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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CBO [Congressional Budget Office] — and the EPA — has demonstrated that the cost to the lowest quintile of Americans is actually no cost. Kerry: We’d all like it — ideally you’d get a November signing. and the cost to others is a range. 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. and the Chinese likewise. You know. But we have to see what happens to the Senate schedule. to do what we need to do. Things don’t end with Copenhagen. this is not the scary thing people have described it as. because they don’t know yet really what’s in it. Is it sufficient yet to deal with what we have to deal with going into Copenhagen? Not yet. there was some pretty harsh reaction toward the United States. and everything else. “Wow. e360: When you look at the G8 meetings that just happened. we can always react. with some adjustment as we go along to the realities of science and economics and other things as they come at us. Kerry: 11 Ellis. we can react. too. among many. which we do very effectively in this. Hopefully we’ll have time to do it. e360: Do we leave Copenhagen with a document that is the Copenhagen Protocol? Kerry: I hope so. It also carries with it some requirements with respect to what you do. a lot of people are going to say. But it’s going to take leadership. and Speaker Pelosi has said the same. it’s $40 in their pocket. Would it be better if we finished the job here and got it passed? Absolutely. domestically. that we’re helping to mitigate any kind of cost increase against the individual homeowner or electricity user. because a 2 degrees goal carries with it certain obligations. Kerry: It’s been overblown — the Indians are repeating what they’ve always been saying. when they learn there are incentives for energy efficiencies or new technologies. Whatever we achieve in Copenhagen is a first major step. or Secretary Clinton’s trip to India. and just where we are. Teddy & Megan . e360: Senator Reid has said that he would like it signed into law by Copenhagen. budget issues. I think that China is doing a lot more than people know or think. it’s a significant engine of growth for the economy. if you had a law. what people ought to understand is that legislation isn’t forever. This is not a static process. 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. Mitchell. the issue doesn’t suddenly go away. and we need to show them exactly how. But when they learn that there are billions of dollars there to help develop clean coal technology. and a bona fide effort by the United States. but that is what has to be fleshed out in the negotiating process. that are going to be necessary. between 75 dollars and a hundred and something. that’s a good level to go in with. So if your interest is in getting something done.Climate Politics Page 11 of 156 7WJ – HPSW is already better than a lot of people think it is or know it is. health care. and I think that as people learn that this is actually a winner. If evidence came in in a few years showing we could slow it down. So in fact delay hurts the American consumer. That puts pressure on China and India and everybody else. And also increasing the security of the United States because you’re reducing energy dependency.” e360: What level of specificity do you think the United States needs going into Copenhagen? Kerry: Well I think what the House has done. So that’s now being scoped into it. and that gets more expensive. e360: And going into Copenhagen. negotiating with China and with other countries? Kerry: Not at all. I think people understand that. That was on the Waxman-Markey original bill. does that tie the United States’ hands. because it is harder to take more [CO2] out of the atmosphere the more you delay. and you have the House bill at that moment. and regrettably it’s going to get actually more expensive. over an entire year for a family of four. we’re better off passing something. that’s our goal. I thought the 2 degrees C goal [temperature increase target] they came out of [the G8 meetings] with is pretty significant. And if you want to enhance China’s prospects of signing onto [a treaty]. and if we get a bill out of committee here. it’s a jobs creator. to achieve that. I’m optimistic about the capacity to do it. 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. 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. we should pass something. overall. it’s a jobs winner. that’s pretty good.

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

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

Climate Politics Page 14 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Uniqueness: Will Pass – House And G8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

Climate Politics Page 15 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Uniqueness: Will Pass – AT: Mccain

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

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

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

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

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

15 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

Climate Politics Page 16 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Uniqueness: Will Pass – Vote Count

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

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

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

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

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

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

16 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

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

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

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

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

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

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

23 Ellis.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. Boxer tried and failed a year ago to pass a climate change bill. and marks an acknowledgement by the Administration of the daunting challenge of getting enough votes for the bill in the delicately balanced Senate. Teddy & Megan . Mitchell.

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

) say they are skeptical of the climate change bill that passed the House last month. the Hill. 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.com/leading-the-news/climate-billtakes-hit-in-senate-from-china-2009-07-11. Teddy & Megan . given the likelihood that Republicans will lock down against it. 25 Ellis. The legislation has an uncertain future in the Senate. http://thehill. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark. Brown. Both Sen. Rushing 7/11/2009 (J. and Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif. Taylor. Mitchell.) announced on Thursday that she is delaying the bill until after the August recess. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Sen. Lincoln and other Democrats say the reluctance of China and India to agree to emission restrictions clearly complicates the party’s effort to pass the bill. "Climate bill takes hit in Senate from China".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. Brown said it will naturally be difficult to persuade the public to support a bill that could increase costs for businesses if there’s a fear competition in China will gain an advantage.html.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Derek. http://www. but as yet untested NRC licensing process. of a new nuclear project. WEA) Despite new licensing regulations meant to streamline the construction of new nuclear power plants. Sachs & Co. an environmental group and nuclear research community on the future of nuclear power. A federal commitment to loan guarantees resolves regulatory uncertainty surrounding federal policy that would otherwise prevent investment Sands 2008 (4/28. will likely require federal financial support to allow the companies and investors to director of the investment giant Lehman Brothers." 40 Ellis. WEA) Summarized below are the consensus views of the six banks named above regarding the minimum conditions necessary for a workable loan guarantee program as authorized by Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that can achieve the twin goals of supporting the financing of new nuclear plants in the United States while adequately protecting the U.energy. We believe these risks. will make lenders unwilling at present to extend long-term credit to such projects in a form that would be commercially viable. this can be a substantial benefit for all the companies. uncertainty over the rules and questions about nuclear waste still worry investors. Teddy & Megan .*Managing director of Export and Agency Finance Group for Citigroup.lgprogram. taxpayer. We believe many new nuclear construction projects will have difficulty accessing the capital markets during construction and initial operation without the support of a federal government loan guarantee.pdf. and may make loan guarantees essential to attracting them. and that investors remain wary. such as magnitude. Lexis. a nuclear investment expert told a House panel last week. move forward with new nuclear plant commitment. "The total cost of the plant.gov/nopr-comments/comment29. including the possibility of delays in commercial operation of a completed plant or “another Shoreham”. and residual uncertainties associated with the new. and large initial capital investment. **also written with the managing directors for Goldman. combined with the higher capital costs and longer construction schedules of nuclear plants as compared to other generation facilities.S. including engineering design costs. Platts Inside Energy. a point that investors are watching. complexity. "Investors urge loan guarantees for nuclear plants". as well as Merill Lynch and Morgan Stanley ("Loan Guarantees for Advanced Nuclear Energy Facilities". including the regulated utilities that are considering a new nuclear project. regulatory and litigation-related risks that are unique to nuclear power.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 ." Asselstine said." Asselstine said. 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. lawmakers pressed six representatives of the nuclear industry. Some of the more controversial aspects of new nuclear power include government support for new plants. he said. Lenders and investors in the fixed income markets will be acutely concerned about a number of political. James Asselstine. Mitchell. In a hearing of the House Science and Technology Committee. "Given federal loan guarantee can help to facilitate the availability of debt financing for up to 80% of the the magnitude for a new nuclear plant investment. "Some factors.

cfm. Nuke power inevitable in Europe and Japan. Up to 30 nuclear plants are planned in each country over the next two decades-which sounds impressive until you do the math. Embracing nuclear energy as part of an effort to decrease the nation's dependency on foreign energy sources. "Nuclear energy: what we can learn from other nations"..K. Nuclear power already provides 30 percent of the country's electricity. "Brave Nuclear World?/COMMENTARY: Nuclear Revival? Don't Bet on It!". has 19 reactors that provide about 18 percent of the nation's electricity. World Watch. Teddy & Megan .S.[3] Finland. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (7/2. if it is to avoid creating increased energy dependencies. 41 Ellis. which will likely be a model used throughout the United States. 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. Japan is working to increase this to 37 percent by 2009 and 41 percent by 2017. safe and reliable form of energy. has made it clear that it would not subsidize the industry. has a significant incentive to secure long-term energy solutions.K. Finland already gets 28 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. net exporter of electricity. energy-starved Asia is where a nuclear revival is more likely to begin. while the U. ranking fifth in the world for per capita electricity consumption. model could create a politically tenuous dependency relationship between government and industry. http://www. The British government. Presently. As a result.[2] Finland has begun constructing a modern 1. The U. alternatively.Climate Politics Page 41 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Nuclear Power Bad Nuke power inevitable--Asia. building new reactors is a must for the U. **research fellow in the Thomas A.[1] Germany.600-megawatt reactor. the U. WEA) France is an example of a country that developed nuclear energy to reduce foreign energy dependence after the oil shock of the 1970s.President of the WorldWatch Institute (July/August. Because the U. Christopher. Flavin 2006 . This is simply not a significant commitment for countries with populations of well over a billion and electricity demand growing at 10 percent annually. while providing long-term politically stable support for nuclear power.K.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1977. however.*research assistance @ Heritage.S. WEA) With the nuclear construction business virtually dead in North America and Europe. continues to squabble politically about nuclear power but has offered some subsidies to the industry. Indeed. ProQuest. Mitchell. 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. decided to phase out nuclear energy for political reasons and now imports some of this energy. Heritage Foundation WebMemo #1977.heritage. Even if their nuclear dreams are realized. India and China both have ambitious nuclear plans. and a possible sixth reactor would increase that amount substantially. Loris and Spencer 2008 . on the other hand. the British model should provide a sustainable environment for nuclear power moving forward.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 percent). according to the U.3 percent—less than half of the freshwater consumed by residential use (6. Mitchell.S. NEI 2008 (July.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. Nuclear power plants have a small environmental impact and produce reliable electricity in a wide range of weather conditions. Of all the freshwater consumed in the United States. electricity generation accounts for 3. Nuclear power plants circulate water to cool equipment. 53 Ellis. Nuclear Energy Institute.org/keyissues/protectingtheenvironment/factsheets/waterconsumptionatnuclearpowerplants. Nuclear power plants consume less water per unit of electricity produced than some forms of renewable energy. Geological Survey (USGS). Teddy & Megan . "Water consumption at nuclear power plants". 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.nei. This water continuously is returned to its source and never is exposed to radioactive material. http://www.

Mark Lazarowicz MP said: “Climate change is an international threat that needs international action. WEA) Attempting to tackle climate change by trapping carbon dioxide or switching to nuclear power will not solve the problem of global warming. The report follows the Prime Minister’s recent proposal on how developed and developing countries can agree new ways to pay for tackling climate change. published on 15 July. Their calculations suggest that most measures to combat global warming. during that period. Mark Lazarowicz MP. “Cap and trade should be combined with targeted regulation.6% of global warming. a new report commissioned by the Prime Minister Gordon Brown concluded today. They suggest that scientists must also take into account the total energy of the ground. The Global Carbon Trading report. and the missing heat may be much less. such as reducing our reliance on burning fossil fuels and switching to renewables like wind power and solar energy. Global carbon trading is our only hope at controlling emissions. The researchers have calculated that the heat energy accumulated in the atmosphere corresponds to a mere 6. http://www. and storing it deep underground or on the sea floor will have very little effect on global warming.htm. http://www.. These calculations are actually rather conservative. by the Prime Minister’s Special Representative on Carbon Trading. But the same calculations also show that trapping carbon dioxide. global warming.egovmonitor. the researchers say. Nordell adds.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.sciencedaily. The researchers also point out a flaw in the nuclear energy argument. 26%. ice masses and the seas if they are to model climate change accurately. i. The evidence shows that global carbon trading can deliver substantial cuts in greenhouse gases rapidly and costeffectively. Teddy & Megan . natural variations in climate and/or an underestimation of net heat emissions. melting ice (33.5%). the ability of countries to avoid dangerous climate change will be limited and the costs of action increased. Mitchell. apart from emissions covered under the EU Emissions Trading System where limits on offsetting are set at EU level. Experts Say". 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. the researchers say. is due to the greenhouse effect. The UK Government is committed to meeting its required 34% cut in emissions by 2020 through domestic action alone. Carbon markets themselves will not however be sufficient to successfully tackle climate change and are needed alongside strong domestic action to cut 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. The "missing" heat.com/node/26497/print.com/releases/2009/07/090713085248. sets out the domestic actions required to meet its carbon budgets. 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. 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. taxation and public finance for comprehensive action." Nordell explains. while the remaining heat is stored in the ground (31. The carbon market could provide a significant proportion of that sum. will ultimately help in preventing catastrophic climate change in the long term.e. This report proposes action in 54 Ellis. The UK’s Low Carbon Transition Plan. 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. according to energy calculations published in the July issue of the International Journal of Global Warming. WEA) A global carbon trading network will be vital to preventing dangerous climate change.4%) and sea water (28. "The increasing carbon dioxide emissions merely show how most net heat is produced.the US Department of Energy and Climate Change ("Carbon trading vital to climate change success – PM Report".5%). so-called carbon dioxide sequestration. tackle deforestation and adapt to the climate change already being experienced. Bo Nordell and Bruno Gervet of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Luleå University of Technology in Sweden have calculated the total energy emissions from the start of the industrial revolution in the 1880s to the modern day. The report makes clear that without a global system for carbon trading. "Since net heat emissions accounts for most of the global warming there is no or little reason for carbon dioxide sequestration. eGov Monitor 7/20/2009 .

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

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

Spencer and Loris 2008 . the world's largest solar company. "Critics of nuclear power's costs miss the point". may ban its solar panels because they contain toxic cadmium telluride. equal to 103 megawatts of capacity. WEA) Solar energy projects are also running into trouble. lifetime costs are very low once the plant has been constructed.[7] To replace the cadmium model with a silicon-based model would quadruple the production costs. Mitchell. Jack and Nicolas.000– $51.[6] Other problems have arisen as well.522 photovoltaic solar panel installations. solar is intermittent: It produces electricity only when the sun is shining. recently told investors that its largest market. Solar. http://www.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1961. Inc. Heritage Foundation. the European Union. a professor at the University of California.000).000) far outweighed their value ($19..000–$91. 57 Ellis. that have received state support from California and found that their cost ($86. The intermittent nature of wind and solar energy is important to the overall economics of energy and how these renewable sources relate to nuclear power. For example. He looked at the costs of 26.cfm. Teddy & Megan . Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (6/19. **research assistance in the Thomas A. Berkeley's Haas School of Business and director of the UC Energy Institute.Climate Politics Page 57 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Solar Solves Solar is too intermittent and costly.heritage. The general economic problems of solar power were recently described in a study by Severin Borenstein. Given the low cost needed to operate a nuclear plant. Like wind.*research fellow in nuclear energy. [8] It is therefore difficult to conclude that wind or solar power should be built at all.

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

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. So far we’ve raised the temperature less than one degree Celsius.resident scholar at Middlebury (Bill. The Guardian. otherwise we'll have a mass extinction and a global warming catastrophe. WEA) If we allow GHG emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation to continue to grow at their present rates.co. http://www. Teddy & Megan . increase water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere. League of Women Voters.org/AM/Template. the first truly timed test we’ve ever faced. then some halfway plan is a good fallback – you can come back in a decade and make it stronger. http://www. for almost every other issue on earth." Tipping point is coming soon where climate change will be unstoppable. "Amazon could shrink by 85% due to climate change. You really want to go for two? Timeframe = this year. David. LVW climate change taskforce. release stores of carbon from soils and sea floors.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/amazon-global-warming-trees/print. but the alarming thing now is the level of certainty because real world observations are feeding into the computer models. If we don’t address it very dramatically and very soon. WEA) That’s a smart answer. Mitchell.guardianweekly.guardian. The grave danger we face and the need to take vigorous global action to reduce GHG emissions without delay are clear. the Guardian. Adam 2009 (3/11.uk/?page=editorial&id=1164&catID=17.4 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.cfm&CONTENTID=13409. the warming that will follow can be expected to decrease albedo3 (reflectivity) and increase the rate of absorption of solar energy near the poles. because those feedback loops are taking the outcome out of our hands. But global warming is different.lwv. "There really is no time for delay. http://www. Tolman 2009 (4/30. or it will get beyond our control McKibben 7/15/2009 . 59 Ellis.cfm? Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay. If he can’t get national health care through the Congress. and that’s melted the Arctic. melt Arctic tundra. "POSITIVE FEEDBACKS AND CLIMATE RUNAWAY THE NEED TO ACT WITHOUT DELAY". an environmental campaigner and Green party candidate.co. scientists say". Governments must cooperate to cut industrial emissions while at the same time halting deforestation. and accelerate the melting of ice. 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. Climate change is happening more rapidly than anyone expected." said Tony Juniper. "Environment: race against time". WEA) "People have known about the links between climate and forests for some time.

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

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

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

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

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

The bill is weak.. there are many additional cost-effective efficiency opportunities available. the energy efficiency provisions in H. and that new technologies could increase the available cost-effective savings.R. Steve Nadel is the Executive Director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). ACEEE’s studies of energy efficiency’s potential indicate that current technologies can cost-effectively save 25-30 percent of total energy use. Moreover. It reflects the enormous shift in priorities between the Obama administration and the previous one.org/press/0906waxman.Climate Politics Page 65 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. decreasing incrementally to 7 percent in 2029. And. A01. “Climate bill gives billions to foreign foliage.S.” The Washington Times. 2454 also provides for a number of free emissions allowances to help companies mitigate the economic impact of climate change legislation. including New York State. If one-third of these funds American consumers would save over 2. http://www.htm. 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. Combat Global Warming.8 quadrillion Btu’s.org/issues/2009/06/no_whining. reflecting the costs of dirty coal-fired electricity. Yes. The bill would worsen global warming by lifting the prohibition against the federal government purchase of oil from Canadian tar sands. 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. http://www. lexis] 65 Ellis. and unacceptable.americanprogress.75 percent of allowances in 2012. “H. hapless. including energy efficiency and wind and solar power. It sets a hard cap on emissions—something the previous administration was dead set against—that will be lowered over time so we can achieve the emissions reductions climate science demands over the next few decades. 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. The warming bill will reduce CO2 emissions. Critics assail futile 'offsets'. In total. sequestration and reforestation provisions solve existing emissions. House passage of H.900 PER HOUSEHOLD BY 2030”. Although these potential savings are dramatic. Undoubtedly. Teddy & Megan . It would spark more clean-energy innovation and private investment in clean alternatives. over and above the savings from the Combined Efficiency and Renewable Electricity Standard. these energy efficiency savings grow to 12. Senate passage of similar legislation will be more difficult.R. accounting for about 12 percent of projected U. 2009] H. 2454 is only the first arduous step toward energy transformation. No.4 quadrillion Btu's. 6/23/09] Despite these changes this bill is a giant leap forward in efforts to transition to a low-carbon economy.html. Cumulative energy bill savings will total more than $250 billion by 2030. the equivalent of taking 57 million cars off the road for a year. Revised 6/23/09. energy use by 5.R.aceee. which accounts for about 5 percent of projected U. By 2030. energy use in 2020. a non-profit research organization. Whining. staff writer. Podesta 09 – President of the Center for American Progress (John. In the short term the cap would reduce emissions by the equivalent of removing 500 million cars from the road by 2020. President and CEO of the Center for American Progress. The cap would also set a price on carbon pollution. 2454 could reduce U. energy use that year. Mitchell. including substantial free allowances to electric utilities.R. These range from 43.5 quads of energy in 2030. ACEEE NEWS RELEASE.uses efficiency and renewable electricity standards Nadel and Watson 09 – [Steven Nadel and Suzanne Watson. 2454 WOULD SAVE $3.S. Increasing the energy efficiency component of the Combined were dedicated to efficiency.S. 6-25/09 [Amanda. PAGE ONE. which produce twice as much greenhouse gas pollution as regular oil. These energy efficiency savings are more than the annual energy use of 47 of the 50 states. such savings will avoid about 345 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2020. DeBard 09. C&T Solves Warming The climate bill is key to solve warming—it sets a hard cap on emissions. Center for American Progress. and it must be improved before it passes the Senate.

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

Climate Politics Page 67 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Cap And Trade Modeled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

67 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

Climate Politics Page 68 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Cap And Trade Modeled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

68 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

Climate Politics Page 69 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Cap And Trade Modeled

Countries like India will be too bitter too cooperate unless we send a clear signal. Foster 2007 (6/12, Peter, the Telegraph, "India snubs West on climate change",
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

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

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

which both China and the US have in abundance. 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. "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. 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. WEA) Cooperation between China and the US is crucial in meeting the climate change challenge.chinadaily.cn/china/200907/17/content_8439207." Locke said." Chu said. to share. including improving technology to reduce carbon emissions and increasing energy efficiency. Teddy & Megan . Both were visiting China for the first time as part of the Obama administration. "One of the most important things is mutual cooperation. "The US and China have what it takes to meet the world's energy challenge. http://www. 72 Ellis.htm. the technology.Climate Politics Page 72 of 156 7WJ – HPSW China Key To Solve Warming China cooperation is key to make emissions reductions effective. The objective of the planned joint clean energy research center.com. he said. It'll be great if 100 years from now the history books say the US and China's collaboration saved the planet from the irreversible climate change. That was the message from a joint press conference held by US Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke and US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu Thursday. as best we can and as many things as we can. China Daily 7/17/2009 ("China-US climate teamwork evolving"." Chu said there is much the countries can do. Mitchell.

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

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

latimes. That chamber once again finds itself in a position to overrule the president as it considers a sweeping climate-change bill that was narrowly approved last month in the House. Mitchell. Teddy & Megan . http://www. after all. signed the Kyoto Protocol to fight global warming in 1998.Climate Politics Page 75 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: G8 Solves G8 agreements are worthless without Congressional follow-up. 75 Ellis.". President Clinton.story. but it was never ratified by the Senate.S.com/news/opinion/la-ed-summit102009jul10. LA Times 7/10/2009 ("Global warming: The heat is on the U.4746209.0. It would fulfill Obama's G-8 promise by meeting the 2050 goal. WEA) Such international pacts are usually meaningless without the backing of Congress.

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

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

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

"We can now place a much higher level of confidence in model-based projections of climate change than in the past. Scientific opinion on climate change In the study.com/releases/2008/04/080402100001. Great Britain. Of course. Korea. working group one of the IPCC released its fourth global warming report. "Climate Models Look Good When Predicting Climate Change"." said Reichler. 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. The University of Utah study results directly relate to this highly publicized report by showing that the models used for the IPCC paper have reached an unprecedented level of realism. 79 Ellis. Earlier this year. "Coupled models are becoming increasingly reliable tools for understanding climate and climate change.sciencedaily. Mitchell. environmentalists and even scientists. 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. Teddy & Megan . 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. To this end. Australia. Russia. http://www. the study's results also provide important response to critics of global warming. France.htm. also included is the very latest model generation that was used for the very recent (2007) report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). and the best models are now capable of simulating present-day climate with accuracy approaching conventional atmospheric observations.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. and the United States. they compare the output of the models against observations for present climate. Canada. Germany." 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. WEA) The accuracy of computer models that predict climate change over the coming decades has been the subject of debate among politicians. Given the significance of climate change research in public policy. Most of these models project a global warming trend that amounts to about 7 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years.

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. The large climate changes that have been observed in the past 30 years cannot be accounted for unless the effects of human activities are included. WEA) Burning fossil fuels (coal. http://www. League of Women Voters. soot.cfm? Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay. and natural gas). 80 Ellis. LVW climate change taskforce.org/AM/Template. including melting large areas that have been covered by ice and snow. population growth. and agricultural practices are changing the composition of the atmosphere (increasing the concentrations of CO2 and other GHGs. and sulfates) and changing the surface of the land.cfm&CONTENTID=13409. Mitchell. Teddy & Megan . oil. deforestation.

Teddy & Megan . almost to the week. A particularly common obfuscation from rightwing pundits is the "revelation" that global temperatures have been declining since 1998. And the last decade was on average the hottest ever recorded. and global warming had gone from future threat to present crisis. Such statistical blips are properly ignored by most climatologists. yet their comprehension of climate science hasn't improved.0. This hardly debunks the climate change theory. McKibben 7/15/2009 . 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.” They misinterpret short-term statistical blips—our overall climate theory is still intact. http://www. But politicians haven’t caught up. 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.latimes. 81 Ellis.uk/?page=editorial&id=1164&catID=17. even as carbon emissions during the intervening 11 years have risen.” Since we’re already at 390ppm. Those observations changed everything – and they produced what is almost certainly the most important number in the world. We need a fire extinguisher. "Environment: race against time". Mitchell. outstripping the climate models by decades. It wasn’t just Arctic ice. at least if we want a planet “similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted. WEA) But two years ago. 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. and much faster than expected.guardianweekly.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. It’s easy to understand why: reaching a deal that would meet even that 2 degree target is incredibly hard.co.4746209. The cyclical El Niño phenomenon and heavy greenhouse gas concentrations combined to make 1998 the hottest year in recorded history. LA Times 7/10/2009 ("Global warming: The heat is on the U. who look at average temperatures over time rather than year-to-year data. Oceanographers reported – incredulously – that we’d managed to make the oceans 30% more acidic.com/news/opinion/la-ed-summit102009jul10. 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.resident scholar at Middlebury (Bill. WEA) The clamor from global-warming deniers has heated up as the nation gets closer to taking action. Clearly we’d passed a threshold. The Guardian. Surveys of high altitude glaciers showed they were uniformly melting.S. http://www. and we need it now. As we head toward the crucial Copenhagen talks slated for December. scientists noticed that the Arctic was losing ice at an almost unbelievable pace. apparently as a result of thawing permafrost. given the recalcitrance of everyone from China’s Central Committee to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.story.".

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

Mitchell. http://network. Teddy & Megan . Moore 7/16/2009 (John. we dispute the cause. Actually. WEA) A major talking point amongst the skeptics is a certain indignation over how “global warming” became “climate change”.” 83 Ellis. the terms are irrelevant. "John Moore: One world government and global warming/climate change/whatever". 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.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/07/16/john-moore-one-world-government-and-global-warmingclimate-change-whatever.nationalpost.aspx. Some people think this was a marketing move by the international forces of socialism to protect our Coke-like franchise. The general theory has been roughly the same for 150 years. National Post.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.

If we melt the West Antarctic ice sheet. which absorbs less carbon from the atmosphere. after that in Antarctica. WEA) Let me now say a little bit more about some other feedbacks. when temperatures were roughly what they’re going to be at the end of this century.’ Other potentially destabilizing carbon-cycle feedbacks include the drying of the Amazon and the possibility that if it dries it will burn.mate scientist at Stanford.back situation.com/articles/excerpt-new_urgency-thomas_homer-dixon. change.homerdixon. And then there’s the matter of pine bark beetles. The Southern Ocean around Antarctica is no longer absorbing carbon diox.gest that feedback of global temperature and atmosphere CO2 will pro. The Greenland ice sheet is the second largest mass of ice in the world. He just shrugged and said.mote warming by an extra 15% to 78% on a century scale over and above the IPCC estimates. we’ve lost wide swaths of pine forest in British Columbia and Alaska – huge areas of trees – to bark-beetle infestation. as the climate has warmed. the forest will be susceptible to fire that could release astounding quantities of carbon dioxide. ‘[we] produce an independent estimate of the potential implications of the positive feedback between global tem. Teddy & Megan . ‘well.000 years ago. They went on. in turn. If we melt the rest of Antarctica. Brovkin. As the permafrost melts it releases large quantities of methane – a very powerful greenhouse gas that. we get another five metres. about the implications of such a develop. Scientists are also concerned about the potential release of more carbon dioxide from forests: just yesterday researchers reported evidence that.or-less directly on temperature. The positive ones are self-reinforcing. and if they kill that for. these dynamic ice sheets. higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are acidifying the oceans. Also. Our climate has both positive and negative feedbacks. which have already been susceptible to wide-spread burning. Warming has produced much more vigorous winds closer to Antarctica. "Positive Feedbacks. and Northern Canada. a change could reduce populations of molluscs and phytoplankton that absorb carbon into the calcium carbonate of their shells. One carbon feedback that worries scientists involves the melting of the permafrost in Siberia. and sea levels were four to six metres higher than they are right now. PhD in IR from MIT (11/14. and Cox carried out a comprehensive assessment of the feed. The Greenland ice sheet will probably be the first to melt. 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. This is one of the punch lines of my presentation today.est.’ Let’s turn to the issue of In other words. I mentioned there are two general kinds of feedback: those that operate more. and the Recarbonization of the Global Fuel Supply: The New Sense of Urgency about Global Warming". During the last interglacial period 125.7 They wrote. where warming produces a change in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. transcript of an address to the conference for a Globally Integrated Climate Policy for Canada. such as the ice-albedo feedback. Professor in the Centre for Environment and Business in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo. the Canadian boreal forest has gone from being a carbon sink to a slight carbon emitter. We have a fairly good understanding of the former and not such a good understanding of the latter. In a paper published last year in Geophysical Research Letters.’ researchers focused specifically on carbon cycle feedbacks. Homer-Dixon 2007 . we get seven metres of sea-level rise.pdf. much of Greenland melted. If we melt Greenland entirely. Scheffer. Both these changes mean that beetle populations become much larger overall. ‘we sug.ide to the extent it did in the past.ment. because it’s the most vulnerable. causes more warming. 84 Ellis. If these larger populations cross the Rockies and get into the boreal forest that stretches from Alberta to Newfoundland. and those that operate on Earth’s carbon cycle. we get an additional fifty or so metres. the drying of peat bogs in Indonesia.peratures and greenhouse gasses. I asked Stephen earlier that Schneider. http://www. Mitchell. As you likely know. These winds have churned up the sea and brought to the surface deep carbon-rich water. Dynamic Ice Sheets. and beetle mortality is lower during the winter. a leading cli. As the climate warms. Alaska.Centre for International Governance Innovation Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of International Affairs. and the saturation of ocean carbon sinks.Climate Politics Page 84 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Negative Feedbacks Feedbacks are NET positive. we’re talking about billions of tonnes of carbon. bark-beetle populations reproduce through two generations during the summer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

trade competitors all impose new and similar climate costs on their energy-intensive industries. In a recent op-ed. CFR's Jagdish Bhagwati questioned U. 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. Since the United States has few sticks to bring to the climate negotiating table. the only solution to the competitiveness problem is global climate action. Protectionism up now—World Economic Forum meeting proves. trade minister echoed concerns (Reuters) about protectionism. the short-term trade outlook isn't particularly rosy.David M. French leaders. Many of the financial sector's major players skipped the summit altogether (Bloomberg). http://www.html. particularly among the leaders of emerging economies. 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. as did India's (Reuters). WEA) China has also come under criticism for protectionism. American enterprises say that China encourages the development of local enterprises by restraining foreign energy companies from entry into the Chinese market.S.S. But if major U. Council on Foreign Relations.assistant editor and economics writer for CFR. Teddy & Megan . Mr. ChinaStakes 7/16/2009 (Chinese business news. Obama aside ." added Angel Gurria..S. valued around $3. Ultimately.S. rebates will vanish. Pleas for economic openness rang out at this year's summit. If we win our modeling claims then you do not have a protectionism turn. http://www. Significant threats loomed for free-trade hawks well before Davos.chinastakes. then. WEA) Amidst the worst economic crisis in decades. too.Climate Politics Page 98 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Trade Turn China is already acting protectionist in the energy sector. climate legislation. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao backed Putin.cfr. though. U. compared to an expansion of 4. saying world leaders must remain vigilant (Xinhua) in their efforts to curb trade protectionism. Lee Hudson. The International Monetary Fund estimates global trade will contract 2. the World Economic Forum's annual mega-summit in the Swiss Alps found itself at a crossroads. Trade policy could emerge as a flashpoint in the weeks and months to come. prototypal "Davos Man"--the international captain of finance whose prominence and significance has risen meteorically in recent decades--seemed humbled. "China Warns US: Carbon Tariff Will Invite Retaliation".S. The concern for policymakers. however. Michael A. its trade measures don't unnecessarily aggravate the external relationships that will be needed to get that done. no one country's industries will be unfairly disadvantaged.com/2009/7/china-warns-us-carbon-tariff-will-invite-retaliation. the secretary-general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. degree from Harvard (1/30. Mitchell. Congress should make sure that in crafting U. As a result. Over time. Democrats are pushing for "Buy American" provisions to be included in President Barack Obama's proposed stimulus package. President Barack Obama's pronouncements on trade. saying Obama has ignored lessons from the Depression era. WEA) In the long term.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. Rather. "We will only make the crisis worse if we succumb to the lure of protectionism and petty nationalism. Egypt's party scene. The World Bank also projects a contraction--the first decline in global trade since 1982. 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. "Gloomy Portents for Global Trade". progress on the international front will depend mainly on cooperative action. for keeping a fair and open market was the consensus reached between leaders of the two countries at the G20 meeting in London. 98 Ellis. http://www.org/publication/18429/. Teslik 2009 . Levi 2009 . in an article published on the OECD's website. CFR.8 percent in 2009 (WSJ). such as excluding foreign companies from bidding on a recent wind power project. and several big banks cancelled the glitzy parties they have traditionally hosted at the summit. particularly as major developed economies seek to implement stimulus packages to boost their domestic economies. Locke said that China could not close its markets.org/publication/19674/. saying such policies could backfire (Guardian). Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned against reliance upon intervention and protectionism to cure economic ills.3 billion. "Trade and Climate Change". face strong protectionist pressures. the United States can't cut through this thicket by itself. The Financial Times' John Gapper says the Davos was different this year. most of the rationale for the U.1 percent in 2008. 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.

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

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

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

Rueters 6/24/2009 ("Updated Energy Savings Analysis of H. laborers. Dollar for dollar. as outlined in this bill. As our nation faces high unemployment and an ailing auto industry. 2454. 70 percent of which will go to Advanced Energy Research and 30 percent of which will go to "Energy Innovation Hubs" at universities. and power plants will create 770. according to an updated analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). 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. "Letter From Olver: House Passes Comprehensive Energy Legislation".php?story_id=31496. 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. which are estimated at over $4. the most important one yet. Retrofits will employ building specialists and construction workers while burgeoning solar and wind industries will need machinists. jobs based on clean energy and energy efficiency depend on American resources and cannot be shipped overseas. which raised the average American household's energy costs by $1.000 per household per year by 2030. buildings. the American Clean Energy and Security Act".7 million American jobs over the next two years alone. Waxman-Markey). We have passed legislation to green our schools and preserve 2 million acres of wilderness.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. ACES represents the next step.R.050 per household by 2020 and $4. Six months ago we passed an economic recovery act with investments in smart infrastructure and sustainable job creation. and in many ways. The Center for American Progress estimates that the transition from foreign oil to clean American energy. The bill also changed the distribution of R&D funds. http://www. And unlike other jobs.Massachusetts representative on the House Appropriations Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation. 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.100 between 2001 and 2007. WEA) The federal energy efficiency provisions included in H. In addition.400 per household by 2030.R. will create 1. factories. 102 Ellis. This is a welcome change from the Bush administration energy plan. Housing and Urban Development (John W. the American Clean Energy and Security Act (a. Less than two months later we approved a budget containing unprecedented support for mass transit and energy innovation. Changes to ACEEE's analysis come from an updated assessment of savings from a number of provisions. could save approximately $1.a.iberkshires.000 jobs by 2030. And according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Teddy & Megan . this is the perfect opportunity to make significant investments in industries that will become the base of a new American economy. and engineers. Efficiency mandates in the cap and trade bill solve any cost concerns.com/story.k. as well as changes to the bill made in a Rule's Committee version of the bill released yesterday. the improved efficiency standards the bill creates for appliances.. http://www. These estimates do not take into account savings from energy efficient appliances.reuters. 10 percent of the SEED (State Energy and Environmental Development) program is set aside for transportation programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Mitchell. investments in a clean energy economy create four times as many jobs as investments in the oil and gas industry. 2454.com/article/gwmCarbonEmissions/idUS363785493920090624. Olver 7/6/2009 .

reduce harmful carbon emissions. Ethiopian Review. http://www. with the result that no significant “tax increase” occurs. Stone et al 2009 . **BA in economics and masters degree in social work from U Michigan (3/3. and Sharon Parrott.org/files/3-3-09climate. http://www. which equals 22 cents to 30 cents per day. “This legislation American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. will not only position America at the forefront of the clean-energy economy but will also create jobs and opportunities for communities that are too often at the margins – and the smokestack end – of our current economy. http://www. A separate analysis from the Congressional Prefer our evidence—indicts of the proposal ignores offset mechanisms that blunt any economic impact.and create millions of green jobs that will put our citizens back to work and get our economy back on track. 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. 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.” said Phil Angelides. in addition to raising the cost of using “dirty” energy. Bishu 7/17/2009 (Deswta. Budget Office projected an annual cost of $175 for U. Chad Stone.com/articles/14962. WEA) • Protect consumers from energy price increases. It ignores the fact that.” Let’s quantify it—the most official studies cite the cost to consumers at 30 cents a day. the 27 nations of the European Union have operated a cap-and-trade system since 103 Ellis.” Green For All CEO Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins said in a statement. 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. former executive director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress.S. That claim is misleading because it focuses on just one aspect of the Administration’s cap-and-trade proposal. which was a driving force in securing green job training funds in the The bill includes a $860 million allocation to the Green Jobs Act. "House Passes Landmark Climate Change Bill.S. Ethiopian Review. CBO calculates that the legislation will cost the average household less than 50 cents per day. "House Passes Landmark Climate Change Bill. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 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.”1 Several northeastern states have already implemented a cap-and-trade system on a regional basis as part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Now Heads to Senate". That is what the President’s proposal would do.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". households between $80 and $111 per year.*Chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. households by 2020. “The American Clean Energy And Security Act is a giant leap forward to establish energy security. chairman of the Apollo Alliance. called the bill a significant step forward in creating a more equitable and secure country. Teddy & Megan .S. 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.cbpp. the reductions in carbon pollution required by the legislation will cost American families less than a postage stamp per day. Mitchell.com/articles/14962. Now Heads to Senate".050 cumulatively and produce more than 300. households up to $1. green jobs here at home and help revive America’s long suffering manufacturing sector.-based nonprofit Green For All.pdf.ethiopianreview. Calif. According to estimates from the Environmental Protection Agency. WEA) Oakland. The U. Hannah Shaw. 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. In addition.ethiopianreview.000 jobs by 2020.

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

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

they could protect consumers from higher energy prices. who leads the District of Columbia's Public Service Commission. 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. however. . it Edison Electric Institute. more climate friendly energy sources. I think there’s a general consensus we ought to return as much of it as possible to rate payers. It should be something that is trying to achieve its objective of reducing carbon emissions in the country and that alone. The president's budget assumes that allowances will be sold and uses the projected $650 billion in revenue to help people pay for higher energy costs and to develop new. electricity customers will face what Jeffry Sterba.com that cap and trade is designed to increase energy costs so that consumers invest in alternative (or green) energy sources. utility commissions. These higher prices would be the result of legislation that would put a price on the gases linked to global warming. not sell them. "Revenues associated with pricing greenhouse gases would be returned to the very consumers who would be at risk for paying higher energy prices. CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. which is comprised of more than a dozen organizations. Bingaman said." If the allowances are sold. 106 Ellis. ranging from the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). 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.. I don’t think it’s clear what – I think that’s one of the parts of the debate that we need to have – is what happens to any revenue that is generated from the auctioning off of allowances – and I think there are various proposals that call for different ways to distribute that wealth. Mitchell." said Richard Morgan. but beyond that I don’t think there’s any specifics agreed upon. as proposed by President Barack Obama.Climate Politics Page 106 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: C&T Kills Economy – Auctions Current bill leads to auctions CNS News. “Obama’s ‘Cap and Trade’ Plan Likely Will Raise Energy Prices." he said. Teddy & Megan . 4/30/2009 (Nicholas Ballasy.” he said. "It should not be legislation that is designed to raise revenue. and electric utilities told lawmakers that if they were given the allowances. which represents 42 million consumers in 47 states. said it is not yet “clear” what the government is going to do with the revenue made from auctioning carbon permits. “Well.. “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.” Auctions increase consumer spending AP. Representatives for rural cooperatives. Bingaman. "Auction is not a good idea. The alliance further said that cap and trade is like a distribution of wealth program. "We would discourage the committee from going down that road. told CNSNews. 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. called would be a windfall for shareholders. When asked if he had an idea about how the revenue should be distributed. They said that if Congress decided to give them to the producers of electricity. 4/23/2009 (Dina Cappiello. Says Senate Energy Chairman”) The Climate Equity Alliance." said Glenn English. “Well. electricity providers warned Thursday.

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

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

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

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

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

Also.pur.8 in 2010 (about $33 per household per month).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.com/pubs/4419.4 cents per kilowatt-hour to 6.0 in 2020 (about $108). EIA predicts average electricity prices will increase under the bill from 6.7 Program-that emissions to year 2000 levels by 2015.7 to 8. Public Utilities Reports. and from to 9. and no continued federal and state emission reduction programs. Fontaine 2004 .. and will further reduce the bill's costs by independently contributing toward the bill's modest goal of reducing CO2 6. Obviously. Teddy & Megan . Environmental & Public Utility Practice Group of the Cozen O'Connor law firm (Peter J.1 in 2025 (about $200). 112 Ellis. no market penetration of new low-emission technologies (despite billions of federal R&D spending).cfm. Mitchell. no significant fuel-shift to natural gas (despite this market's historic unpredictability). from 6. 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.co-chairs the Energy. EIA assumed. http://www. By changing this single assumption from EIA's analysis MIT found that monthly costs to the average household would be only $15 to $20. unrealistically. "Global Warming: The Gathering Storm". such programs are likely to continue. 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.

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

given that only 14 are now under construction. Meanwhile.Climate Politics Page 114 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Nuclear Power Decreasing Nuclear power is dead – growth is slow and leveling off Hanley. Teddy & Megan . pg. a figure equivalent to just one-tenth of the new wind power installed globally that year. reports the Worldwatch Institute.5 per cent in 2007. global nuclear power capacity grew by less than 2. more than 124 reactors have been retired by the commercial nuclear industry since 1964. 08 (Paul. The reality is quite different. A recent Time magazine article. Growth was just 0. 6/24. In total. Is Nuclear Viable?. 6 –Christopher. world electricity demand is projected to grow by more than 30 percent (the equivalent of more than 500 nuclear power plants) during this same period. Global nuclear capacity stands at 372.000 megawatts. Twelve have been under construction for 20 years or more. 114 Ellis. including wind and solar. attracted $71 billion in private investment last year. At least 70 nuclear plants would have to be built in the next decade just to replace those that are projected to be closed. “Nuclear industry spins new mythology”. By the end of 2007. July/august. Proquest) Globally. 34 nuclear reactors were being built worldwide. that it is experiencing a kind of renaissance.800 megawatts. Saskatchewan). compared to 27 per cent for wind energy. but its growth rate is lower than any other energy source. This is virtually inconceivable. The Star Pheonix (Saskatoon. Mitchell. 12. While the red-hot renewable industry. reports that the American nuclear industry is so unattractive that it is unable to attract private investment. the nuclear industry attracted nothing. President of World Watch Institute (“Brave Nuclear World?/Commentary: Nuclear revival? Don’t bet on it!”. because more than half the world's nuclear power plants are over 20 years old. Global nuclear power decreasing now Flavin. lexis) A second myth is that nuclear is now gaining worldwide acceptance. Meanwhile. Vol. nuclear power is more likely to decline than to increase in the coming years.000 megawatts in 2007. 19. reducing capacity by 36.

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

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

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

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. is too radioactive to be readily handled by a criminal gang. Kicking the Carbon Habit: Global Warming and the Case for Renewable and Nuclear Energy. 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. 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. 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. pg.Climate Politics Page 118 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Reprocessing Solves Prolif Reprocessing makes prolif and terrorism more likely Sweet. 118 Ellis. greatly reduces the physical quantity of waste that must be permanently stored. Teddy & Megan . 6 – Senior news editor for the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (William. Extraction of re-burnable uranium and plutonium from spent fuels. left alone. producing more energy than they consume. Mitchell. and it would open the door to a so-called "plutonium economy" in which breeder reactors would run on the recycled fuel. it is argued. 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. partly to stretch fuel resources. When plutonium is extracted from spent fuel commercially. partly to create an impression that the disposal problem is solved. while in some ways complicating the whole situation by creating more streams of different radioactive materials that all have to be specially handled. Spent fuel from reactors. As for the stretching of nuclear fuels. But recycling does not really solve the disposal problem: it merely reduces the volume of waste that has to be permanently stored (and that volume is relatively small to begin with).

care of construction. Teddy & Megan . natural gas. in engineering (specialization: nuclear fusion) from the University of California at Berkeley (Arjun.000 gallons of water per minute. actually consume more. http://www.000 Georgia homes.President of IEER. consumes around 7. Closed-loop systems also rely on greater amounts of water for cleaning and therefore return less water to the original source.” 2004.org/pubs/atomicmyths. for example. Severe accidents: Severe accidents on the scale of Chernobyl can occur with nuclear power plants. Advanced power plant systems that rely on re-circulating. Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).newenergychoices. coal. and nuclear facilities consume about 3. and all traditional plants lose water through evaporative loss. 07 . holds a Ph.250 Waste from nuclear power contaminates water resources. 4 . Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. notably water resources.246 Older. withdraws an average of 57 million gallons every day from the Altamaha River. In 2006. enough to service more than 196. June. a national nonprofit organization committed to reforming U. but actually “consumes” (primarily as lost water vapor) 33 million gallons per day from the local supply.244 In 2006. continuing to rely on fossil fuelfired and nuclear generators could spark a water scarcity crisis.ieer. Conventional power plants use thousands of gallons of water for the condensing portion of their thermodynamic cycle. Because much of the water is turned to steam. if new power plants continue to be built with evaporative cooling. Coal plants also use water to clean and process fuel.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. Mitchell.plutonium in current designs. they contribute even more to the nation’s water scarcity. energy policy (Benjamin and Chris. Makhijani. closed-loop cooling technology convert more water to steam that is vented to the atmosphere.3 billion gallons per day. they accounted for almost 40 percent of all freshwater withdrawals (water diverted or withdrawn from a surface.S. 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. Perhaps the most important—and least discussed—advantage to a federal RPS is its ability to displace electricity generation that is extremely waterintensive. the 3. The nation’s oil. “Atomic Myths. the Department of Energy warned that consumption of water for electricity production could more than double by 2030.or ground-water source). are very long-lived and threaten essential resources. America will soon be withdrawing more water for electricity production than for farming. Thus. These vulnerabilities relate to: Nuclear weapons proliferation: Nuclear power technology has a large overlap with nuclear weapons technology. http://www. or the equivalent of 17 Olympic-sized swimming pools every day. and degree of independent oversight and regulation.249 With electricity demand expected to grow by approximately 50 percent in the next 25 years. from mill tailings to spent fuel. less efficient plants can be much worse. In Georgia.913 gallons of water for every MWh of electricity it generates. for instance. roughly equivalent to all the water withdrawals for irrigated agriculture in the entire United States. while they withdraw less water.org/dev/uploads/Renewing%20America_NNEC_Final.pdf) If projected electricity demand is met using water-intensive fossil fuel and nuclear reactors.248 Nuclear reactors. while modern power plants may reduce water withdrawals by up to 10 percent. 119 Ellis. even though the details of accident mechanisms and accident probabilities vary with design.*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).400 MW Sherer coal facility consumes as much as 9. in particular. substantial amounts are lost to the local water table entirely. Newer technologies. One nuclear plant in Georgia.3 billion gallons of water each day. require massive supplies of water to cool reactor cores and spent nuclear fuel rods.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. Nuclear power plants create weapons usable materials .D. This staggering amount is equal to the entire country’s water consumption in 1995. to 7. Radioactive Realities: Why Nuclear Power Is a Poor Way to Meet Energy Needs.245 A conventional 500 MW coal plant.. Nuclear waste management: Wastes associated with nuclear power.

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

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

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

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

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

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

analysis by the architects of the endangerment finding. **research assistant in the Thomas A. In fact.[2] 126 Ellis.2 degrees Celsius by 2095. Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2407.heritage. http://www.1 to 0.*senior policy analyst in Energy and the Environment for the Heritage Foundation.cfm.Climate Politics Page 126 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Can’t Solve Warming Cap and trade only reduces temperature by . if any. WEA) The extraordinary perils of CO2 regulation for the American economy come with little. Teddy & Megan . "Five Reasons the EPA Should Not Attempt to Deal with Global Warming".2 degrees Loris and Lieberman 2009 . Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (4/23. the EPA. strongly suggests that a 60 percent reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2050 will reduce global temperature by 0.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2407. Mitchell. environmental benefit.

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

Volatility like the kind experienced in the ETS would translate into much more volatile energy prices. That means this policy will advantage average Americans rather than Wall Street traders while still discouraging carbon emissions. such volatility doesn’t threaten economic stability.S. emissions under the ETS have actually increased by 10 percent. The core idea is that businesses that can cut their emissions targets most cheaply will do so and sell permits to those who cannot. In theory. Roll Call. trilliondollar risks for the financial system. Burned by the political firestorm over his proposed BTU tax in 1993. issues emission permits to covered industries and creates a market for trading permits. and in that time almost all EU nations. It requires an elaborate bureaucracy to operate. once we set aside those offsets. There are serious doubts whether it will accomplish either. leaving voters vulnerable to further exploitation of financial instruments. create incentives to find alternatives without enriching traders and promoting the kind of lobbying that’s inevitable with cap-and-trade. the resulting increased prices could be offset by reducing the payroll tax. Another factor is the “offset” up or down by an average of 17. cap-and-trade spawns vested interests that will lobby hard to protect their interests and preserve the system. with strong support from Vice President Al Gore. cap-and-trade is intended to stabilize energy prices and provide incentives to develop new technologies. stunted economic growth and spawned cheating in the carbon trading system. and lets a new market sort out the messy job of determining the prices of emissions. while America’s carbon But the administration European Union. the option favored by an administer and enforce it. the debate will largely boil down to the last two choices. impose a carbon tax.1/15 http://www. “The Real Choice Between Cap-and-Trade and Carbon-Based Taxes”.rollcall. The treaty imposed deep cuts in emissions for developed countries. The Democratic Congressional leadership supports cap-and-trade. Washington has three options. the United Nations. the government policies responsible for higher prices under a carbon tax are clearly visible to consumers. It didn’t work for me.rollcall. Cap and trade fails – evasion and manipulation Roll Call. new auto technology and lower emission technology. proposing a 2012 target for the U.5 percent per month. And unlike a direct tax.S. Eleven years have elapsed. continue the present approach that relies on higher efficiency standards. A cap-and-trade system is very unlikely to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions — and more likely to introduce new.Climate Politics Page 128 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: C&T Solves Warming Won’t solve warming – EU system failed O’Keefe. as such. The system also has failed to establish a stable price for carbon — a goal widely considered a prerequisite for any effective climate change effort. if the U. it’s a stealth tax. One. were to join Europe — and China as well — in cap-and-trade. Though both policies will raise the price of energy. the increased costs under cap-and-trade will be hidden in the added costs of goods and services.com/news/31397-1.html) More than a decade ago. 2/3 http://www. And since it’s unlikely that politicians will opt to maintain the status quo. never even sent the Kyoto treaty to the Senate for approval. they have increased energy costs. Chief Executive Officer @ Marshall Institute. in 1997. Two. In contrast to a CO2 trading market. According to a new report by the Government Accountability Office. the prices for ETS permits are highly volatile. However. reduces that limit over time. This was the approach then-Vice President Al Gore proposed at the climate summit in Kyoto. Under cap-and-trade. Three. a system that sets a limit on emissions. Going forward. President Bill Clinton. opaque system over a simpler. given its support by some environmental groups and a number of European governments. political resistance. To the contrary. permits prices moved permits that European “transition” economies. Given its impact on the should be thankful we passed. gives away or auctions permits to produce those emissions. some U. there’s little if any evidence that the ETS has had any effect at all on emissions in Europe. Mitchell. “Time for a Fresh Debate Over America’s Climate Policy”. In the first two years of the EU cap-and-trade system. increasing number of economists and analysts.S. the EU emissions jumped by 3. themselves exempt from caps. A carbon tax. toward a carbon-based tax program with most of the revenues recycled in forms of tax relief. These taxes add to the cost of emission-producing energies and. On top of that.S. it’d be a different story entirely. Given the current economic pain and disruption generated by the financial sector meltdown. (That’s even more significant when you account for the fact that our economic growth was much stronger. The clearest illustration of the problems with cap-and-trade is the European Trading Scheme. unsettling everyone’s markets 128 Ellis. and global financial systems clearly point in a different direction. In reality. leaving everyone better off. the government sets an annual “cap” on greenhouse gas emissions. to break a deadlock and gain support from Russia and other developing nations that were effectively exempt from reducing their emissions. Kyoto protocols covering most of Europe. Teddy & Megan . more transparent one.com/news/32007-1. can sell to other ETS members. with daily price shifts as great as 70 percent. Despite all of these environmental and economic failings of the EU cap-and-trade system.) Not Clinton only have the EU emissions policies missed their objectives. for example. based on the According to a recent study in Nature. have failed to meet their targets. 9 (William. legislators are currently pushing to impose a similar emissions scheme here in the States. These regimes may offer the path of least current. Between 2000 and 2006. 9 (Robert. mandate a cap-and-trade system.3 percent. still pushes forcefully for a cap-and-trade scheme.html) While well-intentioned. cap-and-trade systems are riddled with daunting problems. Since the entire global permit market only currently amounts to some $60 billion. voters dioxide emissions only increased 2.5 percent. it’s difficult to understand why so many continue to favor a more complex. that was 7 percent below 1990 levels. drafted the Kyoto Protocol. Japan.” But here’s the catch. the major Kyoto signatories. But basic economics punctuated by the developments now gripping the U. One reason is that major emitters such as Germany simply exempt many of their facilities generating greenhouse gases. places a price on carbon and then allows the market to respond. but still allowed to sell “excess” permits to us and Europe. arguing : “I tried [a carbon tax] once. my former boss. there’s less chance of accountability. putting more money into the hands of workers. Without transparency.

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

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

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

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

a rise of about 0.000 more acres per year. the average was a little around 5 million acres per year going up in smoke.11 shows 10-year averages for acreage burned in the United States. Figure 6. and Figure 6.14. In other words.000 acres. the 0. don't draw the conclusion that global warming is therefore associated with perception of more forest fires means that there are more forest fires—remember Dan Rather and the deluge of hurricane coverage he set in motion in Galveston all those years ago.12 shows summer (June— September) temperatures since 1960. Mitchell. This isn't just a straw doe. on the average.3 inches of rain per year. 142-145) It is also one of the easiest to dispute. Figure 6.they’re decreasing burned acres Michaels in ‘4 (Patrick.13 is decadal average precipitation over the United States. In the 1960s.000-acre foreststack. you can't tell the climate signal from the random noise." First.000 acres is a needle buried in an annual 5.000. and rain.000.000 acres. It's not very hard to take the temperature. Despite our straightforward math.000 more burned acres.9°F in the period. it was also around 5 million. Scientifically speaking. That's part of the reason why.9 degree rise in temperature means that we are burning 630. the 2. (In the cool 1960s. we averaged about 28. about 38 million acres went up each year. rainfall. Environmental Sciences @ UVA. (And don't assume your 133 Ellis. but that doesn't mean there's more to hear about. and the Media”. We hear more about it. How about this one: Acreage burned = X (temperature) – Y (rainfall). The computer calculates that X is approximately equal to 700. Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies @ Cato and Prof. It's shown graphically in Figure 6.000fewer acres because of the increased moisture. That net change of minus 300. So every inch of rain above normal reduces the annual burn by 400. But. p. an average of 25 million combusted in the 1920s.000.3 inches. 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. Y is equal to 400.3-inch rise in rainfall means that we're burning 930. which means. In the warm 1990s. But there's also an increase in precipitation. There is a warming trend. the 1930s. This little "model" explains a bit less than half of the total year-to-year variation in acreage burned in the United States. you specify an equation that defines a hypothesis about the way something works. the total "change" in the climate-related signal according to our model is minus 300. that a year that is one degree warmer than normal will have 700. Teddy & Megan . we used to just let things burn. say. Consider what's happened since Bambi. By the 1990s that moved up to 30. and burn data and turn it into a mathematical "model. Since 1960. when we look at.5. heat.) reduced fire in the United States. the cartoon deer who probably spawned more ecological mismanagement and traffic fatalities than any other animal in cinematic history. “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists. Politicians.Climate Politics Page 133 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Forests No increase in forest fires ---.) Before the 1942 release of Bambi. or a rise of 2. or in the current era of irrational fire suppression.

the findings are relevant as they highlight the risk of hidden mechanisms that add dramatically to warming. But these "feedbacks" are poorly understood and some scientists believe there could be others still to be identified. estimates the planet's surface temperature blasted upwards by between five and nine degrees Celsius (nine and 16. That causes the sea to warm. which leads to the loss of more ice. try to account for the carbon that was spewed out during PETM. Previous research into this period.2 degrees Fahrenheit) in just a few thousand years.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jXKGlsM4aZXPmItKk9TowSECsEYg. this exposes the uncovered sea to sunlight. Even though there are big differences between Earth's geology and ice cover then and now.700 parts per million (ppm).Climate Politics Page 134 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Greenhouse Theory Flawed The dominant greenhouse theory is incomplete—it fails to explain past warming. There must have been some other factor that stoked temperatures higher. attaining a concentration of between four and five times that of today. AFP 4/13/2009 (Agence France Presse. as opposed to man-made -.were disgorged in a very short time." 134 Ellis. and so on. What seems clear is that a huge amount of heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases -. or about the temperature of a lukewarm bath. "Our results imply a fundamental gap in our understanding about the amplitude of global warming associated with large and abrupt climate perturbations. 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. But all this CO2 can only account for between one and 3.3 F) of PETM's warming if the models for climate sensitivity are right. How PETM happened is unclear but climatologists are eager to find out. Some of these so-called "positive feedbacks" are already known. the team found. Mitchell. called the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. led by Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii. says the paper. when a patch of Arctic sea ice melts. scientists said on Monday. which in turn helps the sea to warm. The theorised sources include volcanic activity and the sudden release of methane hydrates in the ocean." warns Zeebe's team. "This gap needs to be filled to confidently predict future climate change. The Arctic Ocean warmed to 23 C (73 F). They believe that levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) rose by 70 percent during PETM's main phase to reach 1.5 C (1. or PETM. "Mystery mechanism drove global warming 55 million years ago". http://www. depriving it of a bright. A trio of Earth scientists. as this could shed light on aspects of global warming today.natural. For instance. Teddy & Megan .8-6. reflective layer.

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

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

Using U.5% in the first decade below the baseline. You hear it won’t cost Americans families very much – about a stamp per day is what proponents of the bill say. stimulating the economy while igniting a green revolution.) It will increase your energy bills. and worst of all. like most debates in Washington. all in the year 2030.3 percent ($350 billon) below the baseline in 2030 and 1.500 to be exact. it’s about $71.) It will cost a family-of-four an additional $3.000 per year. Census population projection estimates. 6.1 million greater than the baseline assumptions. If cap and trade were so sure to work. Cap and trade is an energy tax that falls disproportionately on the poor.600. we find that the average per-family-of-four costs rise by almost $3.” Policymakers sought to protect consumers.4 trillion (in 2009 dollars). All three aforementioned studies found significant losses in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). When all the tax impacts have been added up. A federally mandated RES is proposed only because renewables are too expensive to compete otherwise. and the way they will be met is by raising the price of energy high enough so people use less. And if you add up the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035.7 million jobs in each year of the policy through 2030–after accounting for “green job” creation. From 2012 to 2035. since low-income households spend a larger percentage of their income on energy. 2. job loss will be 1. the accumulated GDP lost is $9. In effect. “Relative to total expenditure. has become a numbers game.) It will destroy 1. and thus doing damage that no check would cover. But Heritage isn’t alone in these estimates.) It hits low-income households hardest. the other says it’s expensive. natural gas prices would increase 55 percent. that’s equivalent to about 1. the tax impact is $4. By 2035. 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. CRA’s and the Black Chamber’s study found that relative to the baseline. the years in which we modeled the bill. Heritage’s CDA found that by 2035 gasoline prices would increase 58 percent.S. the burden on the poor obviously becomes heavier. Brookings predicts GDP in the United States would be lower by 2. selective hearing can dictate what you believe Waxman-Markey will do to the economy and how it will affect global warming.15 million jobs. If only a small portion (15 percent) of the energy tax revenue is given back to the consumer. there is a projected 2. The carbon dioxide reduction targets are still the same at the end of the day. electricity prices would jump 90 percent. You hear it’s a jobs bill – that investing billions of dollars in new green technologies that will create or save millions of jobs. the poor suffer most. The Brookings Institute. Heritage found the average GDP lost is $393 billion.) It will reduce economic growth.Climate Politics Page 137 of 156 7WJ – HPSW The cap and trade debate. That’s a lot of postage stamps—162. 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.5 percent ($730 billion) below the baseline in 2050. Although upper income families tend to use more energy (and thus emit more carbon per household). Nothing could be further from the truth. Since renewables are lavished with substantial tax breaks.) More subsidies for unproven technologies and energy sources. One side says it’s cheap. our primary measure of economic activity. saying. Washington is forcing costlier energy options on the public. the poor pay more […]. electricity prices go up by 22% and gasoline increases by 23 center per gallon. from higher energy prices by handing out rebate checks or tax cuts. cap and trade would be massive tax on energy consumption. however. home heating oil would increase 56 percent. Depending on what side of the political isle you fall on. natural gas prices would rise by an estimated 16%. Teddy & Megan . by reducing their workforce for example. especially the poor. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that. for the average year over the 2012-2035 timeline. a national mandate will cost Americans both as taxpayers and as ratepayers.5 percent in 2050 and the National Black Chamber estimates that in GDP will be 1. Mitchell. 1. a supporter of a carbon tax.500. Here are thirteen reasons to oppose cap and trade. hitting a high of $662 billion in 2035.3-2. why is all this even necessary? 137 Ellis.5 million fewer jobs than without a cap-and-trade bill. 5. A study done by Charles River Associates prepared for the National Black Chamber of Congress projects higher unemployment of 2.000 per year.7 million fewer jobs than without cap and trade. projects that cap and trade will increase unemployment would by 0. the higher energy prices would reduce economic activity by forcing businesses to cut costs elsewhere. 3. In the year 2035 alone. 4. Proponents of a carbon cap acknowledge this. Rebates or not. Since 85 percent of America’s energy needs come from carbon emitting fossil fuels.

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

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

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

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

and I feel compelled to offer this warning from the Left Coast. two things are certain. This House has just made the biggest economic mistake since the days of Herbert Hoover. 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. energy production. Waxman-Markey is our generation’s Smoot-Hawley. AB 32 and companion legislation caused them to abandon that contract. Until that bill took effect. Teddy & Megan . cargo and passenger transportation. 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. Today. First. Schwarzenegger assured us that AB 32 would mean an explosion of new. the first thing that economists point to is the SmootHawley Tariff Act that imposed new taxes on more than 20. R-CA. We need to understand what that means.2 pounds of carbon dioxide every day — just by breathing. but the objective is the same: to force a dramatic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Three years ago. because it imposes new taxes on an infinitely larger number of domestic products on a scale that utterly dwarfs Smoot-Hawley. every human being produces 2. It transcends ideology and politics. was about to sign a long-term power contract to get its electricity from a new. http://www. Calif. and at its highest point since 1941.000 imported products. Assembly Bill 32. When you discuss the folly of the Hoover administration — how it turned the recession of 1929 into the depression of the 1930s. What is it that happened in January 2007? AB 32 took effect and began shutting down entire segments of California’s economy. “Waxman-Markey Is Our Smoot-Hawley”. The replacement power they acquired literally doubled their electricity costs. So when economists warn that we can expect electricity prices to double under the cap and trade bill.org/content/view/14249/54/lang. Can’t Solve Warming/Economy Cap and Trade doesn’t solve warming or the economy – California’s attempt at reducing emissions proves McClintock. it’s worse. this is deadly serious stuff. Let me give you one example from my district. our planet will continue to warm and cool as it has been doing for billions of years. 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. But then. Madam Speaker. Mitchell. green jobs — exactly the same promises we’re hearing from cap and trade supporters. 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. Congress will have delivered a staggering blow to our nation’s economy at precisely that moment when that economy was the most vulnerable. If this measure becomes law. So applying a tax to the economy designed to radically constrict carbon dioxide emissions means radically constricting the economy. I can tell you from bitter experience that in my district.en/) I had a strange sense of deja vu as I watched the self-congratulatory rhetoric on the House floor tonight. It uses a different mechanism than cap and trade. that is a historical fact. in January of 2007. I stood on the floor of the California Senate and watched a similar celebration over a similar bill. 142 Ellis. 7/9/09. California’s unemployment rate is more than two points above the national rate. construction.. In fact. It has profound implications for agriculture. Gov. In fact. July 9th 2009. And this brings us to the fine point of it. Ignore all of that and still we are left with one lousy sense of timing. baking and brewing — all of which produce enormous quantities of this innocuous and ubiquitous compound.US Congressman (Tom.Climate Politics Page 142 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. that’s not a future prediction. California’s unemployment rate began a steady upward divergence from the national jobless figures.truthabouttrade. why would they want to do the same thing to our nation? Madam Speaker. And I have spent the last three years watching as that law has dangerously deepened California’s recession. In California. California’s unemployment numbers tracked very closely with the national unemployment rate. 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. EPA-approved coal-fired electricity plant in Utah. 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. Second. exactly the opposite has happened. The city of Truckee.

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

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

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

Vice President. 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. most critically.margins thin Mullett. historical expenditures for fuel in the absence of any climate change legislation being passed. Not only have equipment costs increased due to federal requirements.000 while decreasing fuel up the cost of engines between $8. new diesel engine emission standards imposed by the U. Randall. Mitchell. The average national price of diesel fuel this week is now over $4. by many accounts. In 2006 alone trucking consumed over 39 billion gallons of diesel fuel. which is $1. we have experienced record increases in insurance premiums and. 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.000 to $10. For instance. Government Affairs Con-way.Climate Politics Page 146 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Trucking Industry Brink Trucking on the brink. This means that a one-cent increase in the average price of diesel costs the trucking industry an additional $391 million in fuel expenses.000 and. 6/19/2008 (C.000 to $5.2 pounds of CO2 per gallon of fuel. Vice President. Government Affairs Con-way.S. Burning diesel fuel is the main source of carbon emissions from our industry equating to 22. Beyond equipment costs. Additional EPA diesel engine emission standards in 2007 drove Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2002 drove up engine costs on average of between $3. These margins continue to be chipped away given the numerous and unprecedented costs being imposed upon the industry. I wish to further expand upon the critical role diesel fuel plays in our industry. decreased fuel economy between 2-4%. Committee on House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) The fuel of choice for the nation's long-haul trucks is diesel fuel. Even small increase in fuel prices could devastate trucking industry Mullett. economy between 6-8 percent. 6/19/2008 (C. Inc. Inc.89 more than just one year ago. but state regulatory mandates have substantially increased the financial burdens being placed upon our industry. We are extremely sensitive to rapidly shifting operating costs given our thin operating margins of between 2-4 percent. 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. Teddy & Megan . Randall.69 per gallon. 146 Ellis. Diesel fuel provides greater fuel economy and the higher energy content necessary to transport widely diversified loads under extreme operating conditions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is no accident that President Obama and his acolytes keep calling for "clean energy".4 trillion. Our present annual GDP is about $14 trillion." The United Nations Kyoto Protocol. meaningless.com/200907175536/energy-andenvironment/cap-and-trade-bill-villainy-on-a-grand-scale. 155 Ellis. Upon taking office.000 jobs.000 jobs on average with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 1.html) The Waxman-Markey bill is villainy on a grand scale. Mitchell. I seriously doubt that more than a relative handful know what Cap-and-Trade means or that it is even being debated. Teddy & Megan . 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. 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. Society of Professional Journalists. by the actions of this Congress. This bill will impoverish Americans and destroy the nation. Even if the bill were to become law. It will raise electricity rates 90% after adjusting for inflation. Out of 307 million Americans.Climate Politics Page 155 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Bad – Poverty Cap and trade creates more poverty – it targets taxes and unemployment toward already low-income individuals Caruba. the keystone of capitalism. "Cap-andTrade Bill: Villainy On A Grand Scale". live in a very different. It is estimated that 300 million barrels of oil and 8. but they. must hate America. It is no accident that his Secretary of the Interior unilaterally cancelled 77 oil and gas leases or that. purposefully exempted China. and babbling endlessly about "green jobs" as the real jobs of Americans are systematically destroyed.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lie beneath these "protected" acres. July 17th 2009.Member of American Society of Journalists and Authors (Alan. and their grandchildren will. "energy independence". It is estimated to destroy 844. http://www. intended to reduce these gases. 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. India. very costly America. on March 25. their children. The Waxman-Markey bill will. The Democrats in Congress and the present occupant of the White House. 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. Its limits are. reduce the aggregate domestic product (GDP) by an estimated $7. by their actions. and all undeveloped nations. by definition. Prices for gasoline and natural gas will rise by 74% and 55% respectively.rightsidenews.900. by 2035.

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful