Climate Politics Page 1 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Climate Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate Politics Page 14 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Uniqueness: Will Pass – House And G8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

Climate Politics Page 15 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Uniqueness: Will Pass – AT: Mccain

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

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

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

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

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

15 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

Climate Politics Page 16 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Uniqueness: Will Pass – Vote Count

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

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

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

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

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

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

16 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mitchell. Boxer tried and failed a year ago to pass a climate change bill. Teddy & Megan . 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.Climate Politics Page 23 of 156 7WJ – HPSW The downshifting in the Democrats' agenda comes a day after a meeting of Obama's energy and climate change team at the White House.

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

given the likelihood that Republicans will lock down against it. Mitchell.) say they are skeptical of the climate change bill that passed the House last month. and Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif. Taylor.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 legislation has an uncertain future in the Senate. "Climate bill takes hit in Senate from China". Both Sen. Rushing 7/11/2009 (J. WEA) The refusal of China and other emerging economic powers to agree to emissions limits this week will make it tougher for key Senate Democrats to support a global warming bill. 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. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Sen. 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. http://thehill.) announced on Thursday that she is delaying the bill until after the August recess. 25 Ellis.html. the Hill. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.com/leading-the-news/climate-billtakes-hit-in-senate-from-china-2009-07-11. Brown. Teddy & Megan .

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

resolution: * there were two important Senate climate change votes in April on the Senate budget 67 Senators. including 13 Democrats. Mitchell. voted against creating fast-track reconciliation protections for a cap-and-trade bill.com/archives/2009/07/why-the-energy-bill-has-faces. As a reminder.dallasnews. regions such as the Midwest. including 27 Democrats.Climate Politics Page 27 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Senate Will Use Reconciliation No reconciliation—the Senate will have to get 60 votes to block a filibuster." 27 Ellis.html. http://energyandenvironmentblog. 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. rather than 51. meaning that supporters need 60 votes to pass a bill. Great Plains. 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. "Why the energy bill faces a tough Senate fight". *54 Senators. Teddy & Megan .S. Mitchell 7/2/2009 (Jim.

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

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

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

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

uk/environment/2009/jun/11/us-nuclear-industry-plans-new-reactors/print." said Joseph Romm.html? pagewanted=print.. 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." Sen. "Nuclear Title May Not Be Enough to Push Senate Climate Bill Over the Top". whose applications are now under review by the department of energy. including the former presidential candidate John McCain.. he said. 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.). chairman of the Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee. "If you care about climate change . envisages almost unlimited federal loan guarantees to encourage wind and solar power and.nytimes. Republican leaders." Romm said.US environment correspondent for the Guardian (Suzanne. New York Times. In the Senate. Republicans in the House of Representatives produced a spoiler version of the Democrats' climate change bill this week. One version. Mitchell. told reporters earlier this week. new reactors. This conclusion comes after discussions with Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif. he said. Reid this week said he would be open to a nuclear component but. "US nuclear industry tries to hijack Obama's climate change bill". a Republican from Tennessee who is the strongest proponent of nuclear power in the Senate.) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev. The "I think there will be a nuclear title. 100 new nuclear power plants is the place to start. "we just have to do it the right way. Other Republicans have called on the administration to underwrite the $122bn start-up costs of 19 nuclear reactors. Climate legislation will be a boon to the nuclear industry—Republicans and nuclear lobbies have hijacked it.. additional reporting from Allison Winter and Alex Kaplun and Darren Samuelsohn. http://www. But what should go in it and how much impact that might have for the nuclear industry is unclear." nuclear title on incentives for R&D . 32 Ellis.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. and proposes easing controls for new nuclear plants. making its potential role in climate negotiations muted. but I am not sure what else you can do for nuclear..com/cwire/2009/07/17/17climatewire-nuclear-title-may-not-be-enough-to-push-sena-19318. yes.).2bn) to $38bn. under consideration by the Senate. 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." said Lamar Alexander. The 152-page Republican bill contains just one reference to climate change. nuclear proponents hope.co.5bn (£11.guardian. http://www. a senior fellow with Center for American Progress. and staking a claim for the money to come from a proposed clean energy development bank. "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. ClimateWire. Ling 7/17/2009 (Katerine. "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. Goldenberg 6/11/2009 . Teddy & Megan . Another crucial element of the Republicans' "nuclear renaissance" are two rival proposals for a "clean energy bank" now before Congress. Tom Carper (D-Del. also called this week for loan guarantees for building new reactors to rise from $18. 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.

"Nuclear could benefit from U. The House of Representatives narrowly approved its version of the bill late last month and it included little mention of nuclear energy. 33 Ellis. Rueters. as they are about global warming. climate bill. http://www." Roy said.html.and incentives to build nuclear plants could help them deal with the expenses and provide new jobs. http://thehill. Timothy. "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.the fossil fuel that emits the most carbon dioxide -. a centerpiece of President Barack Obama's green agenda. said Manik Roy. which is a big emitter of CO2. is actually a solution to worsening global warming. WEA) NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U. Gardner 2009 (7/7. As many as 20 to A key question is whether the industry and its allies can convince enough lawmakers that nuclear power. Concessions for nuclear could help win them over. The Hill. and the coal and oil industries. "Nuclear lobby presses for more loan guarantees". a leading greenhouse gas. Teddy & Megan .reuters. 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.S. Obama will include nuclear incentives to help it pass Senate. That's anxious to see nuclear get incentives because because Midwestern utilities mainly burn coal -. a vice president for government outreach at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. long seen as an environmental headache due to its radioactive waste and potential safety risks. 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. Moderate Democrats from Midwestern states are especially utilities there could get slammed by greenhouse gas regulations. Legislation that caps carbon emissions could make nuclear power more economical relative to other sources of electricity such as coal. could stall in the Senate unless it contains incentives to help the nuclear power industry build the next generation of reactors.com/article/GCAGreenBusiness/idUSTRE56677B20090707. Snyder 6/21/2009 (Jim.com/leading-thenews/nuclear-lobby-presses-for-more-loan-guarantees-2009-06-21. climate bill".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. Mitchell. 25 of the 60 Senate Democrats are just as concerned about what the recession is doing to manufacturing.S.

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

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

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

former Economist writer and Nieman Fellow at Harvard (5/20. “our member companies will be able to start construction of planned projects that would otherwise need to be delayed or canceled due to current capital market conditions. nuclear.blogs. renewable energy industry associations sent a letter on Wednesday to President Obama urging him to speed the program along. Kate. cited “disagreements” between the Department of Energy and the Office of Management and Budget over regulations to carry out the loan guarantees.O. as has been a similar loan program that predates the stimulus. “With access to these loan guarantees. The signers represented virtually every type of clean energy — wind. New York Times Green Inc.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. the letter stated. Teddy & Megan . seen by Green Inc. combined heat and power. and the Office of Management and Budget over these regulations will produce a satisfactory result in a timely manner.com/2009/05/20/renewable-industries-askobama-to-speed-loan-guarantees/?pagemode=print. "Renewable Energy Industries Ask Obama to Speed Loan Guarantees".nytimes. Three months have gone by since the stimulus packaged passed. Galbraith 2009 . http://greeninc.” 37 Ellis. we have little confidence that ongoing discussions between D. Mitchell. WEA) Worried that an important loan-guarantee program has ground to a standstill. and biomass — and reflected the industry’s concern that a loan guarantee program for clean energy projects approved in the stimulus package was stuck in the federal bureaucracy.” “and The letter. solar.E. hydro. geothermal.” the letter continued.

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

Climate Politics Page 39 of 156 7WJ – HPSW 2020 to 2022 time frame. and 65. around the clock. These plants will produce clean. safe. Teddy & Megan . Mitchell.000 to 70.000 megawatts (or 45 to 50 plants) by 2030. reliable electricity. at a stable price. immune to price volatility in the oil and natural gas markets. 39 Ellis.

as well as Merill Lynch and Morgan Stanley ("Loan Guarantees for Advanced Nuclear Energy Facilities".pdf. this can be a substantial benefit for all the companies. regulatory and litigation-related risks that are unique to nuclear power. and residual uncertainties associated with the new. will likely require federal financial support to allow the companies and investors to director of the investment giant Lehman Brothers. and large initial capital investment. Lexis. including engineering design costs. Some of the more controversial aspects of new nuclear power include government support for new plants. taxpayer. 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. Platts Inside Energy. "Investors urge loan guarantees for nuclear plants".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 . and may make loan guarantees essential to attracting them. uncertainty over the rules and questions about nuclear waste still worry investors. a nuclear investment expert told a House panel last week. Teddy & Megan . Lenders and investors in the fixed income markets will be acutely concerned about a number of political. including the possibility of delays in commercial operation of a completed plant or “another Shoreham”. 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." 40 Ellis. and that investors remain wary. **also written with the managing directors for Goldman. We believe these risks. Derek.S. http://www. James Asselstine. lawmakers pressed six representatives of the nuclear industry. "The total cost of the plant. including the regulated utilities that are considering a new nuclear project. WEA) Despite new licensing regulations meant to streamline the construction of new nuclear power plants. a point that investors are watching. of a new nuclear project.*Managing director of Export and Agency Finance Group for Citigroup. Mitchell.lgprogram. "Some factors. move forward with new nuclear plant commitment. A federal commitment to loan guarantees resolves regulatory uncertainty surrounding federal policy that would otherwise prevent investment Sands 2008 (4/28. but as yet untested NRC licensing process." Asselstine said.energy. such as magnitude.gov/nopr-comments/comment29. In a hearing of the House Science and Technology Committee. 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. will make lenders unwilling at present to extend long-term credit to such projects in a form that would be commercially viable. combined with the higher capital costs and longer construction schedules of nuclear plants as compared to other generation facilities. Sachs & Co." Asselstine said. he said. complexity. an environmental group and nuclear research community on the future of nuclear power. "Given federal loan guarantee can help to facilitate the availability of debt financing for up to 80% of the the magnitude for a new nuclear plant investment.

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

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

In essence. and Matthew L. http://www. 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.org/archive/2007/08/01/2910. Teddy & Megan . at Mr. Andrews and Wald 2007 (Edmund L. Congress limited the government to awarding just $4 billion in loan guarantees for clean energy projects during the 2007 fiscal year. Last year." Mr. Mr..Climate Politics Page 43 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Loan Guarantees Expensive Loan guarantees pay for themselves. Domenici. "There should already be $25 billion to $30 billion in the loan guarantee fund. Mitchell. WEA) That is a big change. the government is only allowed to guarantee a volume of loans authorized each year by Congress. Domenici told James Nussle. "It is very clear that this is a self-financing program. Mr. Under current law. Nussle's confirmation hearing last week. "US energy bill aids expansion of atomic power".commondreams." 43 Ellis. Bush's nominee to become the White House budget director. New York Times. 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. who has been pushing the Energy Department to move much more aggressively in approving loan guarantees.

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

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

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

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

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

"Water consumption at nuclear power plants". Nuclear Energy Institute. Geological Survey (USGS). http://www.3 percent—less than half of the freshwater consumed by residential use (6.7 percent). Nuclear power plants circulate water to cool equipment. according to the U. NEI 2008 (July. electricity generation accounts for 3. Nuclear power plants have a small environmental impact and produce reliable electricity in a wide range of weather conditions. This water continuously is returned to its source and never is exposed to radioactive material. Mitchell. but actually consume a small amount of water relative to other uses in the modern world. WEA) Power plants circulate significant volumes of water in the process of generating electricity.S.org/keyissues/protectingtheenvironment/factsheets/waterconsumptionatnuclearpowerplants. 53 Ellis. Teddy & Megan . Nuclear power plants consume less water per unit of electricity produced than some forms of renewable energy. Of all the freshwater consumed in the United States.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.

the researchers say. i.e. 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. taxation and public finance for comprehensive action. 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.com/releases/2009/07/090713085248. will ultimately help in preventing catastrophic climate change in the long term.4%) and sea water (28. 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. sets out the domestic actions required to meet its carbon budgets. global warming. a new report commissioned by the Prime Minister Gordon Brown concluded today. melting ice (33. WEA) Attempting to tackle climate change by trapping carbon dioxide or switching to nuclear power will not solve the problem of global warming. Nordell adds.. so-called carbon dioxide sequestration.egovmonitor. apart from emissions covered under the EU Emissions Trading System where limits on offsetting are set at EU level. according to energy calculations published in the July issue of the International Journal of Global Warming. tackle deforestation and adapt to the climate change already being experienced. http://www. 26%. They suggest that scientists must also take into account the total energy of the ground. natural variations in climate and/or an underestimation of net heat emissions. while the remaining heat is stored in the ground (31. But the same calculations also show that trapping carbon dioxide. The researchers have calculated that the heat energy accumulated in the atmosphere corresponds to a mere 6. is due to the greenhouse effect.com/node/26497/print. Mark Lazarowicz MP said: “Climate change is an international threat that needs international action. and the missing heat may be much less. The "missing" heat. Carbon markets themselves will not however be sufficient to successfully tackle climate change and are needed alongside strong domestic action to cut emissions. The researchers also point out a flaw in the nuclear energy argument.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. Mark Lazarowicz MP. 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. http://www. The UK’s Low Carbon Transition Plan. The carbon market could provide a significant proportion of that sum. published on 15 July. Their calculations suggest that most measures to combat global warming.6% of global warming. Experts Say". “Cap and trade should be combined with targeted regulation. 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. These calculations are actually rather conservative. 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. WEA) A global carbon trading network will be vital to preventing dangerous climate change. eGov Monitor 7/20/2009 . This report proposes action in 54 Ellis. The UK Government is committed to meeting its required 34% cut in emissions by 2020 through domestic action alone." Nordell explains.the US Department of Energy and Climate Change ("Carbon trading vital to climate change success – PM Report". and storing it deep underground or on the sea floor will have very little effect on global warming. The evidence shows that global carbon trading can deliver substantial cuts in greenhouse gases rapidly and costeffectively. ice masses and the seas if they are to model climate change accurately. Teddy & Megan . Mitchell. "Since net heat emissions accounts for most of the global warming there is no or little reason for carbon dioxide sequestration.htm. the researchers say.sciencedaily. during that period. 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. such as reducing our reliance on burning fossil fuels and switching to renewables like wind power and solar energy.5%). by the Prime Minister’s Special Representative on Carbon Trading. The report makes clear that without a global system for carbon trading. the ability of countries to avoid dangerous climate change will be limited and the costs of action increased. The Global Carbon Trading report. "The increasing carbon dioxide emissions merely show how most net heat is produced.5%).

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

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

Climate Politics Page 57 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Solar Solves Solar is too intermittent and costly. recently told investors that its largest market. Berkeley's Haas School of Business and director of the UC Energy Institute. the world's largest solar company. Jack and Nicolas. Solar.000– $51. solar is intermittent: It produces electricity only when the sun is shining.[6] Other problems have arisen as well. Like wind. Heritage Foundation. equal to 103 megawatts of capacity. a professor at the University of California.. [8] It is therefore difficult to conclude that wind or solar power should be built at all. He looked at the costs of 26. 57 Ellis.000) far outweighed their value ($19. that have received state support from California and found that their cost ($86.000). Teddy & Megan . Given the low cost needed to operate a nuclear plant. 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. lifetime costs are very low once the plant has been constructed. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (6/19.*research fellow in nuclear energy. The general economic problems of solar power were recently described in a study by Severin Borenstein.000–$91. "Critics of nuclear power's costs miss the point". Mitchell. Spencer and Loris 2008 . **research assistance in the Thomas A.522 photovoltaic solar panel installations. Inc. http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1961. the European Union.[7] To replace the cadmium model with a silicon-based model would quadruple the production costs. For example.cfm. WEA) Solar energy projects are also running into trouble. may ban its solar panels because they contain toxic cadmium telluride.

worldwatch." Foster said. "Growing optimism for U. Block 2009 (1/30. "Although The House of Representatives approved a plan on Wednesday that would provide about $100 billion of support for renewable energy. energy efficiency. passage of the stimulus bill would be extremely successful.S.org/node/6000. in order to create a more sustainable solution to current economic.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. climate change bill". Teddy & Megan . WorldWatch Institute. But Congress needs to overhaul the entire economy. and climate change crises. transportation. with an enormous trade deficit. executive director of the Blue-Green Alliance.with oil at $147 per barrel.that is the model that got us into this mess. a collaboration of labor unions and environmental groups. energy. through a price on carbon." 58 Ellis. and with a terrible global warming problem on our hands . "We really have created an unsustainable economic model. we can't slow down and we can't stop there. WEA) If climate change legislation fails to pass this year. http://www. and environmental restoration projects. said David Foster. Ben. 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. Mitchell. To think we can somehow stabilize that and go back to doing business as we were in the summer of 2008 .

You really want to go for two? Timeframe = this year. David.cfm? Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay." said Tony Juniper. WEA) That’s a smart answer. If we don’t address it very dramatically and very soon." Tipping point is coming soon where climate change will be unstoppable. The grave danger we face and the need to take vigorous global action to reduce GHG emissions without delay are clear. So far we’ve raised the temperature less than one degree Celsius.resident scholar at Middlebury (Bill. Governments must cooperate to cut industrial emissions while at the same time halting deforestation.co.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. http://www. the Guardian. LVW climate change taskforce. http://www. 59 Ellis.uk/?page=editorial&id=1164&catID=17. League of Women Voters. and accelerate the melting of ice. "Environment: race against time". WEA) If we allow GHG emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation to continue to grow at their present rates. and that’s melted the Arctic. The Guardian. 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. then some halfway plan is a good fallback – you can come back in a decade and make it stronger.co. or it will get beyond our control McKibben 7/15/2009 . but the alarming thing now is the level of certainty because real world observations are feeding into the computer models. http://www. increase water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere. because those feedback loops are taking the outcome out of our hands. the first truly timed test we’ve ever faced.lwv.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print. "Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change. the warming that will follow can be expected to decrease albedo3 (reflectivity) and increase the rate of absorption of solar energy near the poles.guardianweekly. "There really is no time for delay. scientists say". WEA) "People have known about the links between climate and forests for some time.cfm&CONTENTID=13409. melt Arctic tundra. But global warming is different.org/AM/Template. Mitchell. If he can’t get national health care through the Congress. "POSITIVE FEEDBACKS AND CLIMATE RUNAWAY THE NEED TO ACT WITHOUT DELAY". otherwise we'll have a mass extinction and a global warming catastrophe. Climate change is happening more rapidly than anyone expected.guardian. for almost every other issue on earth.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. Tolman 2009 (4/30. Teddy & Megan . Adam 2009 (3/11. release stores of carbon from soils and sea floors. an environmental campaigner and Green party candidate.

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

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

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

http://www.iberkshires. This would force the economy to gradually adapt by reducing emissions through energy conservation. or they can buy permits from other companies who have made these investments. "CAP AND TRADE CAN FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING EFFECTIVELY WHILE ALSO PROTECTING CONSUMERS".php?story_id=31496. Mitchell.Massachusetts representative on the House Appropriations Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation.*Chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Electric power plants. and greater use of alternative clean energy technologies.pdf. The number of emissions permits will decrease over time. By 2050. oil refineries. 63 Ellis. former executive director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. combined with the bill's other provisions. A Over time. 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. Hannah Shaw. 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.cbpp. Teddy & Megan . 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. improved energy efficiency. When combined with vehicle efficiency and biofuel standards enacted in 2007. this system. Permits will be bought and sold on a carefully regulated market. **BA in economics and masters degree in social work from U Michigan (3/3. 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. HR 2454 will reduce America's dependence of foreign oil by 5 million barrels a day by 2030. leading to steady emissions reductions. Chad Stone. while the permit market ensures that cuts are made in the most economical way possible.com/story. C&T Solves Warming Cap and trade solves warming. 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. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Stone et al 2009 . Housing and Urban Development (John W.. Cap and trade is an adjustable mandate that we can target to the right level of emissions. Olver 7/6/2009 . http://www. The carbon cap will thus unleash a wave of investment. "Letter From Olver: House Passes Comprehensive Energy Legislation". would reduce total global warming emissions 83 percen below 2005 levels. the number of emissions allowances would shrink in order to achieve the substantial emissions reductions that scientists say are necessary to curb global warming.Climate Politics Page 63 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext.org/files/3-3-09climate.

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

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

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

Climate Politics Page 67 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Cap And Trade Modeled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

67 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

Climate Politics Page 68 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Cap And Trade Modeled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

68 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

Climate Politics Page 69 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Cap And Trade Modeled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

69 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

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

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

" Chu said there is much the countries can do. including improving technology to reduce carbon emissions and increasing energy efficiency.Climate Politics Page 72 of 156 7WJ – HPSW China Key To Solve Warming China cooperation is key to make emissions reductions effective. "The US and China have what it takes to meet the world's energy challenge. 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. Both were visiting China for the first time as part of the Obama administration.htm. as best we can and as many things as we can. 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. "One of the most important things is mutual cooperation. 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. he said. Mitchell. which both China and the US have in abundance. The objective of the planned joint clean energy research center. 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.com. China Daily 7/17/2009 ("China-US climate teamwork evolving". http://www. 72 Ellis. to share. WEA) Cooperation between China and the US is crucial in meeting the climate change challenge." Chu said.cn/china/200907/17/content_8439207. Teddy & Megan . the technology.chinadaily.

Combining their estimates with standard climate model assumptions. it will alter earth system processes. These are typically runaway processes in which global temperature rises lead to further releases of CO². which provides information about glacial-interglacial cycles over hundreds of thousands of years. Now. WEA) Studies have shown that global climate change can set-off positive feedback loops in nature which amplify warming and cooling trends. Teddy & Megan . Also increases feedback mechanisms to cause runaway warming. and so on. have co-authored a paper entitled: Missing feedbacks. Adam 2009 (3/11. resulting in additional atmospheric greenhouse gas loading and additional warming. scientists say". the Guardian.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print.” said Torn. and on the impacts of anthropogenic activities on terrestrial ecosystem processes. may be off by nearly 2. also releases carbon into the atmosphere. 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.guardian. they calculated how much these rising concentration levels caused global temperatures to climb. “The results indicate a future that is going to be hotter than we think.com/releases/2006/05/060522151248. then when our anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming. and has authored or co-authored numerous books on environmental sciences. Torn is an authority on carbon and nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems. asymmetric uncertainties. “If the past is any guide. http://www. a UC Berkeley professor in the Energy and Resources Group and in the Ecosystem Sciences Division of the College of Natural Resources.sciencedaily. the researchers were able to estimate the amounts of carbon dioxide and methane. which are predicting a global temperature increase of as much as 5. that were released into the atmosphere in response to past global warming trends.based on research by the DOE's Climate Change Resarch Division and the National Science Foundation (5/22.8 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. including the highly praised Consider a Spherical Cow: A Course in Environmental Problem Solving.htm. David.Climate Politics Page 73 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Positive Feedbacks Continued warming causing feedbacks—this amplifies warming beyond control. Harte has been a leading figure for the past two decades on climate-ecosystem interactions. http://www. WEA) Positive feedback Amazon dieback is one of the key positive feedbacks brought about by global warming. which appears in the May. 2006 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters (GRL). Their results point to global temperatures at the end of this century that may be significantly higher than current climate models are predicting.co.” said Margaret Torn. increased forest death. Torn and Harte make the case that the current climate change models. further increasing carbon dioxide and methane emissions. "Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change. "Feedback Loops In Global Climate Change Point To A Very Hot 21st Century". who heads the Climate Change and Carbon Management program for Berkeley Lab’s Earth Sciences Division. Science Daily 2006 . two of the principal greenhouse gases. Using as a source the Vostok ice core. She and John Harte. and the underestimation of future warming. which in turn brings about more global warming. Mitchell. In their GRL paper.0 degrees Celsius because they only take into consideration the increased greenhouse gas concentrations that result from anthropogenic (human) activities. and is an Associate Adjunct Professor in UC Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group. 73 Ellis. In the Amazon this happens on a more localised scale but the result.

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

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

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

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

Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2407. **research assistant in the Thomas A. the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to file environmental impact statements for EPA review before moving forward with projects. before a shovel can break ground. if not years.S. According to the Government Accountability Office.[5] Granting the authority for one of the largest and unprecedented regulatory undertakings in U. Though the Administration recently enacted a stimulus bill and touted "shovel ready" construction projects to boost the economy. Teddy & Megan . history would greatly expand the EPA's power. Beyond the costs of such actions. would be a chilling shift to a command-and-control system in which EPA officials regulate just about every aspect of the market. it could take 5.*senior policy analyst in Energy and the Environment for the Heritage Foundation. 78 Ellis. Along For instance. all in the name of combating global warming.6 years for a project to jump through all the normal environmental hoops. EPA regulations would essentially assure that a great deal of such economic activity would be held up for months. Loris and Lieberman 2009 .org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2407.heritage. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (4/23. normally it takes a federal with the Clean Water Act's Section 404 requirements.4 years to complete a NEPA review. WEA) Having EPA bureaucrats micromanage the economy. construction project an average of 4. Mitchell. http://www.cfm. "Five Reasons the EPA Should Not Attempt to Deal with Global Warming".Climate Politics Page 78 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: EPA Regulation Solves EPA management fails. the red tape and permitting delays are almost unfathomable.

Mitchell. Russia. "Coupled models are becoming increasingly reliable tools for understanding climate and climate change. http://www. Scientific opinion on climate change In the study.sciencedaily.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. Australia. Germany. Earlier this year. 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. they compare the output of the models against observations for present climate." The many hours of studying models and comparing them with actual climate changes fulfills the increasing wish to know how much one can trust climate models and their predictions. "Climate Models Look Good When Predicting Climate Change". working group one of the IPCC released its fourth global warming report. 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. France. Given the significance of climate change research in public policy. Great Britain. Teddy & Megan . and the United States. "We can now place a much higher level of confidence in model-based projections of climate change than in the past. and the best models are now capable of simulating present-day climate with accuracy approaching conventional atmospheric observations. 79 Ellis. Most of these models project a global warming trend that amounts to about 7 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years.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). Canada. 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. 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. Korea. environmentalists and even scientists. WEA) The accuracy of computer models that predict climate change over the coming decades has been the subject of debate among politicians." said Reichler. Of course. the study's results also provide important response to critics of global warming. To this end.htm.

cfm&CONTENTID=13409.org/AM/Template. Teddy & Megan . League of Women Voters.lwv. "POSITIVE FEEDBACKS AND CLIMATE RUNAWAY THE NEED TO ACT WITHOUT DELAY".Climate Politics Page 80 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Warming Anthropogenic Climate change is anthropogenic Tolman 2009 (4/30. http://www. LVW climate change taskforce.cfm? Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay. and agricultural practices are changing the composition of the atmosphere (increasing the concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs. population growth. and sulfates) and changing the surface of the land. deforestation. soot. and natural gas). WEA) Burning fossil fuels (coal. Mitchell. including melting large areas that have been covered by ice and snow. 80 Ellis. oil. 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.

outstripping the climate models by decades. The Guardian. "Environment: race against time".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. Oceanographers reported – incredulously – that we’d managed to make the oceans 30% more acidic.". And the last decade was on average the hottest ever recorded. and much faster than expected. Those observations changed everything – and they produced what is almost certainly the most important number in the world. A particularly common obfuscation from rightwing pundits is the "revelation" that global temperatures have been declining since 1998.0. Surveys of high altitude glaciers showed they were uniformly melting. It wasn’t just Arctic ice.latimes. As we head toward the crucial Copenhagen talks slated for December. WEA) The clamor from global-warming deniers has heated up as the nation gets closer to taking action. Mitchell.” Since we’re already at 390ppm. LA Times 7/10/2009 ("Global warming: The heat is on the U. the message was clear: we don’t need to buy an insurance policy to reduce the threat of future warming. A Nasa team headed by James Hansen reported that the maximum amount of carbon the atmosphere can safely hold is 350ppm. and global warming had gone from future threat to present crisis. at least if we want a planet “similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted. Teddy & Megan . even as carbon emissions during the intervening 11 years have risen. and we need it now.story. 81 Ellis. at about the same time methane levels in the atmosphere began to spike. Obama and the rest of the world’s political class are still using the dated science and its now stale conclusions.uk/?page=editorial&id=1164&catID=17. http://www. 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. almost to the week. given the recalcitrance of everyone from China’s Central Committee to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. McKibben 7/15/2009 . But politicians haven’t caught up.4746209.” They misinterpret short-term statistical blips—our overall climate theory is still intact. Such statistical blips are properly ignored by most climatologists.resident scholar at Middlebury (Bill. We need a fire extinguisher. This hardly debunks the climate change theory. The cyclical El Niño phenomenon and heavy greenhouse gas concentrations combined to make 1998 the hottest year in recorded history. Clearly we’d passed a threshold.guardianweekly.S.co.com/news/opinion/la-ed-summit102009jul10. 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. It’s easy to understand why: reaching a deal that would meet even that 2 degree target is incredibly hard. apparently as a result of thawing permafrost. http://www. who look at average temperatures over time rather than year-to-year data. yet their comprehension of climate science hasn't improved. WEA) But two years ago.

“Earth’s ‘Fever’ Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way.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. opinion writers.. less ice and rising seas should heat-trapping greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and forests continue to accumulate in the air. Andrew C. Arctic sea ice returning with a vengeance after a record retreat last summer. a year after it was in the opposite warm El Niño pattern. the communications director for the Republican minority on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "Skeptics on Human Climate Impact Seize on Cold Spell". a scientist at Remote Sensing Systems. 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.” read a blog post and news release on Wednesday from Marc Morano.” he said. He pointed to similar drops in 1988. and a sharp drop in the globe’s average temperature. “The current downturn is not very unusual. Calif. 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. it is mostly good old-fashioned weather. http://www.nytimes. political operatives and other people who challenge warnings about dangerous human-caused global warming have jumped on this as a teachable moment. Mitchell. 82 Ellis.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print. Revkin 2008 (3/2. a private research group in Santa Rosa.com/2008/03/02/science/02cold. 1991-92. Many scientists also say that the cool spell in no way undermines the enormous body of evidence pointing to a warming world with disrupted weather patterns. including some who question the extent and risks of global warming. and 1998.” said Carl Mears. New York Times. Teddy & Megan .. which is in its La Niña phase for a few more months. So what is happening? According to a host of climate experts. along with a cold kick from the tropical Pacific Ocean. It is no wonder that some scientists. 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. “Temperatures are very likely to recover after the La Niña event is over. paralyzing blizzards in China.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The International Monetary Fund estimates global trade will contract 2.3 billion. CFR's Jagdish Bhagwati questioned U. such as excluding foreign companies from bidding on a recent wind power project. Since the United States has few sticks to bring to the climate negotiating table. Rather. Michael A. Teddy & Megan . however. Congress should make sure that in crafting U. no one country's industries will be unfairly disadvantaged.S.8 percent in 2009 (WSJ). Mr.com/2009/7/china-warns-us-carbon-tariff-will-invite-retaliation. Ultimately. American enterprises say that China encourages the development of local enterprises by restraining foreign energy companies from entry into the Chinese market. http://www. Protectionism up now—World Economic Forum meeting proves. the short-term trade outlook isn't particularly rosy. Many of the financial sector's major players skipped the summit altogether (Bloomberg). President Barack Obama's pronouncements on trade. "We will only make the crisis worse if we succumb to the lure of protectionism and petty nationalism.1 percent in 2008. particularly among the leaders of emerging economies. Teslik 2009 . Egypt's party scene. Significant threats loomed for free-trade hawks well before Davos.S.org/publication/18429/. In a recent op-ed. Trade policy could emerge as a flashpoint in the weeks and months to come. Council on Foreign Relations. particularly as major developed economies seek to implement stimulus packages to boost their domestic economies. As a result." added Angel Gurria. trade competitors all impose new and similar climate costs on their energy-intensive industries. progress on the international front will depend mainly on cooperative action. saying such policies could backfire (Guardian).David M. its trade measures don't unnecessarily aggravate the external relationships that will be needed to get that done.cfr. The concern for policymakers. Lee Hudson.S. "Gloomy Portents for Global Trade". 98 Ellis. trade minister echoed concerns (Reuters) about protectionism.org/publication/19674/. climate legislation. and several big banks cancelled the glitzy parties they have traditionally hosted at the summit. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao backed Putin. in an article published on the OECD's website. the World Economic Forum's annual mega-summit in the Swiss Alps found itself at a crossroads. If we win our modeling claims then you do not have a protectionism turn.chinastakes. WEA) Amidst the worst economic crisis in decades. though. as did India's (Reuters). rebates will vanish.Climate Politics Page 98 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Trade Turn China is already acting protectionist in the energy sector.html. The Financial Times' John Gapper says the Davos was different this year. WEA) In the long term. Obama aside . saying Obama has ignored lessons from the Depression era. "Trade and Climate Change". Mitchell. "China Warns US: Carbon Tariff Will Invite Retaliation". too. saying world leaders must remain vigilant (Xinhua) in their efforts to curb trade protectionism. But if major U. Democrats are pushing for "Buy American" provisions to be included in President Barack Obama's proposed stimulus package. face strong protectionist pressures. prototypal "Davos Man"--the international captain of finance whose prominence and significance has risen meteorically in recent decades--seemed humbled. Pleas for economic openness rang out at this year's summit. http://www. degree from Harvard (1/30. then. Over time. Levi 2009 . valued around $3. the only solution to the competitiveness problem is global climate action.S.cfr. 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. 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. U. The World Bank also projects a contraction--the first decline in global trade since 1982.assistant editor and economics writer for CFR. http://www. 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.S.. ChinaStakes 7/16/2009 (Chinese business news. WEA) China has also come under criticism for protectionism. compared to an expansion of 4. 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. the United States can't cut through this thicket by itself. 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. the secretary-general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. most of the rationale for the U. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned against reliance upon intervention and protectionism to cure economic ills. CFR. French leaders. Locke said that China could not close its markets. for keeping a fair and open market was the consensus reached between leaders of the two countries at the G20 meeting in London.

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

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

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

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. Less than two months later we approved a budget containing unprecedented support for mass transit and energy innovation. 2454.400 per household by 2030. Six months ago we passed an economic recovery act with investments in smart infrastructure and sustainable job creation. will create 1. buildings. could save approximately $1.R. as outlined in this bill.k. Retrofits will employ building specialists and construction workers while burgeoning solar and wind industries will need machinists.php?story_id=31496. the American Clean Energy and Security Act (a.com/article/gwmCarbonEmissions/idUS363785493920090624. Dollar for dollar.com/story.a. the improved efficiency standards the bill creates for appliances. 2454. Housing and Urban Development (John W.000 per household per year by 2030. which are estimated at over $4. investments in a clean energy economy create four times as many jobs as investments in the oil and gas industry. 70 percent of which will go to Advanced Energy Research and 30 percent of which will go to "Energy Innovation Hubs" at universities. Mitchell. The Center for American Progress estimates that the transition from foreign oil to clean American energy. And unlike other jobs. as well as changes to the bill made in a Rule's Committee version of the bill released yesterday.reuters. 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. laborers.050 per household by 2020 and $4. the most important one yet. 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 bill also changed the distribution of R&D funds. And according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. http://www. This is a welcome change from the Bush administration energy plan. Waxman-Markey). "Letter From Olver: House Passes Comprehensive Energy Legislation". and in many ways.Climate Politics Page 102 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: C&T Kills Economy Cap and trade is the best stimulus—it will create millions of jobs and improve overall efficiency. the American Clean Energy and Security Act".R. In addition. Changes to ACEEE's analysis come from an updated assessment of savings from a number of provisions. Olver 7/6/2009 . Efficiency mandates in the cap and trade bill solve any cost concerns. and power plants will create 770. Rueters 6/24/2009 ("Updated Energy Savings Analysis of H. 10 percent of the SEED (State Energy and Environmental Development) program is set aside for transportation programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.iberkshires. Teddy & Megan . 102 Ellis.7 million American jobs over the next two years alone. These estimates do not take into account savings from energy efficient appliances. this is the perfect opportunity to make significant investments in industries that will become the base of a new American economy.Massachusetts representative on the House Appropriations Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation. ACES represents the next step.000 jobs by 2030.. We have passed legislation to green our schools and preserve 2 million acres of wilderness.100 between 2001 and 2007. and engineers. jobs based on clean energy and energy efficiency depend on American resources and cannot be shipped overseas. As our nation faces high unemployment and an ailing auto industry. which raised the average American household's energy costs by $1. factories. WEA) The federal energy efficiency provisions included in H. http://www.

and Sharon Parrott. Bishu 7/17/2009 (Deswta. reduce harmful carbon emissions. http://www. which equals 22 cents to 30 cents per day. 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.050 cumulatively and produce more than 300. 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. Stone et al 2009 .pdf. households between $80 and $111 per year. WEA) • Protect consumers from energy price increases. Mitchell. The U. the 27 nations of the European Union have operated a cap-and-trade system since 103 Ellis. 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.” Let’s quantify it—the most official studies cite the cost to consumers at 30 cents a day.000 jobs by 2020. with the result that no significant “tax increase” occurs. Budget Office projected an annual cost of $175 for U. "House Passes Landmark Climate Change Bill. That is what the President’s proposal would do. green jobs here at home and help revive America’s long suffering manufacturing sector. Now Heads to Senate".” said Phil Angelides.com/articles/14962.”1 Several northeastern states have already implemented a cap-and-trade system on a regional basis as part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Calif.S. 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.S. According to estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency. Ethiopian Review.com/articles/14962. Chad Stone. in addition to raising the cost of using “dirty” energy. Ethiopian Review. households up to $1. “This legislation American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.ethiopianreview. households by 2020.S. http://www.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. "CAP AND TRADE CAN FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING EFFECTIVELY WHILE ALSO PROTECTING CONSUMERS". 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.and create millions of green jobs that will put our citizens back to work and get our economy back on track. the reductions in carbon pollution required by the legislation will cost American families less than a postage stamp per day. http://www. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. a well-designed cap-andtrade program also raises substantial revenue that can be returned to consumers to offset the effect of higher energy costs on their budgets. “The American Clean Energy And Security Act is a giant leap forward to establish energy security.ethiopianreview. chairman of the Apollo Alliance.cbpp.*Chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. WEA) Oakland. 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. Hannah Shaw. It ignores the fact that. former executive director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress.” Green For All CEO Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins said in a statement.-based nonprofit Green For All. Now Heads to Senate". That claim is misleading because it focuses on just one aspect of the Administration’s cap-and-trade proposal. In addition. CBO calculates that the legislation will cost the average household less than 50 cents per day. **BA in economics and masters degree in social work from U Michigan (3/3. A separate analysis from the Congressional Prefer our evidence—indicts of the proposal ignores offset mechanisms that blunt any economic impact. called the bill a significant step forward in creating a more equitable and secure country. 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.org/files/3-3-09climate. Teddy & Megan .

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

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

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

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

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

Teddy & Megan . are better served by [participating] in shaping rules and procedures rather than in sulking outside the tent. Mathews wrote. which is epitomized by the U. Mitchell. Climate change is the leading edge of an increasing number of problems that are truly global in scope. 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. leadership.S. position on climate change. political or military supremacy. . into a community of Western democracies and Third World dependents ready to fall into line behind U. posture.' 109 Ellis. Though Europe cannot challenge U." she wrote at the end of 2001. 'America's interests.S.Climate Politics Page 109 of 156 7WJ – HPSW United States. and approximately equal gross domestic product. . Her conclusion: The current U. could well result in the loss of Americas position as global political leader. a larger percentage of world trade. not to mention its legitimacy and capability as a world leader. 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.S. the world's single superpower must acknowledge that its power no longer translates .S.

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. known as Waxman-Markey.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 . But the devil is in the details--and the current bill gets the details wrong. CFR. Mitchell. "Trade and Climate Change". and chemicals toward unregulated (or less regulated) competitors abroad. Nonetheless. http://www. 110 Ellis. cement.org/publication/19674/. economic growth will still be able to power a vibrant and internationally competitive economy.S. High carbon prices could tilt the competitive playing field in areas like steel. meaning that robust U. Teddy & Megan . The climate bill.David M.S. reasonable. Most companies will see at most limited changes in how they function day to day. That approach is.. industries that use lots of energy and whose goods are traded globally have some reason to be nervous about a cap-and-trade system. The macroeconomic impact of smart climate policy will likely be small. It would cushion the blow for trade-exposed heavy industry while maintaining the integrity of a U. in principle. Michael A.cfr. emissions cap. addresses that by providing rebates to firms in those sectors to blunt the cost. WEA) Concerns about the possible competitive impact of climate regulations have been grossly exaggerated. aluminum.

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. Krupp 2009 . he could strike a definitive blow for the forces of change: "America will cap its global-warming pollution. Mitchell. waiting for Congress to provide certainty that this new commodity—carbon reductions—will have enduring value.S.000 pieces. wind. Newsweek. make those 8. contains 8. indeed.S. Fred. ball bearings. Obama must attack them together. save the country". customers and jobs. and 111 Ellis. The winners won't be only the obvious players—solar-cell companies and wind-turbine manufacturers. copper wiring. Congress passes comprehensive. geothermal Hundreds of billions more are poised on the sidelines. Those companies are just the tip of a giant iceberg. Teddy & Megan .—and. In other words. A cap heat and biofuels. 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. The supply chain behind each of these renewable technologies winds its way through the heart of U.S. With seven words. The right policy to protect our planet is also the best policy to revitalize the U. That might seem too much to manage all at once. economy—the real economy. concrete foundations and steel towers. and unlock the immense amounts of capital needed for America's innovators and entrepreneurs to remake this $6 trillion industry. for instance. assuming oil averages roughly $50 a barrel." To make good on this promise. A carbon cap would unleash America's greatest strengths—its spectacular capacity for innovation. its entrepreneurial spirit and the immense power of its markets and workforce.President of the Environmental Defense Fund (1/31. A comprehensive cap and-trade plan would begin to free America from the debilitating grip of imported oil: a recent MIT study concluded that a carbon cap would stem the outflow of nearly $500 billion in petrodollars by 2030. "Save the planet. a dependence on imported oil and a rapidly deteriorating environment.000 parts—including bolts. companies to profit from reducing that pollution. the biggest business in the world. he must ensure that the U. and for making more efficient use of energy. Each wind turbine. Hundreds of millions of dollars of venture capital have already flowed into the emerging technologies for capturing energy from the sun. WEA) The new administration will face three closely linked problems—a badly damaged economy.com/id/177439/output/print.newsweek. to meet all these challenges. global—manufacturing. not the paper one that went up in flames this past fall. Companies and workers a comprehensive cap-and-trade bill would deliver immediate benefits in new demand. would allow American business to make the transition gradually. A carbon cap would also create vast new demand for low-carbon energy solutions. http://www.S. but the three are best dealt with together. mobilize the market to find the quickest and cheapest way to reduce emissions. world-changing climate legislation that establishes a declining cap on carbondioxide emissions and creates a market for U.

pur. no significant fuel-shift to natural gas (despite this market's historic unpredictability). http://www.co-chairs the Energy.4 cents per kilowatt-hour to 6. Environmental & Public Utility Practice Group of the Cozen O'Connor law firm (Peter J.1 in 2025 (about $200). and will further reduce the bill's costs by independently contributing toward the bill's modest goal of reducing CO2 6. from 6. and no continued federal and state emission reduction programs. unrealistically. 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. such programs are likely to continue..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. Public Utilities Reports. no market penetration of new low-emission technologies (despite billions of federal R&D spending). 112 Ellis.7 to 8. and from to 9.7 Program-that emissions to year 2000 levels by 2015.0 in 2020 (about $108). Fontaine 2004 . Teddy & Megan .com/pubs/4419. "Global Warming: The Gathering Storm". 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.cfm. By changing this single assumption from EIA's analysis MIT found that monthly costs to the average household would be only $15 to $20. EIA predicts average electricity prices will increase under the bill from 6.8 in 2010 (about $33 per household per month). Also. Mitchell. EIA assumed.

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

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

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

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

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

left alone. pg. 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. 6 – Senior news editor for the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (William. however. 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. is too radioactive to be readily handled by a criminal gang. greatly reduces the physical quantity of waste that must be permanently stored. partly to stretch fuel resources. producing more energy than they consume. 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. When plutonium is extracted from spent fuel commercially. partly to create an impression that the disposal problem is solved.Climate Politics Page 118 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Reprocessing Solves Prolif Reprocessing makes prolif and terrorism more likely Sweet. 118 Ellis. 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. Kicking the Carbon Habit: Global Warming and the Case for Renewable and Nuclear Energy. Mitchell. while in some ways complicating the whole situation by creating more streams of different radioactive materials that all have to be specially handled. 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). and it would open the door to a so-called "plutonium economy" in which breeder reactors would run on the recycled fuel. As for the stretching of nuclear fuels. Extraction of re-burnable uranium and plutonium from spent fuels. it can be handled quite easily and could be used directly by a terrorist group or be stolen and sold to a government seeking to obtain nuclear weapons quickly and surreptitiously. Teddy & Megan . it is argued. Spent fuel from reactors.

These vulnerabilities relate to: Nuclear weapons proliferation: Nuclear power technology has a large overlap with nuclear weapons technology. if new power plants continue to be built with evaporative cooling.000 gallons of water per minute. are very long-lived and threaten essential resources. consumes around 7.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.246 Older. enough to service more than 196.*Senior Research Fellow for the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research and professor of Government and International Affairs at Virginia Tech AND ** founded the Network for New Energy Choices (NNEC). energy policy (Benjamin and Chris. from mill tailings to spent fuel. “Atomic Myths.249 With electricity demand expected to grow by approximately 50 percent in the next 25 years. they contribute even more to the nation’s water scarcity. care of construction.248 Nuclear reactors.250 Waste from nuclear power contaminates water resources. and degree of independent oversight and regulation. natural gas. the Department of Energy warned that consumption of water for electricity production could more than double by 2030. in engineering (specialization: nuclear fusion) from the University of California at Berkeley (Arjun. 119 Ellis. even though the details of accident mechanisms and accident probabilities vary with design. less efficient plants can be much worse. Radioactive Realities: Why Nuclear Power Is a Poor Way to Meet Energy Needs.org/dev/uploads/Renewing%20America_NNEC_Final.President of IEER. substantial amounts are lost to the local water table entirely. In 2006. while they withdraw less water.ieer.000 Georgia homes. Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). require massive supplies of water to cool reactor cores and spent nuclear fuel rods.245 A conventional 500 MW coal plant. coal. http://www.3 billion gallons of water each day. This staggering amount is equal to the entire country’s water consumption in 1995. In Georgia. 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. continuing to rely on fossil fuelfired and nuclear generators could spark a water scarcity crisis. Teddy & Megan . Conventional power plants use thousands of gallons of water for the condensing portion of their thermodynamic cycle. Nuclear waste management: Wastes associated with nuclear power. actually consume more. but actually “consumes” (primarily as lost water vapor) 33 million gallons per day from the local supply.400 MW Sherer coal facility consumes as much as 9.. Makhijani.244 In 2006.3 billion gallons per day. Newer technologies. notably water resources. Nuclear power plants create weapons usable materials . they accounted for almost 40 percent of all freshwater withdrawals (water diverted or withdrawn from a surface. Because much of the water is turned to steam. http://www.D. Severe accidents: Severe accidents on the scale of Chernobyl can occur with nuclear power plants. while modern power plants may reduce water withdrawals by up to 10 percent.” 2004. holds a Ph.org/pubs/atomicmyths. One nuclear plant in Georgia. for instance.plutonium in current designs. Closed-loop systems also rely on greater amounts of water for cleaning and therefore return less water to the original source. Mitchell. Thus. 07 . America will soon be withdrawing more water for electricity production than for farming. 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. withdraws an average of 57 million gallons every day from the Altamaha River.S. closed-loop cooling technology convert more water to steam that is vented to the atmosphere. for example. Coal plants also use water to clean and process fuel. to 7. or the equivalent of 17 Olympic-sized swimming pools every day. and nuclear facilities consume about 3. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. in particular.or ground-water source).Climate Politics Page 119 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Nuclear Power Solves Water Wars Nuclear power water requires massive amounts of water consumption Sovacool and Cooper. the 3. and all traditional plants lose water through evaporative loss. roughly equivalent to all the water withdrawals for irrigated agriculture in the entire United States. June. 4 .newenergychoices. Advanced power plant systems that rely on re-circulating. The nation’s oil. a national nonprofit organization committed to reforming U.pdf) If projected electricity demand is met using water-intensive fossil fuel and nuclear reactors.

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

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

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

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

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

Mitchell. 7/21/09 (“A Baker’s Dozen of Reasons to Oppose Cap and Trade”. and other countries are key The Foundry. This letter made three declarations: ■ 1. cause electric bills and fuel prices to sharply increase. and there has been no net global warming since 1998. 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.000 years. Jim Webb and Sen.heritage.doesn’t low temperatures. ■ 3.) No impact to warming – average rates are natural and CO2 emissions aren’t out of control Hartman. I challenge The Tidewater News to obtain and reprint an article written in 2008 by Eric Creed entitled “The Greatest Hoax Ever Perpetrated. On Dec. 125 Ellis. 13.” He covers much information refuting the global-warming mantra. I suggest all concerned taxpayers contact U. Teddy & Megan . Sen. and carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life.org/2009/07/21/a-baker’s-dozen-of-reasons-to-oppose-cap-and-trade/) There’s no environmental benefit. In short those few who earn the money to pay the taxes can‘t afford to perpetuate this hoax. 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. independent of the actions of humans.tidewaternews. ■ 2. 2007. 2008.Climate Politics Page 125 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Can’t Solve Warming Cap and trade won’t solve warming. in an International Conference on Climate Change. It will kill American jobs. On March 4. 7/18/09 (Ed. There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity have in the past. a hundred scientists wrote a letter to the secretary-general of the United Nations. Leading scientists acknowledge that computer models can’t predict climate. more than 500 scientists closed the conference with what is referred to as the “Manhattan Declaration”: Global climate has always changed and always will. now or will ever cause catastrophic climate change. http://www. The Foundry. there are many against this bill.com/news/2009/jul/18/beware-consequences-cap-and-trade/) As far as scientists supporting cap-and-trade to stop global warming. cap-and-trade is wrong because it’s a massive new energy tax. "Beware the consequences of cap-and-trade". 10. http://blog. Recent observations of the phenomena such as glacial retreats. sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change.S. 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. The average rates of warming per decade recorded by satellites in the late 20th century fall within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10. and none of the changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability. and be highly susceptible to fraud and corruption in a time when Americans can’t afford it. July 21st 2009. July 18th 2009. Mark Warner and urge them to vote against cap-and-trade. In conclusion.

cfm. strongly suggests that a 60 percent reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2050 will reduce global temperature by 0. In fact. **research assistant in the Thomas A. Teddy & Megan . "Five Reasons the EPA Should Not Attempt to Deal with Global Warming".2 degrees Celsius by 2095.1 to 0.[2] 126 Ellis. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (4/23. the EPA. WEA) The extraordinary perils of CO2 regulation for the American economy come with little.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2407. Mitchell. Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2407. if any.2 degrees Loris and Lieberman 2009 .*senior policy analyst in Energy and the Environment for the Heritage Foundation.Climate Politics Page 126 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Can’t Solve Warming Cap and trade only reduces temperature by . environmental benefit. analysis by the architects of the endangerment finding. http://www.heritage.

Fourth. Second.the current version of cap and trade will fail – carbon fuels are inevitable and international cooperation is more important Kovacs. president of Environmental Defense Fund. carbon-based fuels are and will remain for decades the backbone of the U. The question.S. A feasible cap-and-trade system might work.S’. Act was deeply flawed. ACES does not do a good job of ensuring those alternatives will be available. will add costs and distort the workings of the carbon market the bill would establish. and nonunion businesses from the entire market. Mitchell. And by applying the Davis-Bacon Act. July 13th 2009. among other weakness. based on a failing European model that they themselves are looking to abandon. by far. energy system until cost-effective and reliable alternative energy sources are developed.”.html) The U. is how to accomplish that goal. but what we got with 127 Ellis.Climate Politics Page 127 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Fails – Warming Even if they win all of their arguments. Third. It does not fully and permanently protect America’s 27 million small businesses from being forced to comply with costly standards. This bill is not the best we can do. or RES. The bill fails to equitably allocate credits to the refinery sector. Teddy & Megan . international cooperation remains a major stumbling block to addressing global climate change. ACES contains dangerous provisions that could lead to widespread lawsuit abuse. Fred Krupp. along with many of the other mandates in the bill. shutting out many qualified minority. If the objective is to allow the market to work to find the lowest-cost solutions. 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. 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.S. http://www. tariff provisions that impose tariffs on carbon-intensive imports could be deemed to violate our international obligations — given the worldwide economic situation now is not the time to spark a trade war.com/news/stories/0709/24837. Chamber Of Commerce (William. and-trade system is the best approach. Chamber Representative. “Waxman-Markey bill: 'this isn’t the best of U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly supports comprehensive legislation to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases while providing for a strong American economy. or ACES. Furthermore. small. of course.U. Nonetheless. nor does it adequately preempt state and regional greenhouse gas programs. 7/13/09. but because “it’s the best we can do. made the argument that a “well-designed” cap- the American Clean Energy and Security. A few months ago in The Wall Street Journal. and here are four quick reasons why. the bill will result in diminished competition. the renewable electricity standard.politico. Politico. First. picking technology winners and losers is not the way to go about it.” This may be the greatest indictment issued against the legislative branch since Joseph Welch questioned Joe McCarthy’s sense of decency.

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

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

I am very frank in pointing out the dangers of beachfront property along the Gulf Coast. and inflicting massive amounts of physical damage on buildings. p. recently testified before Congress: One of my duties in the office of the State Climatologist A sea level rise of 6 in. The main point I stress. improvement in storm water drainage systems and avoiding hurricane-prone coastal development." 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. Mitchell. whether or not sea levels are rising. if one is able to survive the storms. this is a smaller problem than the alarmists have claimed. poisoning soils. A dike would be expensive. 130 Ellis. and beach combers. At the very least. it would cause significant coastal changes. America should stop encouraging high-risk waterside building through government-financed flood insurance. Still. spreading disease. What about low-lying islands? As previously noted. or even longer? If we are wise. say. but the storm surges from huge tropical cyclones that have hit the country every three to four years in recent decades. And. The wetlands and their species would simply move slightly upslope. Alabama state climatologist. Teddy & Megan . emigration does not present insurmountable problems. Emeritus Environmental Science @ UVA and First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service. as they have so many times in the past. The sea level rise. The amount of land involved would be trivial. biting flies. Coastal areas threatened today will be threatened in the future. We expect a continued abundance of the corals. 200 years. How many buildings near coasts are built with the expectation that they will last 100 years. and their interface will be rich with competing organisms. since there are only about 11.000 Tuvaluans. or even 50 years. the Tuvaluans do not appear to be threatened by rising sea levels. The world wouldn't lose its wetlands due to rising sea levels. and it would have to be done with great sensitivity to the coastal wetlands. The real impact would be on man-made structures. but perhaps it will need to be done. and Dennis. might even prefer it. coastal forests. The point here is that we live on a planet where the climate has been changing constantly for the past billion years.500 Years”. and horseshoe crabs—not to mention sand fleas. the problem is not great. However. Prof. Even here. and remind us that normal hurricane risks are amplified as our cities grow and our people seek waterfronts on which to live and play. Tougher zoning for low-lying areas and tougher building codes for areas within reach of storm surges make sense. among other actions. These investments include extending floodway easements. infrastructure that can withstand the severe weather events that we know are going to continue. Actually. and water systems. President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project and Distinguished Research Professor @ George Mason. the floods of salt water often stay for weeks. mosquitoes. 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. John Christy. building a dike around Bangladesh may not be a bad idea anyway. Director of Global Food Issues @ Hudson Institute. to state and local agencies as well as industries. Bangladesh has built a large number of "typhoon towers" that allow the population to climb above the floods with the belongings they can carry. 160-161) A continued slow rise in sea levels is probably the biggest problem for humans likely to arise from a moderate global warming. which will continue. roads. but if it continues for the next five hundred years. we will avoid encouraging new building and development in low-lying coastal plains. is miniscule compared with the storm surge of a powerful hurricane like Fredrick or Camille. But if they were. Six inches per century is slow.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. The problem is not sea levels per se. halting economic activity. bridges. which would have to be abandoned or moved inland. “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1. the Tuvaluans There will always be an ebb and flow between land and water. is that they invest today in is to inform developers and industries of the potential climate risks and rewards in Alabama. over 100 years. will be very slow and thus give decades of opportunity for adaptation.

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

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

(And don't assume your 133 Ellis. about 38 million acres went up each year. We hear more about it. How about this one: Acreage burned = X (temperature) – Y (rainfall). the 0.13 is decadal average precipitation over the United States.3 inches of rain per year. Politicians.Climate Politics Page 133 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Forests No increase in forest fires ---. In the 1960s. Y is equal to 400. Despite our straightforward math. the cartoon deer who probably spawned more ecological mismanagement and traffic fatalities than any other animal in cinematic history.000 acres.9 degree rise in temperature means that we are burning 630. Teddy & Megan .they’re decreasing burned acres Michaels in ‘4 (Patrick. heat.12 shows summer (June— September) temperatures since 1960.000 more burned acres.000. the total "change" in the climate-related signal according to our model is minus 300. an average of 25 million combusted in the 1920s. Figure 6. Environmental Sciences @ UVA. you can't tell the climate signal from the random noise. In other words.9°F in the period. or in the current era of irrational fire suppression. There is a warming trend. Figure 6. the 2. Scientifically speaking. and rain. Mitchell. “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists. (In the cool 1960s.000.) reduced fire in the United States. Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies @ Cato and Prof. and burn data and turn it into a mathematical "model.000. we used to just let things burn. the average was a little around 5 million acres per year going up in smoke. we averaged about 28. In the warm 1990s.000fewer acres because of the increased moisture. and the Media”.14. but that doesn't mean there's more to hear about. Since 1960. But.000-acre foreststack. when we look at.3-inch rise in rainfall means that we're burning 930. p.000 acres. If you have enough data—usually at least 10 "independent" observations of the "modeled" variable ("acreage burned") and for each predictor ("temperature" and "rainfall")—you can run a fairly straightforward statistical calculation that determines the values of X and Y that best describe the hypothesized mathematical relationship between fire. or a rise of 2. on the average. 142-145) It is also one of the easiest to dispute." First. The computer calculates that X is approximately equal to 700. So every inch of rain above normal reduces the annual burn by 400. the 1930s. That's part of the reason why. which means.5.000 acres is a needle buried in an annual 5. It's not very hard to take the temperature. But there's also an increase in precipitation.11 shows 10-year averages for acreage burned in the United States. This isn't just a straw doe.3 inches. say. that a year that is one degree warmer than normal will have 700. It's shown graphically in Figure 6.) Before the 1942 release of Bambi. By the 1990s that moved up to 30. you specify an equation that defines a hypothesis about the way something works. That net change of minus 300.000 more acres per year. rainfall. a rise of about 0. This little "model" explains a bit less than half of the total year-to-year variation in acreage burned in the United States. 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. it was also around 5 million. and Figure 6. Consider what's happened since Bambi.

"Mystery mechanism drove global warming 55 million years ago". or PETM. estimates the planet's surface temperature blasted upwards by between five and nine degrees Celsius (nine and 16. http://www. Mitchell.natural.3 F) of PETM's warming if the models for climate sensitivity are right. as this could shed light on aspects of global warming today." 134 Ellis. 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. What seems clear is that a huge amount of heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases -. and so on. try to account for the carbon that was spewed out during PETM. Teddy & Megan . Some of these so-called "positive feedbacks" are already known. reflective layer. But these "feedbacks" are poorly understood and some scientists believe there could be others still to be identified.were disgorged in a very short time. For instance.700 parts per million (ppm). called the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. scientists said on Monday. led by Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii. this exposes the uncovered sea to sunlight." warns Zeebe's team. They believe that levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) rose by 70 percent during PETM's main phase to reach 1. "This gap needs to be filled to confidently predict future climate change.8-6.2 degrees Fahrenheit) in just a few thousand years. But all this CO2 can only account for between one and 3. depriving it of a bright. or about the temperature of a lukewarm bath.5 C (1.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jXKGlsM4aZXPmItKk9TowSECsEYg. the findings are relevant as they highlight the risk of hidden mechanisms that add dramatically to warming. says the paper. which leads to the loss of more ice. which in turn helps the sea to warm. There must have been some other factor that stoked temperatures higher. the team found. The theorised sources include volcanic activity and the sudden release of methane hydrates in the ocean. Previous research into this period. when a patch of Arctic sea ice melts. The Arctic Ocean warmed to 23 C (73 F). A trio of Earth scientists.Climate Politics Page 134 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Greenhouse Theory Flawed The dominant greenhouse theory is incomplete—it fails to explain past warming. "Our results imply a fundamental gap in our understanding about the amplitude of global warming associated with large and abrupt climate perturbations.google. AFP 4/13/2009 (Agence France Presse. That causes the sea to warm. How PETM happened is unclear but climatologists are eager to find out. attaining a concentration of between four and five times that of today. as opposed to man-made -. Even though there are big differences between Earth's geology and ice cover then and now.

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

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

By 2035. 3.1 million greater than the baseline assumptions. the years in which we modeled the bill.7 million fewer jobs than without cap and trade. the higher energy prices would reduce economic activity by forcing businesses to cut costs elsewhere. the poor pay more […]. In the year 2035 alone. 6.) More subsidies for unproven technologies and energy sources. it’s about $71. and thus doing damage that no check would cover. there is a projected 2. Since renewables are lavished with substantial tax breaks.5 million fewer jobs than without a cap-and-trade bill. If cap and trade were so sure to work. In effect. And if you add up the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035. Cap and trade is an energy tax that falls disproportionately on the poor. Heritage found the average GDP lost is $393 billion. Nothing could be further from the truth. CRA’s and the Black Chamber’s study found that relative to the baseline. Proponents of a carbon cap acknowledge this. Depending on what side of the political isle you fall on. From 2012 to 2035. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that. the burden on the poor obviously becomes heavier.) It will increase your energy bills. natural gas prices would rise by an estimated 16%. the poor suffer most. we find that the average per-family-of-four costs rise by almost $3. stimulating the economy while igniting a green revolution. 5. But Heritage isn’t alone in these estimates. natural gas prices would increase 55 percent. selective hearing can dictate what you believe Waxman-Markey will do to the economy and how it will affect global warming. from higher energy prices by handing out rebate checks or tax cuts. like most debates in Washington. One side says it’s cheap.4 trillion (in 2009 dollars). Heritage’s CDA found that by 2035 gasoline prices would increase 58 percent.S. why is all this even necessary? 137 Ellis. Using U. the accumulated GDP lost is $9.3-2. and the way they will be met is by raising the price of energy high enough so people use less. Teddy & Megan . A federally mandated RES is proposed only because renewables are too expensive to compete otherwise.) It hits low-income households hardest. cap and trade would be massive tax on energy consumption. since low-income households spend a larger percentage of their income on energy. has become a numbers game. a supporter of a carbon tax.500 to be exact. If only a small portion (15 percent) of the energy tax revenue is given back to the consumer. Census population projection estimates. 2.” Policymakers sought to protect consumers. especially the poor.000 per year. “Relative to total expenditure. all in the year 2030.5 percent in 2050 and the National Black Chamber estimates that in GDP will be 1. hitting a high of $662 billion in 2035. and worst of all. Rebates or not. You hear it’s a jobs bill – that investing billions of dollars in new green technologies that will create or save millions of jobs. 1.7 million jobs in each year of the policy through 2030–after accounting for “green job” creation. by reducing their workforce for example.3 percent ($350 billon) below the baseline in 2030 and 1.) It will cost a family-of-four an additional $3. the other says it’s expensive. home heating oil would increase 56 percent.) It will reduce economic growth. Here are thirteen reasons to oppose cap and trade. a national mandate will cost Americans both as taxpayers and as ratepayers. however.Climate Politics Page 137 of 156 7WJ – HPSW The cap and trade debate. Although upper income families tend to use more energy (and thus emit more carbon per household). for the average year over the 2012-2035 timeline. 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. When all the tax impacts have been added up.15 million jobs. Mitchell. projects that cap and trade will increase unemployment would by 0. electricity prices go up by 22% and gasoline increases by 23 center per gallon. The carbon dioxide reduction targets are still the same at the end of the day.600.000 per year. electricity prices would jump 90 percent. that’s equivalent to about 1. This means that carbon emission-reduction policies have a regressive impact on income distribution – unless coupled with revenuerecycling policies that protect the real incomes of the poor and middle classes. The Brookings Institute. 4. our primary measure of economic activity. All three aforementioned studies found significant losses in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Since 85 percent of America’s energy needs come from carbon emitting fossil fuels.) It will destroy 1.5% in the first decade below the baseline.5 percent ($730 billion) below the baseline in 2050. the tax impact is $4. Washington is forcing costlier energy options on the public.500. job loss will be 1. You hear it won’t cost Americans families very much – about a stamp per day is what proponents of the bill say. saying. Brookings predicts GDP in the United States would be lower by 2. A study done by Charles River Associates prepared for the National Black Chamber of Congress projects higher unemployment of 2. That’s a lot of postage stamps—162.

and ultimately a much slower economy. Hard-pressed U.S. 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). categories that include virtually every product in our economy.S. WEA) any attempt to reduce carbon dioxide would be poison to an already sick economy. and annual job losses exceeding 800.cfm.S. Hit particularly hard is manufacturing. ensures billions of dollars lost from the GDP each year and increases unemployment Loris and Lieberman 2009 . whether consistent with WTO agreements or not. Mitchell. trade measures is very real. Daniella. 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. Teddy & Megan .S. it is clear that the adoption of protectionist polices as a part of a U. But importantly.*senior policy analyst in Energy and the Environment for the Heritage Foundation. higher energy prices fall disproportionately on the poor. which will see job losses in some industries that exceed 50 percent. climate regime does far more harm than good and should be avoided. http://author. households and firms will face much higher costs for energy and energy-intensive goods. http://www. against foreign competitors whose governments have chosen to be less draconian.S. C&T Kills Economy Climate bill will decimate economic growth – higher costs and trade restrictions Markheim 2009 .Climate Politics Page 138 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. consumers and producers will find no relief from artificially inflated prices by turning to lower-cost imports.heritage. single-year GDP losses exceeding $600 billion in some years (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2407. reduced consumer spending. Any U. **research assistant in the Thomas A. economy runs on fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide. WebMemo #2408. "Climate policy: free trade promotes a cleaner environment". restrictions. Since 85 percent of the U. WEA) The projected cost of a climate scheme on the U. Cap and trade destroys economic growth – taxes all energy use. 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.S.S. companies and policymakers may find it fair for the government to prop up domestic businesses.000 for several years. the potential for nations to retaliate against U. America's trade partners are unlikely to agree. the EPA's proposed global warming policy would severely limit economic growth. 138 Ellis.cfm. "Five Reasons the EPA Should Not Attempt to Deal with Global Warming". When all these negative effects are taken into account. Many such trade restrictions could violate World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and lead to legal sanctions against the U.org/Research/tradeandeconomicfreedom/wm2408.heritage. increased unemployment. Heritage Foundation. Even when the economy does recover.Jay Van Andel senior trade policy analyst int he Center for International Trade and Economics at Heritage (4/24. whose profitability will have been destroyed by new climate change regulations. Some U. Above anything else. Even if some of the proposed measures hold up against legal scrutiny in the WTO.S. imposing a cost on CO2 is equivalent to placing an economy-wide tax on energy use.[1] If Congress and the President do embark on such a potentially treacherous course. as the climate change zealots propose to erect trade barriers to raise the costs of foreign products produced under less severe environmental policy constraints. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (4/23.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2407. since low-income households spend a larger percentage of their income on energy. energy cost increases of 30 percent or more.[1] High energy costs result in production cuts.

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

will face yet one more cost of operations in paying cap-and-trade costs. 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. In the meantime. Teddy & Megan . Orzag testified that "price increases would be essential revenue for the federal government. Red Alert recommends we concern ourselves with the climate change catastrophe later. Businesses that emit carbon dioxide. the imposition of what amounts to a cap-and-trade tax may further depress the economy. Acknowledging that to the success of a cap-and trade program because they would be the most important mechanisms through which businesses and households would be encouraged to make investments and behavioral changes that reduced CO2 emissions. 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. at a time the businesses are trying to compete in a global economy. including those involved in raising children. not lose homes and pay monthly living expenses. Mitchell. 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. including manufacturing companies. at a time when families are struggling just to keep jobs. 140 Ellis.Climate Politics Page 140 of 156 7WJ – HPSW that would require across-the-board emission reductions by all firms. when the science behind climate hysteria is more certain. Moreover." The truth is that: Cap-and-trade will increase gasoline prices and the cost of energy in the 25 states that get more than 50 percent of their electricity from coal.

Yet. On Page 1.increases energy costs and destroys consumer spending Hartman. if you fall within a socioeconomic level of no more than 150 percent of the poverty line.I. The E. In an economy that’s losing many jobs a month. The cost of transporting goods to market will drastically increase. July 15) that the cap-and-trade bill will cost Americans jobs and further damage the economy. The Heritage Foundation estimates that the cost will range from $426 in 2012 to $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.193.Climate Politics Page 141 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. government if it’s determined that the capand-trade bill resulted in the reduction of revenues going into these two trust funds.241 in 2035.? Nothing but pandering! Another interesting section is No.T. 443: “Protection of Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.T. 7/18/09 (Ed. the government will be here to bail you out. for an individual with no dependents will double and include annual inflation adjustments. This cost will be passed to the consumer. http://www. how could anyone justify putting more people out of work? In addition. Mitchell.209 this bill references the Earned Income Tax Credit. I do not want to scramble for additional funds to cover outrageous electric or fuel bills. "Beware the consequences of cap-and-trade".” It allows the administrators of Medicare and Social Security to access the general revenues of the U. What does a so-called “energy bill” have to do with E.com/news/2009/jul/18/beware-consequences-cap-and-trade/) I agree with Bob Edwards (“Reader disagrees with cap-and-trade talk. That is three years that our government will knowingly force Americans out of work.C. On Page 1. 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.tidewaternews. On Page 1. Teddy & Megan .S. The authors of this onerous bill know that American workers will be displaced and that it will cause energy costs to soar.C. too. Tidewaternewsdotcom. 141 Ellis.I. In January 2008. “Electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” under this program. 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 2009.157 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. energy rates will drastically increase. C&T Kills Economy Kills the economy.

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

html) Up to now. The legislation. wind and other new technologies aimed at boosting conservation. the price of carbon permits will fluctuate. “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. In Europe. yes. would What’s more interesting is the change in approach. it would involve economic pain. Obama’s latest tack is refuted by statements he made earlier this year. Cap-and-trade would be a crippling. they had better succeed. long-term consequences of doing nothing about global warming. but we have to understand that the short-term costs would be far less than the dire. That has undercut the competitiveness of solar. the recession has caused the price of carbon permits to plummet. That won’t spur economic growth. July 4th 2009. which seems likely. the New York and California delegations provided 26 percent of the support for cap and trade in the House. they can stop the bill dead in its tracks.S. 7/4/09.) The Heritage Foundation pointed out that incredibly the CBO study failed to include in its calculations the overall effect on economic growth. the measure will need at least 60 votes. the usual rationale for a carbon cap is that. The bill’s prospects in the Senate. Mitchell.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. (Lower-income households would get a rebate reducing their energy costs by $40. The result will be lower output and fewer jobs. and that’s why this measure is one of the biggest threats to the U. Nor is it likely to work as its authors intend. by slowing the growth of consumer spending.com/275/story/1306026.kansascity. 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. For the sake of the economy’s health. lowering permit costs and the cost of using fossil fuels. Kansas City Star. If Republicans hang together and peel off a few Democrats. when he remarked that under his cap-and-trade plan. Obviously. you don’t. That will add even more uncertainty to the business of energy production. The whole purpose of the bill is to force people to pay more for energy. It will retard it. Like any commodity. Teddy & Megan . Thomas. which now goes to the Senate. economy ever to emerge on Capitol Hill. Industries would then buy and sell permits to emit carbon. the cap would become more restrictive. impose an overall limit on emissions of greenhouse gases. The House barely passed cap and trade — the vote was 219-212. “Kill cap and trade before it kills growth”. fortunately. Not only that.Editor at Kansas City Star (E. But in the Senate. As Jay Cost points out at the Real Clear Politics site. the two arguments are contradictory. selfinflicted wound. those states together make up only 4 percent of the membership. are grim because the same political dynamic that worked in the House won’t apply in the Senate. Now we’re told there won’t be any economic pain at all. reducing CO2 emissions. 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. http://www. Thanks to the Senate’s rules. Over time.” How do you end up with a vibrant economy and lots of net job creation by forcing people to pay higher energy prices? Well. and those price movements could be violent. 143 Ellis. The notion that cap-and-trade will do little harm came from a recent Congressional Budget Office analysis that pegged the bill’s annual cost in 2020 at a mere $175 for the average family. which makes up the greatest share of the gross domestic product. In fact.

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

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

69 per gallon. In 2006 alone trucking consumed over 39 billion gallons of diesel fuel. 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. This means that a one-cent increase in the average price of diesel costs the trucking industry an additional $391 million in fuel expenses. which is $1. The average national price of diesel fuel this week is now over $4. Inc. Teddy & Megan . We are extremely sensitive to rapidly shifting operating costs given our thin operating margins of between 2-4 percent. we have experienced record increases in insurance premiums and. 6/19/2008 (C. Even small increase in fuel prices could devastate trucking industry Mullett. by many accounts.000 to $10.Climate Politics Page 146 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Trucking Industry Brink Trucking on the brink. 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. decreased fuel economy between 2-4%. These margins continue to be chipped away given the numerous and unprecedented costs being imposed upon the industry.000 to $5. 146 Ellis. 6/19/2008 (C.000 and. Vice President. Vice President. Randall. Not only have equipment costs increased due to federal requirements. For instance. Beyond equipment costs. 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. Randall. most critically. Burning diesel fuel is the main source of carbon emissions from our industry equating to 22.S.89 more than just one year ago.000 while decreasing fuel up the cost of engines between $8.2 pounds of CO2 per gallon of fuel. Additional EPA diesel engine emission standards in 2007 drove Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2002 drove up engine costs on average of between $3. Government Affairs Con-way.margins thin Mullett. new diesel engine emission standards imposed by the U. Inc. I wish to further expand upon the critical role diesel fuel plays in our industry. Government Affairs Con-way. 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. Diesel fuel provides greater fuel economy and the higher energy content necessary to transport widely diversified loads under extreme operating conditions. historical expenditures for fuel in the absence of any climate change legislation being passed. but state regulatory mandates have substantially increased the financial burdens being placed upon our industry. economy between 6-8 percent. Mitchell.

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

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

Mitchell. It raises costs far too broadly to be avoided and with other nations making it clear that they will not join in and kill their own economies.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. Teddy & Megan . 149 Ellis. the penalties to the US markets for passing this will be legion.

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

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

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

Mitchell. When the permit prices become large enough to have a significant effect on CO2 emissions. 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). the cap-and-trade system affects its international competitiveness. Such a system of complex differential tariffs is just the kind of protectionism that governments have been working to eliminate since the start of the GATT process more than 50 years ago. 153 Ellis. cap-and-trade systems in practice do not rely solely on auctions to distribute the emissions permits. and allow companies to buy CO2 offsets (eg. which in turn would invite those who want to protect domestic jobs to argue for higher tariff levels. by paying for the planting of trees) instead of reducing their emissions or buying permits. Such complexities make it impossible to compare the impact of CO2 policies among countries. impose a complex set of regulatory policies.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. Teddy & Megan . Worse still. there will be political pressure to introduce tariffs on imports that offset the advantage of countries with low permit prices. Because the price of the CO2 permits in a country is reflected in the prices of its products.

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

and babbling endlessly about "green jobs" as the real jobs of Americans are systematically destroyed. meaningless. July 17th 2009. I seriously doubt that more than a relative handful know what Cap-and-Trade means or that it is even being debated. The government owns 607 million acres of land in a nation founded on the belief in the sanctity and power of private property. 7/17/09. Teddy & Megan . by their actions. must hate America.rightsidenews. Out of 307 million Americans.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lie beneath these "protected" acres. by 2035. It is no accident that President Obama and his acolytes keep calling for "clean energy".Member of American Society of Journalists and Authors (Alan. 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.html) The Waxman-Markey bill is villainy on a grand scale. "Cap-andTrade Bill: Villainy On A Grand Scale". Mitchell." The United Nations Kyoto Protocol. by the actions of this Congress. 155 Ellis. on March 25. reduce the aggregate domestic product (GDP) by an estimated $7.900. It will raise electricity rates 90% after adjusting for inflation. They pose the greatest threat to its future that has ever existed in our history. it totally ignores the fact that all the other nations of the Earth will continue to generate "greenhouse gases. but they. It is estimated that 300 million barrels of oil and 8. Its limits are. Our present annual GDP is about $14 trillion. The Democrats in Congress and the present occupant of the White House. It is no accident that his Secretary of the Interior unilaterally cancelled 77 oil and gas leases or that. Even if the bill were to become law. http://www. and all undeveloped nations.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.000 jobs on average with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 1. Prices for gasoline and natural gas will rise by 74% and 55% respectively. Society of Professional Journalists. Upon taking office. very costly America. This bill will impoverish Americans and destroy the nation. purposefully exempted China. by definition.4 trillion. live in a very different. It is estimated to destroy 844. their children. intended to reduce these gases.com/200907175536/energy-andenvironment/cap-and-trade-bill-villainy-on-a-grand-scale. 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. India. and their grandchildren will. The Waxman-Markey bill will. the keystone of capitalism.000 jobs. "energy independence".

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful