suppressed profits.can’t absorb costs and allowances don’t solve Mullett. transportation. Randall. Nearly nine million people employed in the trucking industry move approximately 11 billion tons of freight annually across the nation. Mitchell. retail. total industry consumption of diesel fuel has gone up 15 percent. Teddy & Megan . the trucking industry is the driving force behind the nation's economy. Government Affairs Con-way. 145 Ellis.5 million are commercial drivers. fuel has now surpassed labor as their largest operating expense. Randall. Trucking industry is key to the economy Mullett. and agricultural sectors.000 interstate motor carriers in the United States. 6/19/2008 (C. Few Americans realize that trucks deliver nearly 70 percent of all freight tonnage or that 80 percent of the nation's communities receive their goods exclusively by truck. Of those employed in private-sector trucking-related jobs. personal income. mining. Government Affairs Con-way. 3.
most critically. 6/19/2008 (C. Beyond equipment costs.000 and. Mitchell. 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. Diesel fuel provides greater fuel economy and the higher energy content necessary to transport widely diversified loads under extreme operating conditions. new diesel engine emission standards imposed by the U. These margins continue to be chipped away given the numerous and unprecedented costs being imposed upon the industry. but state regulatory mandates have substantially increased the financial burdens being placed upon our industry. Additional EPA diesel engine emission standards in 2007 drove Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2002 drove up engine costs on average of between $3. Not only have equipment costs increased due to federal requirements. Teddy & Megan . Burning diesel fuel is the main source of carbon emissions from our industry equating to 22. The average national price of diesel fuel this week is now over $4. We are extremely sensitive to rapidly shifting operating costs given our thin operating margins of between 2-4 percent. This means that a one-cent increase in the average price of diesel costs the trucking industry an additional $391 million in fuel expenses.margins thin Mullett.000 to $5. which is $1. Randall. For instance. 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. Government Affairs Con-way. Randall. In 2006 alone trucking consumed over 39 billion gallons of diesel fuel. 146 Ellis. 6/19/2008 (C. historical expenditures for fuel in the absence of any climate change legislation being passed. by many accounts.89 more than just one year ago. Inc.000 while decreasing fuel up the cost of engines between $8. Government Affairs Con-way. Inc.000 to $10. decreased fuel economy between 2-4%. Vice President.Climate Politics Page 146 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Trucking Industry Brink Trucking on the brink. economy between 6-8 percent. Vice President. Even small increase in fuel prices could devastate trucking industry Mullett.2 pounds of CO2 per gallon of fuel. 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 have experienced record increases in insurance premiums and.S.69 per gallon. I wish to further expand upon the critical role diesel fuel plays in our industry. 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.
Keep in mind that as the nation's population continues to grow.Climate Politics Page 147 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. Randall. interstate and diverse nature of our business operations. and clothing. Government Affairs Con-way. Inc. 147 Ellis. so does the corresponding demand for more consumer goods. Constraining the country's freight delivery system will do nothing short of shutting down life as we know it. 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. Vice President. 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.000 interstate motor carriers operating in the United States ranging from single truck operators to fleets with thousands of trucks. Trucking Key to Economy Trucking collapse jacks the entire economy Mullett. medicine. Teddy & Megan . 6/19/2008 (C. Approaches to dramatically reduce carbon emissions from line-haul trucks will curtail the delivery of vital consumer goods across the nation such as food. Mitchell. The table below clearly shows these relationships.
so most goods still have to travel the last legs of their journey by truck. San Diego Examiner. but a few mills have managed to remain in business. and the workers there lose jobs. but the interior of the nation will have to pay for the increased cost of moving goods to their cities and towns. Mitchell. Texas. the damage from Cap-and-Trade is not going to be from its direct impact. GreenChoice now would add about $58 a month to the electricity bill of an average home. The first is the fact that as the cost of energy increases due to the effects of Cap-and-Trade. which will have no carbon controls and therefore less expensive and more abundant energy is not a difficult choice. which has refused to participate in any carbon reduction treaties. Transporting products to markets is another energy intensive arena that businesses compete in. which noted: The reason is that GreenChoice prices have risen more than fivefold since the program started. but only a few locations are directly on or by the tracks on which trains run. A store finds that it can no longer obtain goods at a low enough price to sell them at a profit. One area the US once dominated is Steel. And this issue will have a higher impact on any manufacturing that actually produces carbon on its own. More than a few people have used this as a sign that the bill will not impact the economy heavily. 7/14/09. However.increases costs for businesses and encourages offshoring Vargus. Production will shift overseas as rapidly as companies can find alternative sites and prepare them for production. the US one will likely be closed or sold off as the cost of running it rises. the competitive advantage a nation such as China.examiner. The availability of goods also will change. companies will be less willing to ship products long distances unless prices can rise at the destinations. but anyone who does not see the truth that businesses will react negatively to Cap-and-Trade is ignoring reality. 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. Teddy & Megan . But such operations are power intensive and generate copious amounts of "greenhouse gases". Businesses need to be able to control their costs and plan for profitability. This is obvious. then that cost will impact business decisions and pricing. The industry in the US has already suffered greatly as lower labor costs in other nations ravaged profit margins. Most admit that their rigs get less than 8 miles-per-gallon on a good day. But the increased cost from having to purchase carbon credits will drive the price they must demand for the same products higher. The final area where costs will rise is logistics.com website. "Cap-and-Trade is a job killer". and if any business failed to make major changes to maintain its profitability once Cap-and-Trade goes into effect.San Diego Economic Examiner (Mark. All of this will mean lost jobs. but it’s not just the direct energy costs that come into play. Areas near the coasts will likely seen only a limited impact. Now. the US manufacturers will see foreign factories gain a competitive advantage not because of better schools or training. Energy availability also becomes a factor as companies planning large expansions of factories must consider if the local power supply is sufficient. Part of why some people call part of the Midwest the "Rust Belt' is the fact that the region used to have massive steel mills working round the clock preparing raw steel for other factories to use. With costs of transport increasing. 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. This was noted in an article published at the statesman. http://www. 148 Ellis. often finding niche markets that foreign mills aren't willing to enter. July 14th 2009. With consumer spending already dropping rapidly and unemployment rising. but because of regulations they must obey while their competitors do not suffer under the same restrictions. and open the door for foreign competitors to jump in with an alternative material or product. Businesses in the US are not run as non-profit organizations. Once again. Sadly. There are too many elements of this to list them all. has against US based manufacturers grows. if Cap-andTrade goes through and increases the cost of fuel for trains and trucks permanently. but there are three that generate the largest push for companies to move their operations.Climate Politics Page 148 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Bad – Competitiveness (1/2) Cap and trade kills competitiveness. 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. Right now Austin. these three issues all mostly concern the costs that businesses will face. I've talked to more than a few semi drivers who make the long hauls of goods and materials around this nation.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. If a company already has a factory overseas and one in the US. which created a major program to sell wind-derived electricity through the local utility company. For many manufacturers moving operations to China or India. A factory closes due to increased energy costs and the workers lose jobs. the CEOs tenure can be measured in days before the stockholders demand a new CEO be appointed who will protect their investments. Moving goods is less expensive by train.
It raises costs far too broadly to be avoided and with other nations making it clear that they will not join in and kill their own economies. the penalties to the US markets for passing this will be legion. Teddy & Megan . Mitchell. 149 Ellis.Climate Politics Page 149 of 156 7WJ – HPSW there is no sign that any business will welcome Cap-and-Trade and even less possibility that companies will add jobs after it goes into effect.
power. U. Mitchell. Israel and Egypt. the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. in general. particularly war's worst form: great power wars. increasing respect for human rights. should not even be attempted. most notably France and West Germany. South Korea and Japan. That solves nuclear wars everywhere Thayer. l/n) THROUGHOUT HISTORY. Indonesia and Australia." Consequently. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest. Some argue that the world may be at the beginning of another such transformation. During the Cold War.S. it is important to note what those good things are. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened. where 8.5 million Afghans. more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U. its relative position will necessarily worsen. Without U. their people would be better off. others would try to fill the Vacuum. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists.3 So. power. it is because they are more open. leadership. As the United States weakened. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S.S. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it). This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Today. 40 percent of them women. democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States. Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade.S. 6 (Bradley. prof. growing democratization--is directly linked to U. as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue. Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East. American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey. Britain or the United States today. Teddy & Megan . Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics. labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills.S. Its success will depend on the choices it makes. primacy. 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. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. and. whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is open to question. but nonetheless. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005 . the United States must maintain its technological lead in the economic realm. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel. The National Interest. which will shift the sources of wealth and If the United States fails to recognize the change and adapt its institutions. American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism.S. 150 Ellis. The first has been a more peaceful world. the relative position of classes and nations. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan. one gathers from the argument. power behind it. American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. To sustain and improve its economic strength. Rather. Indeed they do. a robust monetary regime. Second. become inward-looking. liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview. peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power--Rome. In addition.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. of security studies at Missouri State. It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. economy declines seriously.S. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because. even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. spreading democracy helps maintain U. In the past. the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. And so. November/December. and abandon more and more of its external interests. the domestic economic and political base for global leadership would diminish and the United States would probably incrementally withdraw from the world. Of course. voted in a critical October 2004 election. such as in Darfur. once states are governed democratically. 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. India and Pakistan. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. "In Defense of Primacy". In such an environment.
Kuwait. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive. By all accounts. Iraq. which are facilitated through American primacy. Mitchell. 151 Ellis. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal. They may not yet look like Western-style democracies. Morocco. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. 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. who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India. Abandoning the positions of his youth. Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization. Teddy & Megan . Asia and the Caucasus. Latin America. the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. particularly the poorest states in the Third World. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. and mobility of capital and labor markets. helping to ensure military prowess. Lebanon. respect for international property rights.Climate Politics Page 151 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe. Third. the march of democracy has been impressive. Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems. With its allies . Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology. and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank. but democratic progress has been made in Algeria. maximizes efficiencies and growth.
” A day later. http://www. cap-and-trade policies could produce significant harmful economic effects in the near term that would continue into the future. oil. To that point. told the “unprecedented threat to our way of life. the research coordinator for energy and climate policy at the Öko-Institut in Berlin. and natural gas) — mainly in electricity production. minimum renewable fuel inputs in electricity generation). or that sell products like gasoline that cause CO2 emissions when used. the hearings have provided a sober accounting of the economic hazards posed by overzealous government meddling in the marketplace. Mr. A carbon tax causes each firm and household to respond to the same cost of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. “Carbon caps. “The logic is not difficult to understand. they have been a raucous display of political peacocking and sniping With the prospect for a global climate treaty hinging. merits and implications of climate policy generally and a cap-and-trade system specifically. system. Mitchell. A common suggestion is to impose a tax on all CO2 emissions. http://www. the stakes are particularly high. they are reluctant to impose a general carbon tax because of public opposition to any form of taxation. the secretary of agriculture. as my colleague Kate Galbraith reported at our Green Inc. on the ability of the United States to find common ground on the issue at home. where they have no mandatory carbon caps. If the government sells these permits in A cap-and-trade system can cause serious risks to international trade. Such a tax would cause electricity companies and industrial firms to adopt techniques that reduce their CO2 emissions. attention has now moved to the Senate. Inhofe. on July 8. In addition. Matthes explained. etc. Implementation of cap and trade is a more serious threat to trade – tariffs would immediately lead to a new round of protectionism Feldstein. transportation. blog. Formerly Chairman Of President Ronald Reagan’s Council Of Economic Advisors and President Of The National Bureau For Economic Research (Martin. not least by a parade of witnesses now being called before various Senate committees and subcommittees to testify on the needs. C&T Kills Competitiveness Independent analysis finds cap and trade will destroy competitiveness – raises business costs and forces outsourcing Zeller. 6/27/09. “Peacocks and Passions in Senate Climate Debate”. be included in the price charged to consumers.” Mr. In a cap-and-trade system. June 27th 2009.Editor at New York Times (Tom Jr.” Jobs and businesses. Senate subcommittee that the E. 152 Ellis. Felix Matthes. The cap-and-trade system thus imposes a carbon tax without having to admit that it is really a tax. plummeting prices. particularly as rapidly industrializing nations — chiefly China — continue to resist the idea of implementing their own emission caps. 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. Earlier this month. House of Representatives having narrowly approved a climate change bill late last month. Those industries least likely to be harmed by the increased cost of having to buy emission permits at auction. 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. 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. 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. in no small part. While aimed at reducing long-term environmental damage. After all. “will move overseas.” had been tweaked. such as automobile mileage standards. Inhofe suggests is widely debated — perpetrated on the American people. At times. Although governments levy taxes on gasoline. and free allocation of permits has been widely curtailed — “because there’s a huge potential for perversion. Business Standard. 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. testified that American farmers and ranchers could benefit from carbon offset provisions in cap-and-trade legislation. are now being required to do so. the resulting permit an auction.U. Setting aside leaders like James M.com/2009/07/20/business/energy-environment/20iht-green20. which is busy debating just how to craft a version of its own. 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. raising the possibility of serious risks to international trade. Scientific evidence appears to indicate that the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels (primarily coal.” Whether or not that logic is as airtight as Mr. of course. Even if every country has a cap-andtrade system and all aim at the same relative reduction in national CO2 emissions. will severely damage America’s global economic competitiveness. Inhofe said in a speech on the Senate floor as his colleagues in the House were preparing to vote on their bill. Inhofe said. “Martin Feldstein: Cap-and-trade = protectionism?”. as long as the cost of doing so is less than the tax that they would otherwise have to pay. with long-term adverse effects on living conditions around the world. 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. 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.” he said. The higher cost of production incurred to reduce emissions — and of any emissions tax still due — would. 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. Tom Vilsack. which would be levied on companies that emit CO2 in production. now in its “third phase.Professor Of Economics At Harvard. 7/19/09. the European carbon trading system — the world’s largest and oldest — has been racked by volatile and.” among witnesses and elected officials who appear far from consensus. and various industrial processes — contributes to gradual global warming. according to reams of independent analyses.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. Mr. Yet we do not see carbon taxes being adopted. Teddy & Megan . weighed against the potentially grave consequences of doing nothing. 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. 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. July 19th 2009.Climate Politics Page 152 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. principally by raising the cost of doing business here relative to other countries like China. At other points.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1) With the U.business-standard.nytimes.S.. production technology standards (eg. more recently. Editor and writer for The New York Times covering alternative energy and green business.
Because the price of the CO2 permits in a country is reflected in the prices of its products. 153 Ellis. cap-and-trade systems in practice do not rely solely on auctions to distribute the emissions permits. the cap-and-trade system affects its international competitiveness. impose a complex set of regulatory policies. Such a system of complex differential tariffs is just the kind of protectionism that governments have been working to eliminate since the start of the GATT process more than 50 years ago. and allow companies to buy CO2 offsets (eg. by paying for the planting of trees) instead of reducing their emissions or buying permits. which in turn would invite those who want to protect domestic jobs to argue for higher tariff levels. Such complexities make it impossible to compare the impact of CO2 policies among countries. Teddy & Megan . Worse still. When the permit prices become large enough to have a significant effect on CO2 emissions.Climate Politics Page 153 of 156 7WJ – HPSW prices will differ because of national differences in initial CO2 levels and in domestic production characteristics. The plan working its way through the United States Congress (the Waxman-Markey bill) would initially give away 85 per cent of the permits. Mitchell. 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). there will be political pressure to introduce tariffs on imports that offset the advantage of countries with low permit prices.
the carbon dioxide reduction targets are still there. July 21st 2009. Teddy & Megan . China has already threatened retaliatory protectionist policies. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. the bill includes protectionist carbon tariffs to offset the competitive disadvantage U. The Foundry.) It would disrupt free trade. Mitchell. and the way they will be met is by raising the price of energy and thereby inflicting more economic pain. whether the cause is environmental. and their economies are built on exports to other countries. To counter this. When businesses are faced with the higher costs from an energy tax through a carbon capping policy. both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other.Climate Politics Page 154 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Bad – Free Trade Cap and trades kills trade – higher costs and tariffs The Foundry. the father of the nuclear disarmament movement. labor or paranoia about global government. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell. In a way. That's why bringing China. Another logical solution is for these companies to move overseas where they can make more efficient use of labor and capital. Although the government awarded handouts to businesses. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. As long as nations are trading peacefully. 154 Ellis. and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce. Actually. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own prosperity. the threat of hostility diminishes. Free trade solves extinction Copley News Service.heritage. They're special-interest activists. they just shift them around.org/2009/07/21/a-baker’s-dozen-of-reasons-to-oppose-cap-andtrade/) 9. 7/21/09 (“A Baker’s Dozen of Reasons to Oppose Cap and Trade”. To mask the economic pain. into the WTO is so important. a budding superpower. they have a major disincentive to wage war. But they're not. 1999) For decades. most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists. our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Free allowances do not lower the costs of Waxman-Markey. the government awarded 15 percent of the allowance allocations to energy-intensive manufacturers. firms would face. http://blog. many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. 99 (December 1. but also to forestall conflict with other nations.S. they can certainly make production cuts.
900. India.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lie beneath these "protected" acres. It will raise electricity rates 90% after adjusting for inflation. must hate America. Prices for gasoline and natural gas will rise by 74% and 55% respectively. reduce the aggregate domestic product (GDP) by an estimated $7. This bill will impoverish Americans and destroy the nation. 7/17/09.html) The Waxman-Markey bill is villainy on a grand scale. by the actions of this Congress. It is estimated to destroy 844. by definition. Out of 307 million Americans. meaningless. 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. The Waxman-Markey bill will.4 trillion. their children. very costly America. It is no accident that his Secretary of the Interior unilaterally cancelled 77 oil and gas leases or that. the keystone of capitalism. Even if the bill were to become law.000 jobs on average with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 1. "Cap-andTrade Bill: Villainy On A Grand Scale". It is estimated that 300 million barrels of oil and 8.000 jobs. Upon taking office. intended to reduce these gases. Teddy & Megan . it totally ignores the fact that all the other nations of the Earth will continue to generate "greenhouse gases.com/200907175536/energy-andenvironment/cap-and-trade-bill-villainy-on-a-grand-scale. live in a very different." The United Nations Kyoto Protocol. 155 Ellis. Its limits are. Society of Professional Journalists. The Democrats in Congress and the present occupant of the White House. but they.rightsidenews. Our present annual GDP is about $14 trillion. I seriously doubt that more than a relative handful know what Cap-and-Trade means or that it is even being debated. They pose the greatest threat to its future that has ever existed in our history. by their actions. http://www. July 17th 2009. by 2035. and all undeveloped nations. The government owns 607 million acres of land in a nation founded on the belief in the sanctity and power of private property. and babbling endlessly about "green jobs" as the real jobs of Americans are systematically destroyed. Mitchell. and their grandchildren will. It is no accident that President Obama and his acolytes keep calling for "clean energy". "energy independence".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. 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. purposefully exempted China. on March 25.Member of American Society of Journalists and Authors (Alan.
currently the Director of Energy and Climate Policy at the Breakthrough Institute. Bottom line: 156 Ellis. A win on healthcare helps raise the political capital necessary to pass a strong climate bill before Copenhagen. Mitchell. climate champions are insisting they will hold a vote this year. energy and climate policy analyst. 7/29/09 (Jesse. “DC Climate Bill Update. Wins beget wins.” http://itsgettinghotinhere. advocate.org/2009/07/29/dcclimate-bill-update-via-1sky/) Though healthcare floor action has been pushed until after the August recess. The White House is maintaining that both agenda items are the “valued children” of the Administration.Climate Politics Page 156 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Healthcare Kt Climate Healthcare passage key to strong climate bill Jenkins. and Foreign Relations Chairman Kerry (D-MA) is denying that the healthcare calendar will have any effect on climate (E&E). Teddy & Megan . and they will continue to press Congress to pass both this year. EPW Chairwoman Boxer and Agriculture Chairman Harkin (D-IA) have promised to stay on track with their committee pieces of the bill.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.