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

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

inaction on climate change. can tolerate no further delay. agricultural policy.msp?id=2174) Yale Environment 360: I remember watching you last year in the Senate debate on the floor as [you] were voting on the Lieberman-Warner [climate] bill. This is more than a third of the $150 billion he promised over the next 10 years for clean energy investments. Over half the American economy has already voluntarily put itself under mandatory [carbon] reduction schemes. Obama has another chance to redirect land use away from highway sprawl and in a low-carbon. the EPA's first order of climate business is already moving forward: granting a long-delayed waiver to California to allow the state to impose more stringent auto emissions rules. The latest science only underscores the need for immediate action. in the Northeast. as delay into 2010 will wreck it on the shoals of mid-term investment in a clean energy grid. public health and safety. despite currently low fuel prices. because we have 60 votes. and shipping. Simultaneously and climate plan. says that emissions must be stabilized by 2015 and in decline by 2020. cement plants. The new president must use the bully pulpit of his office to provide quick and remedial education. the electorate is way ahead of some of our colleagues here. and I think a lot of communities have already moved — I mean. in its rightful place. given the acceleration of global ice melt. because we have a Democratic president. and energy efficiency — $54 billion worth. President Bush was waiting at that point with a veto pen. pending further review. in terms of energy efficiency projects. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson will guarantee steep future emissions reductions from the transportation sector. 7/27 (Darren.yale. working with your senators. 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. however. the political winds at his back are now as favorable as they will ever be." In Copenhagen. and allow the thorny bailout of Detroit to proceed without any doubt as to where the industry must head. He is talking frequently about energy and climate change. the as people begin to analyze the realities here. By approving the waiver after a formal review process. there are greater possibilities this time around. other heavy it must be appreciated for its cross-cutting immensity — it is fundamental to national security. and Energy Secretary Steven Chu. If that first signal gets amplified. Doesn’t mean it’s going to be easy — it’s not. Manufacturers will soon have to deliver higher mileage vehicles on an accelerated schedule. and smart growth. But with the federal Transportation Bill up for reauthorization in 2009. Now you have President Obama. state compacts in the Midwest. part of the Guardian Environment Network. It is not an energy Obama will still face heavy regulatory and legislative lifting to turn promise into reality before Copenhagen. it has become an open question as to how existing coal plants and permits for new ones will now fare under the act. Obama has tapped the talent he needs to implement a powerful regulatory strategy. After eight years of U. Since the Supreme Court affirmed in Massachusetts v. The boldness of Obama's regulatory strategy. Such a speech would send a clear signal to the American . The administration should also strengthen energy efficiency incentives and clean energy tax Americans have been purposefully led astray about the reality of global warming and about the positive . So I think Obama’s political capital key – passage now is vital to global action that will solve warming Guardian 9 (From Yale Environment chairman of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. this investment inside a trillion dollar package merely colors the economic recovery with a pale green hue. Jane relationship that exists between sustainable economic prosperity and environmental stewardship Lubchenco. so if the package survives its passage through Congress. and potentially irreversible changes. and environmental protection. with sparse dollars allocated to those needs. really hinges upon the fate of coal-burning power plants under the Clean Air Act. some of the governors. the White House science adviser.S. The legislation must be signed into law this year. The proposed economic recovery package has been disappointing to advocates of public transit.S. exercise the full might of his executive powers and regulatory discretion under the Clean Air Act to jump-start action. 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. Signs are good that Obama genuinely means business. the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. extreme weather events. in the West. http://www. though. which 13 other states are poised to adopt as well. light rail. it’s a very complicated issue. and it will be hard fought. but it is essential to Obama's success. As expected. energy security. land-use planning. to Copenhagen.” http://www. mass-transit direction. Instead. The president's executive action on coal will invigorate Copenhagen and bring seriousness to bilateral discussions with China. other kinds of things mayors have done. unequivocally. and he has the authority to stop new dirty coal plants cold. So there’s a very different dynamic. 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. it will certainly change the tone of what happens with coal in Congress longer-term. global commerce. and the real issue is how aggressively the law will be applied. In the short term. the question of coal rests largely in Obama's hands. Science. and the United States needs to lead. the president must travel to Copenhagen with real regulatory and legislative achievements. he will be ahead of schedule on that score. 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. because the science is more compelling. Obama must also make a prime-time. televised address to the nation about the climate crisis and the need for immediate action and U. the world's coal juggernaut. because we have a responsibility to people. Mitchell. Teddy & Megan . and frequently to the American public about the true science of climate change and the urgency of our present circumstances. Global warming has been crammed into a "green" box for the sake of political expediency. and increase . credibility to the promise he made in his inaugural address to "roll back the specter of a warming planet. he must demonstrate how science has been restored "to its rightful place" in America in strong climate regulation and law. For Obama. dangerous feedback loops. and green jobs. The EPA plainly has the right to control CO2 emissions. Obama must expend political capital in Congress and work with leaders to complete passage of science-based federal legislation capping greenhouse gas emissions. clean energy. economic recovery.e360. “We’re Going to Get It Done. 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. To secure his crowning achievement there 6 Ellis. adopt a mandatory federal renewable energy target. and he should empower them and other government scientists to speak loudly. the United States will reclaim the mantle of global leadership when it takes its seat in Copenhagen. Coming to Copenhagen with the necessary legislative accomplishments — in addition to regulatory ones — will be harder Interview with Senator John Kerry. and spend freely from his enormous store of political capital to lead the government to enact comprehensive federal climate legislation. By itself. If he does. EPA that carbon dioxide could be regulated as a pollutant under the law. Can you talk a little about the [changed] dynamics? John Kerry: This time there’s a reality to it. global leadership. where powerful lobbies have held science at bay. 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.Climate Politics Page 6 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Climate Good 1NC Climate bill will pass – but it’ll be a tough fight Samuelsohn. Obama has well chosen his scientific team in John Holdren. American leadership offers the only hope of success. The president must also instruct his cabinet to clarify the impact of global climate change on each of their respective portfolios. his inspiring oratory alone will not be sufficient. For almost a decade. 2/3. who would sign a bill. With former EPA chief Carol Browner heading up his climate team in the White House. At his direction.

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

Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser. who warned droughts. when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel. in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. Sir David King. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable. that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar 8 Ellis. All the world's coastal plains would be lost. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. floods and hurricanes. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way. And as the Arctic warms. with more frequent and severe The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks. Mitchell. when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5. melting of the Arctic sea ice. and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. cities. The Gaurdian. would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age.000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. Climate Researcher. 8 (Oliver. the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea. all we can prepare for is extinction”. This is a remarkable understatement. "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable. both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. look 55. and much of the world's most productive farmland. 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. the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Billions would undoubtedly die. transport and industrial infrastructure. and the more the Arctic warms. bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. notably the summer The more the ice melts. The world's geography The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.Climate Politics Page 8 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Climate Good 1NC Warming guarantees multiple positive feedbacks triggering extinction – adaptation cannot solve Tickell. “On a planet 4C hotter. 8/11http://www. Teddy & Megan . To see how far this process could go. complete with ports.

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

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

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

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

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

Climate Politics Page 14 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Uniqueness: Will Pass – House And G8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

Climate Politics Page 15 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Uniqueness: Will Pass – AT: Mccain

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

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

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

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

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

15 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

Climate Politics Page 16 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Uniqueness: Will Pass – Vote Count

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

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

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

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

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

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

16 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

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

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

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

com/disp/story.Climate Politics Page 20 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Senate The Senate will be substantially harder than the House. http://www. WEA) Where the House membership is distributed by population — with delegations from green-friendly California and New York having 82 members — the Senate's equal distribution of seats means that coal-reliant Ohio has the same voting power as California. "Energy-climate overhaul an uphill battle in Congress".. Mitchell. Teddy & Megan . 20 Ellis. For supporters. “Regional issues tend to blow up in the Senate.mpl/business/6524623.html. “the largest problem is the regional nature” of the debate. Houston Chronicle. Dlouhy 7/11/2009 (Jennifer A.chron.” observed Frank Maisano. a Washington-based energy specialist with Bracewell & Giuliani.

but it's nowhere near a done deal. "Because there is such an overwhelming Democratic majority in the House." says Roy. "Climate-change challenge shifts to the U. because you have to look beneath the partisan levels. Adding to the bewilderment is the political reality that climate change doesn't necessarily follow partisan lines. Midwest states worry about job losses if smokestack rules change. you could more or less enact the bill almost entirely on Democratic votes. WEA) Obama hailed the package. Farm groups want ag-friendly sweeteners to promote biofuels and allow the sale of pollution credits to outside industries.html.usnews. US News & World Report. "Climate change bill faces hurdles in the senate". http://www. the House bill was larded with so many giveaways and complexities that several environmental groups denounced it.sfgate. http://www. 21 Ellis. WEA) the Senate presents special" says Nikki Roy. Senate". Included in the House version is a tariff on imports from countries that don't play by the U. a worrisome invitation to a protectionist trade war.Climate Politics Page 21 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – Democrats Won’t pass—no Democratic unity.S. Mitchell. "That's not remotely an option in the Senate. Coal states fear that generating plants will cut back on their favorite fuel. The present Democratic majority doesn't stick together on global warming policy. The moribund nuclear industry wants a chance to rebound.S.DTL&type=printable. who monitors Congress for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Teddy & Megan . For all of its lofty intentions. SFC 7/12/2009 (San Francisco Chronicle. Supermajority isn’t enough to get it through Senate. Garber 7/10/2009 (Kent. Collecting the 60 votes the Senate will need to stop a filibuster and win passage is no certainty." Roy counts at least nine Senate Republicans who have expressed some support for tackling climate change and more than 20 Senate Democrats from manufacturing or oil-producing states who worry about how the emissions limits would affect their state's industries. "These Democrats will have a hard time voting for this unless they see the But Republicans in a serious bipartisan engagement.

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

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. Teddy & Megan . Mitchell. and marks an acknowledgement by the Administration of the daunting challenge of getting enough votes for the bill in the delicately balanced Senate. 23 Ellis.

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

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. given the likelihood that Republicans will lock down against it. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) say they are skeptical of the climate change bill that passed the House last month. Both Sen. Brown. "Climate bill takes hit in Senate from China".) announced on Thursday that she is delaying the bill until after the August recess. Mitchell. 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. 25 Ellis. the Hill. The legislation has an uncertain future in the Senate. Taylor.Climate Politics Page 25 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Uniqueness: Won’t Pass – China China is refusing to cooperate on climate—this undermines support for the Senate bill. Teddy & Megan . 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.html. http://thehill. and Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Rushing 7/11/2009 (J.

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

meaning that supporters need 60 votes to pass a bill. 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.html.S. Dallas Morning News. voted for an amendment that would allow any Senator to initiate a vote to block any climate change provision which "cause[s] significant job loss in manufacturing or coal-dependent U.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 resolution: * there were two important Senate climate change votes in April on the Senate budget 67 Senators. Mitchell. "Why the energy bill faces a tough Senate fight". including 13 Democrats. or South. Mitchell 7/2/2009 (Jim. Great Plains. voted against creating fast-track reconciliation protections for a cap-and-trade bill. As a reminder. rather than 51. *54 Senators. including 27 Democrats. regions such as the Midwest. http://energyandenvironmentblog.dallasnews. Teddy & Megan ." 27 Ellis.

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

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

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

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

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

http://thehill. 33 Gardner 2009 (7/7. Snyder 6/21/2009 (Jim. a vice president for government outreach at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.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. "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 lobby presses for more loan guarantees". climate bill". is actually a solution to worsening global warming. "Nuclear could benefit from U. which is a big emitter of CO2. said Manik Roy. Rueters. a centerpiece of President Barack Obama's green agenda. Teddy & Megan .the fossil fuel that emits the most carbon dioxide -.S.html. WEA) NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U. a leading greenhouse gas. and the coal and oil industries. Moderate Democrats from Midwestern states are especially utilities there could get slammed by greenhouse gas regulations. could stall in the Senate unless it contains incentives to help the nuclear power industry build the next generation of reactors. long seen as an environmental headache due to its radioactive waste and potential safety risks. Mitchell.reuters. The Hill.and incentives to build nuclear plants could help them deal with the expenses and provide new jobs. WEA) Nuclear power utilities should receive a boost from the climate bill now under discussion in the House because nuclear power doesn’t generate carbon dioxide. climate bill. http://www. as they are about global warming. But that looks set to change as a group of moderate Democratic and Republican senators who strongly back nuclear power tries to wrest industry concessions." Roy said. That's anxious to see nuclear get incentives because because Midwestern utilities mainly burn coal -. Concessions for nuclear could help win them over.S. 25 of the 60 Senate Democrats are just as concerned about what the recession is doing to manufacturing. Legislation that caps carbon emissions could make nuclear power more economical relative to other sources of electricity such as coal. As many as 20 to A key question is whether the industry and its allies can convince enough lawmakers that nuclear power. The House of Representatives narrowly approved its version of the bill late last month and it included little mention of nuclear energy. Obama will include nuclear incentives to help it pass Senate.

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

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

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

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

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

000 to 70. and 65.000 megawatts (or 45 to 50 plants) by 2030. Teddy & Megan . immune to price volatility in the oil and natural gas markets. around the clock. 39 Ellis. safe. at a stable price. These plants will produce clean.Climate Politics Page 39 of 156 7WJ – HPSW 2020 to 2022 time frame. Mitchell. reliable electricity.

Some of the more controversial aspects of new nuclear power include government support for new plants. **also written with the managing directors for Goldman. and that investors remain wary. Teddy & Megan . and may make loan guarantees essential to attracting them. an environmental group and nuclear research community on the future of nuclear power. including the possibility of delays in commercial operation of a completed plant or “another Shoreham”. In a hearing of the House Science and Technology Committee. will make lenders unwilling at present to extend long-term credit to such projects in a form that would be commercially viable.lgprogram. including the regulated utilities that are considering a new nuclear project. combined with the higher capital costs and longer construction schedules of nuclear plants as compared to other generation facilities.S. a point that investors are watching. We believe these risks. uncertainty over the rules and questions about nuclear waste still worry investors. WEA) Despite new licensing regulations meant to streamline the construction of new nuclear power plants.Climate Politics Page 40 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: States Solve Loan Guarantees Utilities won’t be able to access capital markets without the backing of the federal government – banks are waiting for a federal symbol of support Roy et al 2007 ." Asselstine said. a nuclear investment expert told a House panel last week. James Asselstine. lawmakers pressed six representatives of the nuclear industry. We believe many new nuclear construction projects will have difficulty accessing the capital markets during construction and initial operation without the support of a federal government loan guarantee. of a new nuclear project.*Managing director of Export and Agency Finance Group for Citigroup. and large initial capital investment. 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. regulatory and litigation-related risks that are unique to nuclear power. Sachs & Co. move forward with new nuclear plant commitment. "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. Platts Inside Energy. Mitchell. as well as Merill Lynch and Morgan Stanley ("Loan Guarantees for Advanced Nuclear Energy Facilities". Lenders and investors in the fixed income markets will be acutely concerned about a number of political." 40 Ellis." Asselstine said. and residual uncertainties associated with the new. "Some factors. such as magnitude. Derek. A federal commitment to loan guarantees resolves regulatory uncertainty surrounding federal policy that would otherwise prevent investment Sands 2008 (4/28. "The total cost of the plant. taxpayer. including engineering design costs. 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. http://www. but as yet untested NRC licensing process. he will likely require federal financial support to allow the companies and investors to director of the investment giant Lehman Brothers. "Investors urge loan guarantees for nuclear plants". this can be a substantial benefit for all the companies. complexity.

ranking fifth in the world for per capita electricity consumption. WEA) With the nuclear construction business virtually dead in North America and Europe. Even if their nuclear dreams are realized. continues to squabble politically about nuclear power but has offered some subsidies to the industry..[2] Finland has begun constructing a modern 1. As a result. Up to 30 nuclear plants are planned in each country over the next two decades-which sounds impressive until you do the math. while providing long-term politically stable support for nuclear power. Because the U. has a significant incentive to secure long-term energy solutions. model could create a politically tenuous dependency relationship between government and industry.600-megawatt reactor. Finland already gets 28 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. decided to phase out nuclear energy for political reasons and now imports some of this energy. This is simply not a significant commitment for countries with populations of well over a billion and electricity demand growing at 10 percent annually. and a possible sixth reactor would increase that amount substantially. The British government. however. safe and reliable form of energy. Nuke power inevitable in Europe and Japan.K. has 19 reactors that provide about 18 percent of the nation's electricity. India and China both have ambitious nuclear plans. if it is to avoid creating increased energy dependencies. has made it clear that it would not subsidize the industry. It now receives nearly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power and is a Japan is another country that has looked to nuclear power as a clean. the U. Teddy & Megan . "Nuclear energy: what we can learn from other nations". while the U. neither country will be getting even 5 percent of its electricity from nuclear power in 2020. the British model should provide a sustainable environment for nuclear power moving forward.heritage.K. Loris and Spencer 2008 . Flavin 2006 .Climate Politics Page 41 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Nuclear Power Bad Nuke power inevitable--Asia. ProQuest. Mitchell. on the other hand. building new reactors is a must for the U.[1] Germany.S. Heritage Foundation WebMemo #1977. WEA) France is an example of a country that developed nuclear energy to reduce foreign energy dependence after the oil shock of the 1970s. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (7/2.[3] Finland. Christopher.cfm. 41 Ellis.President of the WorldWatch Institute (July/August. Nuclear power already provides 30 percent of the country's electricity. net exporter of electricity.K.*research assistance @ Heritage. alternatively. which will likely be a model used throughout the United States. Embracing nuclear energy as part of an effort to decrease the nation's dependency on foreign energy sources. energy-starved Asia is where a nuclear revival is more likely to begin. Japan is working to increase this to 37 percent by 2009 and 41 percent by 2017. 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. World Watch. The U. Indeed. **research fellow in the Thomas A. http://www. "Brave Nuclear World?/COMMENTARY: Nuclear Revival? Don't Bet on It!".S.

the story wasn't exactly front-page material. Mitchell. For a news story. Nonetheless. One of the least expensive forms of energy production. but exploiting fears about safety to advance an anti-nuclear agenda helps no one. the anti-nukers preach acceptance -. When the company that runs the plant found out.and not just by The Post.. Some recent examples include incidents at the Davis-Besse plant in Ohio and the Vermont Yankee plant in Vermont. third-party analysis giving credibility and legitimacy to alarmist views. So why have they been more vocal lately? Well. and the anti-nuclear movement's updated message is calculated to play upon that anxiety. but no radiation was released. The article also contained accusations that a whistle-blower had been ignored. and revisited it again in December. and it was solved. Repeatedly. it was identified. At the very least. activists cite it as example of the risks posed by power reactors. caused no fatalities or casualties. Teddy & Megan . however. The problem is that the analysis always comes from the same anti-nuke crowd that's been "crying wolf" about nuclear power since the 1960s. The obvious contradiction has forced even ardent activists to make some accommodation for nuclear power in their anti-CO2 rhetoric.heritage. "Nuclear safety paranoia". This allows them to avoid being overtly anti-nuclear while advancing an anti-nuclear agenda. history. it's pretty thin gruel. Even when new. In the months since the sleeping-guards story first aired. quickly becomes ridiculous. Safety should remain a priority at nuclear power plants. three decades of antinuclear propaganda have left their mark. But it wasn't. such reporting misleads the public about the safety of nuclear power. misstating the information used to support their positions. Heritage Foundation. Many Americans remain concerned about nuclear safety. A handful of guards taking a 15-minute nap on company time does not fairly reflect the industry's level of safety. The worst commercial nuclear accident in U. Although the problem was fixed and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission determined that the plant could have operated another 13 months without incident. Their arguments are then fed to major media outlets that use them to frame nuclear-related articles. An inch of steel cladding prevented the hole from opening. and then demanding an unattainable set of stipulations to meet their conditions. The Washington Post ran a front-page story about guards found asleep at a nuclear power plant. numerous articles have been printed -. They should not have been sleeping. Let's be clear. Some guards were sleeping on the job. The result: stories that often portray nuclear power as inherently unsafe. and that the steel cladding could have withstood pressures 125 percent above normal operations. the 1979 partial meltdown at Three Mile Island. nor was anyone endangered. the incident was portrayed as a safety failure. nuclear power is enjoying a comeback. there are great. Yet that's what leading media are feeding the public. the best way to reduce CO2 is to produce more emissions-free nuclear energy. with rising energy prices and growing concerns over carbon dioxide emissions. http://www.their evidence is from recycled hippie rhetoric and a misleading media Spencer 2008 . Awkwardly. Their formula includes overstating the safety concerns. The media's continued fixation on this story suggests alarmism.S. Jack. 42 Ellis. In short: A problem arose. and bias against nuclear power at worst. Non-radioactive water was spilled in the collapse. At the Davis-Besse plant. newsworthy stories to be written about nuclear power: No one has ever died as a result of commercial nuclear power in the U. at best. Their conditions generally hinge on safety concerns.Climate Politics Page 42 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Nuclear Power Bad Nuclear power plants aren’t dangerous --. it promptly fired the contractors in charge of security. nuclear power has proven extraordinarily safe over the past four decades. The plant was never in jeopardy. The list goes on.S. eh? Until you realize it's the same old story New York's WCBS-TV broke four months earlier.but with a catch.cfm. Although nuclear power's safety record means that activists can no longer play on "China Syndrome" fears. for the people who railed against nuclear energy in the past under the auspices of environmentalism. What seems reasonable. terrorists have never attacked a nuclear power plant. WEA) On January 4. Increasingly. Scary stuff. nuclear power is clean. editorialized on it in October. A partial cooling tower collapse at the Vermont Yankee plant was far less serious than the Davis-Besse incident. That should have been the end of the story. Each article included affordable and emits nothing into the The unfortunate thing is that atmosphere. safety inspections revealed a hole forming in a vessel-head. USA Today ran the story in September.Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy at Heritage (2/1.

Nussle's confirmation hearing last week. In essence. Domenici. Mr. Teddy & Megan ." Mr. who has been pushing the Energy Department to move much more aggressively in approving loan guarantees. at Mr. Mitchell. Last year. Under current law. Mr. 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.commondreams." 43 Ellis. Congress limited the government to awarding just $4 billion in loan guarantees for clean energy projects during the 2007 fiscal year. "It is very clear that this is a self-financing program. http://www. "US energy bill aids expansion of atomic power".org/archive/2007/08/01/2910. "There should already be $25 billion to $30 billion in the loan guarantee fund. the government is only allowed to guarantee a volume of loans authorized each year by Congress.Climate Politics Page 43 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Loan Guarantees Expensive Loan guarantees pay for themselves. WEA) That is a big change. Andrews and Wald 2007 (Edmund L. has argued that there is no need for limits on the loan volume because power companies will be required to pay an upfront fee to cover the estimated cost of the guarantee. Bush's nominee to become the White House budget director.. Domenici told James Nussle. New York Times. and Matthew L.

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

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

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

Climate Politics Page 47 of 156 7WJ – HPSW
the enrichment, reprocessing and alteration in form or content of the nuclear materials that it has provided to other countries, as well as to the nuclear materials that are produced from the nuclear materials and equipment that the U.S. has supplied.

The percentage of nuclear materials, including separated plutonium, that are subject to U.S. consent rights will diminish over time as new suppliers of nuclear materials and facilities take a larger share of the international nuclear market. Unless the U.S. is able to compete effectively in the international market as a supplier of nuclear fuels, equipment and technology, the quantity of the nuclear materials around the globe that the U.S. has control over will diminish significantly in the future.
This may not immediately weaken the effectiveness of the nonproliferation regime since all the major suppliers have adopted the export guidelines of the Nuclear Supplier Group. However, only the U.S., Australia and Canada have consent rights over enrichment and reprocessing of the nuclear materials subject to their agreements. Consequently, if there is a major decline in the U.S. share of the international nuclear market, the U.S. may not be as effectivbeen in helping to ensure a rigorous system of export controls.

47 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

Climate Politics Page 48 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Nuclear Leadership Good—Prolif (2/2)

Extinction Utgoff 2 (Victor, Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for
Defense Analyses and former Senior Member of the National security Council Staff, Survival, “Proliferation, Missile Defense and American Ambitions”, Vol. 44, No. 2, Summer, p. 87-90)

Escalation of violence is also basic human nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined by the
participants beforehand.8 Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are readily accessible. In sum,

widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear ‘six-shooters’ on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.

48 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

Climate Politics Page 49 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Nuclear Power Good—Reprocessing (1/2)

New nuclear construction is vital to advancing the U.S. reprocessing agenda Bowman 2006 - CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute (9/13, Frank L., Testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development",, 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 Easily usable energy is the currency of human progress. Teddy & Megan . and maximizes technological progress. biofuel power. constantly at the edge of death. stagnation.*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. Its use improves the standard of living. however. 51 Ellis. even though they do not work actively toward these goals. wind power and other alternatives is less because those methods cannot yet generate large quantities of inexpensive useful energy." including all physical objects. They passively support things that improve human life. The lamentations of the popular press notwithstanding. Mitchell. increases the quality and length of human life. cleanest and least expensive energy source available with current technology. They spend their lives in efforts to increase the quantity and quality of human life. These forms of energy differ. Had that American leadership continued. our country and our world would be very different. by far.thenewamerican. Without it. They are also in favor of hydrocarbon power derived from coal. Many people strongly desire to help humanity.Climate Politics Page 51 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Nuclear Power Good—Poverty Nuclear power key to check poverty Robinson and Orient 04 . Nuclear power plants convert mass into electrical energy. This converted "nuclear energy" is. Politics and Death”. the safest. share the same values. oil and natural gas. The New American. in how easily mankind can make use of them by means of current technology. 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. http://www. Scientists define everything that man can perceive in the natural world as forms of "energy. regression and untold human deaths will result. Technological miracles that are only dreams today would have already taken place. Most other people. Those who understand energy production and its link to technological progress and who have positive humanitarian values support nuclear power. there is no shortage of energy. 6/14. and of hydroelectric power. very The United States was once the world leader in the production of useful energy. “Science. Their interest in solar power.

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

Teddy & Megan . Mitchell.Climate Politics Page 53 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Nuclear Power Overuses Water Nuclear power uses small amounts of water that can be safely returned to the water Nuclear power plants have a small environmental impact and produce reliable electricity in a wide range of weather conditions. NEI 2008 (July. but actually consume a small amount of water relative to other uses in the modern world. Nuclear Energy Institute. electricity generation accounts for 3. http://www. Of all the freshwater consumed in the United States. Nuclear power plants circulate water to cool equipment.S. This water continuously is returned to its source and never is exposed to radioactive material.3 percent—less than half of the freshwater consumed by residential use (6. Geological Survey (USGS). according to the U. WEA) Power plants circulate significant volumes of water in the process of generating electricity. "Water consumption at nuclear power plants".7 percent). 53 Ellis. Nuclear power plants consume less water per unit of electricity produced than some forms of renewable energy.

apart from emissions covered under the EU Emissions Trading System where limits on offsetting are set at EU level. and the missing heat may be much less.htm.e. tackle deforestation and adapt to the climate change already being experienced. But the same calculations also show that trapping carbon dioxide. The report makes clear that without a global system for carbon trading. a new report commissioned by the Prime Minister Gordon Brown concluded today. WEA) A global carbon trading network will be vital to preventing dangerous climate change. The Global Carbon Trading report. 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. Global carbon trading is our only hope at controlling emissions. global warming. Mark Lazarowicz MP. 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. Mitchell. This report proposes action in 54 Ellis. according to energy calculations published in the July issue of the International Journal of Global Warming. Their calculations suggest that most measures to combat global warming.5%).5%).the US Department of Energy and Climate Change ("Carbon trading vital to climate change success – PM Report". melting ice (33. will ultimately help in preventing catastrophic climate change in the long term. such as reducing our reliance on burning fossil fuels and switching to renewables like wind power and solar energy. The carbon market could provide a significant proportion of that sum. http://www." Nordell explains.6% of global warming. 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 UK’s Low Carbon Transition Plan. The UK Government is committed to meeting its required 34% cut in emissions by 2020 through domestic action alone. The researchers have calculated that the heat energy accumulated in the atmosphere corresponds to a mere WEA) Attempting to tackle climate change by trapping carbon dioxide or switching to nuclear power will not solve the problem of global warming. is due to the greenhouse effect. ice masses and the seas if they are to model climate change accurately. the researchers say. and storing it deep underground or on the sea floor will have very little effect on global warming.. The evidence shows that global carbon trading can deliver substantial cuts in greenhouse gases rapidly and costeffectively. The researchers also point out a flaw in the nuclear energy argument. Experts Say". i. They suggest that scientists must also take into account the total energy of the ground. 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. natural variations in climate and/or an underestimation of net heat emissions. by the Prime Minister’s Special Representative on Carbon Trading.sciencedaily. "Since net heat emissions accounts for most of the global warming there is no or little reason for carbon dioxide sequestration.4%) and sea water (28. These calculations are actually rather conservative. The "missing" heat. “Cap and trade should be combined with targeted regulation. Carbon markets themselves will not however be sufficient to successfully tackle climate change and are needed alongside strong domestic action to cut emissions. Nordell adds. so-called carbon dioxide sequestration. sets out the domestic actions required to meet its carbon budgets. Mark Lazarowicz MP said: “Climate change is an international threat that needs international action.egovmonitor. the ability of countries to avoid dangerous climate change will be limited and the costs of action increased. Teddy & Megan . "The increasing carbon dioxide emissions merely show how most net heat is produced.Climate Politics Page 54 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Cap And Trade Not Kt Warming Climate bill solves warming – reducing reliance on fossil fuels and switching to renewables is key – alternatives don’t account for net heat emissions ScienceDaily 7/13/2009 ("Trapping Carbon Dioxide Or Switching To Nuclear Power Not Enough To Solve Global Warming Problem. during that period. 26%. eGov Monitor 7/20/2009 .com/releases/2009/07/090713085248. while the remaining heat is stored in the ground (31. 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. http://www. the researchers say. published on 15 July. They have worked out that using the increase in average global air temperature as a measure of global warming is an inadequate measure of climate change. The report follows the Prime Minister’s recent proposal on how developed and developing countries can agree new ways to pay for tackling climate change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

while the permit market ensures that cuts are made in the most economical way possible. Stone et al 2009 . Cap and trade is an adjustable mandate that we can target to the right level of emissions. http://www.*Chief economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Teddy & Megan . combined with the bill's other provisions.Climate Politics Page 63 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. 63 Ellis. Chad Stone. C&T Solves Warming Cap and trade solves warming. or they can buy permits from other companies who have made these investments. "Letter From Olver: House Passes Comprehensive Energy Legislation". A Over time. and Sharon Parrott.iberkshires. the number of emissions allowances would shrink in order to achieve the substantial emissions reductions that scientists say are necessary to curb global warming.cbpp. This would force the economy to gradually adapt by reducing emissions through energy Hannah Shaw. Mitchell. 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. Electric power plants. By 2050. and greater use of alternative clean energy technologies. HR 2454 will reduce America's dependence of foreign oil by 5 million barrels a day by 2030.. When combined with vehicle efficiency and biofuel standards enacted in 2007. Olver 7/6/2009 .Massachusetts representative on the House Appropriations Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation. this system. Permits will be bought and sold on a carefully regulated market. 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. http://www. Housing and Urban Development (John W.pdf. 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. oil refineries. "CAP AND TRADE CAN FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING EFFECTIVELY WHILE ALSO PROTECTING CONSUMERS".php?story_id=31496. former executive director of the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. The carbon cap will thus unleash a wave of investment. **BA in economics and masters degree in social work from U Michigan (3/3. improved energy efficiency. This is equivalent to the amount of oil that we import from the Venezuela and the entire Middle East and will save consumers an estimated $135 billion in fuel costs. The number of emissions permits will decrease over time. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. leading to steady emissions 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. would reduce total global warming emissions 83 percen below 2005 levels.

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. 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. Economy and Innovation at the Environmental Law Institute. **director of the Center for Innovation and the Environment at the Progressive Policy Institute (October 2001. 2001).*director of the Center for Energy.pdf. a stringent environmental result was achieved at relatively low cost. This problem is largely caused by the SO2 emissions from the utility industry. The Acid Rain Program sets a single tonnage limit or "cap" on the emissions of SO2 from all utilities. Ironically. This combined approach is far less expensive than "first generation" laws that regulate emissions from each source separately. ranging from $400 to $1. By combining an emissions cap with allowance trading. which. 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. 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. "Getting more for four". 64 Ellis. change the earth’s climate (IPCC. Teddy & Megan .ndol. resisted congressional efforts to place a limit or "cap" on its emissions. the problem of estimates. C&T Solves Warming Acid rain programs prove—cap and trade is the most effective free market mechanism Swift and Mazurek 2001 .Climate Politics Page 64 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. http://www. 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. WEA) acid rain loomed large on the nation’s agenda. Initiatives to cap carbon here at home and for the United States to participate in efforts to Those opposed to regulating CO2 have employed the same argument used by those who resisted attempts to reduce acid rain: the cost of controlling greenhouse gas emissions is too high. Progressive Policy Institute.500 per ton of SO2 Mitchell. 2000). Those who can control SO2 cheaply can sell emissions trading allowances to those who find reducing emissions more costly. citing cost concerns. to a current price of only $200 a ton—far less than estimated benefits (Carlson. Byron and Jan.

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

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

Climate Politics Page 67 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Cap And Trade Modeled

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

School, Environmental law unit of the UNEP (3/27, Annie, Testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the US House of Representatives, "Climate Change - International Issues, Engaging Developing Countries",, WEA)

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

China will cooperate if we act first Saiget 7/16/2009 (Robert J., Agence France Prese, "US officials confident of greater clean energy ties with China",, WEA) BEIJING —

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

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

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

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

67 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

Climate Politics Page 68 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Cap And Trade Modeled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

68 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

Climate Politics Page 69 of 156 7WJ – HPSW

Cap And Trade Modeled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

69 Ellis, Mitchell, Teddy & Megan

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

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

72 which both China and the US have in 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. including improving technology to reduce carbon emissions and increasing energy efficiency. he said." Chu said.chinadaily. The objective of the planned joint clean energy research center. "The US and China have what it takes to meet the world's energy challenge. 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." Locke said. Both were visiting China for the first time as part of the Obama administration. 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. "One of the most important things is mutual cooperation. Mitchell. http://www.Climate Politics Page 72 of 156 7WJ – HPSW China Key To Solve Warming China cooperation is key to make emissions reductions effective. "There's so much for our economies to gain by forging new ties in the clean energy sector and so much to lose if we fail. The planned center was announced on Wednesday and will be established by China's Ministry of Science and Technology and National Energy Administration and the US Department of Energy.htm. to share. the technology. China Daily 7/17/2009 ("China-US climate teamwork evolving". as best we can and as many things as we can. Teddy & Megan ." Chu said there is much the countries can do. WEA) Cooperation between China and the US is crucial in meeting the climate change challenge.

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

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

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

and as Paul Krugman argues. Cap and trade policy is meant to create a market for CO2 emissions. Therefore. and adverse health affects. Therefore. When property rights emerge and are enforced. Private goods benefit those who pay the price for those goods. since benefits of public goods can not be completely appropriated by persons who may be willing to pay the price. http://www. Teddy & Megan . 76 Ellis.. Standard-Examiner. there is no incentive for individuals to buy the goods and hence there will not be any supply of the goods. and our taxes support its provision. Clean air is a public good and air pollution is a "public bad. public goods have to be provided collectively. For example.professor emeritus of economics at Cleveland State University and adjunct professor of economics at Weber State University (7/16. and clothing. cars. Self-interest of Americans demands that we all breathe clean air because our life depends upon it. Mathur 2009 . or a tax-price per unit of CO2 emissions. for example. it can allow the use of that resource either by direct regulation of CO2 emissions (quantity control). national defense is provided by the government because it is a public good.Climate Politics Page 76 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Free Market Solves/Government Control Bad Government intervention is necessary in the context of warming because air quality is a public good that private markets can’t address. Private property rights can not be defined and enforced for public goods. If goods are provided. allows the market and its price mechanism to allocate rights. Also in a democracy. it is effective in achieving international cooperation.php/news/178536?printable=story. It is better than outright quantity control and better in many ways than a tax. markets will arise for those goods. or a combination of quantity control and a tax. or capping the quantity of emission rights and creating a market to regulate the allocation of rights (cap and trade). it would also benefit those who do not pay for the goods. it implies that government has to be assigned the property rights. Private markets for the goods will not emerge. people who pay the price have property rights to those goods and their benefits. There are two types of goods which we consume: private goods and public Businesses that object to paying for emission rights want to be free riders. Therefore." Since government has the property right to the resource clean air on behalf of Americans. changing tax levels is time consuming if quantity goals are not met. all of us must be willing to pay the price to obtain clean air. Mitchell. Vijay K. property damages. and it is the government that enforces and allocates those rights for all of us. The public is paying for their use of the resource by tolerating depletion of air quality.standard. "Cap and trade a sound market principle". There is no leakage of consumption benefits to others who do not pay the price for private goods.price. WEA) Let me first discuss why government has to intervene by legislating CO2 emissions. food. where given emission rights are traded at a positive price. because it removes uncertainty about the level of CO2 emissions. Hence.

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

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

they compare the output of the models against observations for present climate. and the best models are now capable of simulating present-day climate with accuracy approaching conventional atmospheric observations. also included is the very latest model generation that was used for the very recent (2007) report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Australia. "Climate Models Look Good When Predicting Climate Change". "Coupled models are becoming increasingly reliable tools for understanding climate and climate change. http://www. "We can now place a much higher level of confidence in model-based projections of climate change than in the past. 79 Ellis." said Reichler. Most of these models project a global warming trend that amounts to about 7 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years. A new study by meteorologists at the University of Utah shows that current climate models are quite accurate and can be valuable tools for those seeking solutions on reversing global warming trends. Canada. Great Britain." The many hours of studying models and comparing them with actual climate changes fulfills the increasing wish to know how much one can trust climate models and their predictions.Climate 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. Earlier this year. Korea. working group one of the IPCC released its fourth global warming report. 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. Russia. environmentalists and even scientists. Teddy & Megan . Mitchell.htm. 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 and the United States. France. Scientific opinion on climate change In the study. the study's results also provide important response to critics of global warming. WEA) The accuracy of computer models that predict climate change over the coming decades has been the subject of debate among politicians. Germany. Of course. To this end. 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. Given the significance of climate change research in public policy.sciencedaily.

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

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

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

Teddy & Megan . Unfortunately the same can’t be said for the skeptics who made a very canny transition three or four years ago from the stance that the world isn’t warming up to “no-one denies the planet is warming up. National Post. WEA) A major talking point amongst the skeptics is a certain indignation over how “global warming” became “climate change”.nationalpost. the terms are irrelevant. Moore 7/16/2009 (John. http://network.” 83 The general theory has been roughly the same for 150 years.Climate Politics Page 83 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Climate Change Theory Inconsistent Skeptics are the ones who are inconsistent—climate change theory has been the same for decades. Some people think this was a marketing move by the international forces of socialism to protect our Coke-like franchise. we dispute the cause. Mitchell. "John Moore: One world government and global warming/climate change/whatever". Actually.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dollar for dollar. http://www.Massachusetts representative on the House Appropriations Committee and chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation. Efficiency mandates in the cap and trade bill solve any cost concerns.iberkshires. and engineers. will create 1.050 per household by 2020 and $4. as well as changes to the bill made in a Rule's Committee version of the bill released yesterday. ACES represents the next step.a. As our nation faces high unemployment and an ailing auto industry. 102 and in many ways. The Center for American Progress estimates that the transition from foreign oil to clean American energy. jobs based on clean energy and energy efficiency depend on American resources and cannot be shipped overseas. And according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. which raised the average American household's energy costs by $1. which are estimated at over $4. according to an updated analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). 2454. Olver 7/6/2009 . 70 percent of which will go to Advanced Energy Research and 30 percent of which will go to "Energy Innovation Hubs" at universities. factories.400 per household by 2030.000 jobs by 2030. and power plants will create 770.php?story_id=31496. Rueters 6/24/2009 ("Updated Energy Savings Analysis of H.Climate Politics Page 102 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: C&T Kills Economy Cap and trade is the best stimulus—it will create millions of jobs and improve overall efficiency. the most important one yet. Teddy & Megan . And unlike other jobs. could save approximately $1.R. 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.. Changes to ACEEE's analysis come from an updated assessment of savings from a number of provisions. We have passed legislation to green our schools and preserve 2 million acres of wilderness. Housing and Urban Development (John W. These estimates do not take into account savings from energy efficient appliances. Six months ago we passed an economic recovery act with investments in smart infrastructure and sustainable job creation. as outlined in this bill. Mitchell.7 million American jobs over the next two years alone. This is a welcome change from the Bush administration energy plan. laborers. "Letter From Olver: House Passes Comprehensive Energy Legislation".com/story. The bill also changed the distribution of R&D funds. http://www. In addition. 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. 10 percent of the SEED (State Energy and Environmental Development) program is set aside for transportation programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.R.100 between 2001 and 2007. Waxman-Markey). the American Clean Energy and Security Act (a. WEA) The federal energy efficiency provisions included in H. the American Clean Energy and Security Act". the improved efficiency standards the bill creates for appliances. Retrofits will employ building specialists and construction workers while burgeoning solar and wind industries will need machinists. 2454. this is the perfect opportunity to make significant investments in industries that will become the base of a new American economy. buildings. investments in a clean energy economy create four times as many jobs as investments in the oil and gas industry. Less than two months later we approved a budget containing unprecedented support for mass transit and energy innovation.000 per household per year by 2030.k. 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.reuters.

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

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

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

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

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. U. the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -.newsweek. RAND Corporation. the Climate Security Act. technological leadership for decades to come. Krupp 2009 . The countries that lead in inventing and deploying clean-energy technologies will be the great powers of the 21st century. 18:2. Second. free markets. In 2008. Germany and. “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold Water”.S. Finally. Much of the groundwork has been laid. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. a bipartisan cap-and-trade bill. U. Mitchell.President of the Environmental Defense Fund (1/31. That is the energy and economic policy America and the world need now.S. Senate. economy—and the planet. The United States has already dropped in solar-cell manufacturing behind Japan. which tripled production in 2007. Washington Quarterly. and the rule of law. save the country". Spring. and low-level conflicts. Fred. http://www. Newsweek. such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems. 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. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival. including a global nuclear exchange. Presidential leadership can now ensure passage of the strongest possible law. reached the floor of the U.S. but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. On balance. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself. China. a majority of senators voted to continue the debate. WEA) A switch to a low-carbon energy economy would create 5 million new jobs—from the boardroom to the factory floor—that cannot be outsourced. But quick action is needed. L/N) Under the third option. Nuclear wars Khalilzad 95 (Zalmay. restoring strength and confidence to the American economy. most recently. this is the best long-term guiding principle and "Save the planet. 107 Ellis. and House lawmakers are readying similar bills for action in 2009. And the sun will set on those that fall behind. Teddy & Megan . such as nuclear proliferation. enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers. First. The decisions the president makes in his first crucial months will determine the course of U.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.S. Though it fell victim to Washington gridlock in the end. Nine of the world's 10 largest photovoltaic manufacturers are in Europe or Asia. threats of regional hegemony by renegade states.S.

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

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

Teddy & Megan . It would cushion the blow for trade-exposed heavy industry while maintaining the integrity of a U. reasonable.cfr.. meaning that robust U. "Trade and Climate Change". emissions cap. Michael A. CFR. addresses that by providing rebates to firms in those sectors to blunt the cost. That approach is. But the devil is in the details--and the current bill gets the details wrong. in principle. cement. known as Waxman-Markey.Climate Politics Page 110 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Competitiveness Turn Climate bill doesn’t destroy competitiveness – actual effect on companies is minimal and rebates solve Levi 2009 . and chemicals toward unregulated (or less regulated) competitors abroad.David M. Most companies will see at most limited changes in how they function day to day.S. aluminum. 110 Ellis. 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. industries that use lots of energy and whose goods are traded globally have some reason to be nervous about a cap-and-trade system. economic growth will still be able to power a vibrant and internationally competitive economy. High carbon prices could tilt the competitive playing field in areas like steel. WEA) Concerns about the possible competitive impact of climate regulations have been grossly exaggerated. The macroeconomic impact of smart climate policy will likely be small. Mitchell. http://www. Nonetheless.S. The climate

000 pieces. customers and jobs. Krupp 2009 .newsweek. http://www. Fred. global—manufacturing. ball bearings. the biggest business in the world. In other words. A cap heat and biofuels. and unlock the immense amounts of capital needed for America's innovators and entrepreneurs to remake this $6 trillion industry.S. contains 8.000 parts—including bolts. Companies and workers a comprehensive cap-and-trade bill would deliver immediate benefits in new demand. The supply chain behind each of these renewable technologies winds its way through the heart of U. a dependence on imported oil and a rapidly deteriorating environment. The winners won't be only the obvious players—solar-cell companies and wind-turbine manufacturers. Hundreds of millions of dollars of venture capital have already flowed into the emerging technologies for capturing energy from the sun. Teddy & Megan . 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. The right policy to confront climate change is also the best policy to achieve energy independence and enduring national security. he could strike a definitive blow for the forces of change: "America will cap its global-warming pollution. The right policy to protect our planet is also the best policy to revitalize the U. economy—the real economy. world-changing climate legislation that establishes a declining cap on carbondioxide emissions and creates a market for companies to profit from reducing that pollution. its entrepreneurial spirit and the immense power of its markets and workforce. concrete foundations and steel towers. Congress passes comprehensive. assuming oil averages roughly $50 a barrel. for instance.President of the Environmental Defense Fund (1/31. wind. "Save the planet. mobilize the market to find the quickest and cheapest way to reduce emissions.—and. copper wiring. indeed. to meet all these challenges. A carbon cap would unleash America's greatest strengths—its spectacular capacity for innovation. waiting for Congress to provide certainty that this new commodity—carbon reductions—will have enduring value. would allow American business to make the transition gradually. and 111 Ellis." To make good on this promise. striving to do no less than transform the world's energy economy. Those companies are just the tip of a giant iceberg.S. and for making more efficient use of energy. he must ensure that the U.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. save the country".S. Each wind turbine. With seven words. Obama must attack them together.S. A carbon cap would also create vast new demand for low-carbon energy solutions. geothermal Hundreds of billions more are poised on the sidelines. That might seem too much to manage all at once. but the three are best dealt with together. WEA) The new administration will face three closely linked problems—a badly damaged economy. make those 8. Newsweek. Mitchell. not the paper one that went up in flames this past fall.

cfm. unrealistically. 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.pur. from 6.. Teddy & Megan . Also. Environmental & Public Utility Practice Group of the Cozen O'Connor law firm (Peter J. such programs are likely to continue.Climate Politics Page 112 of 156 7WJ – HPSW EIA Indict (Electricity Prices) The EIA analysis is flawed—more realistic studies prove the consumer costs would be miniscule. Fontaine 2004 .com/pubs/4419. http://www.8 in 2010 (about $33 per household per month).7 Program-that emissions to year 2000 levels by 2015. Obviously. no market penetration of new low-emission technologies (despite billions of federal R&D spending).1 in 2025 (about $200). Mitchell. and from to 9. 112 Ellis.4 cents per kilowatt-hour to 6. Public Utilities Reports. EIA assumed. and no continued federal and state emission reduction programs. EIA predicts average electricity prices will increase under the bill from the Energy.0 in 2020 (about $108). and will further reduce the bill's costs by independently contributing toward the bill's modest goal of reducing CO2 6. no significant fuel-shift to natural gas (despite this market's historic unpredictability). By changing this single assumption from EIA's analysis MIT found that monthly costs to the average household would be only $15 to $20. "Global Warming: The Gathering Storm".7 to 8. MIT also studied the bill but assumed-based on experience from the Acid Rain sources would make substantial early reductions in non-CO2 emissions that would be banked for later sale.

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

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

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

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

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

Climate Politics Page 118 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Reprocessing Solves Prolif Reprocessing makes prolif and terrorism more likely Sweet. left alone. pg. 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. Spent fuel from reactors. When plutonium is extracted from spent fuel commercially. 118 Ellis. partly to create an impression that the disposal problem is solved. Extraction of re-burnable uranium and plutonium from spent fuels. 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. is too radioactive to be readily handled by a criminal gang. however. Mitchell. As for the stretching of nuclear fuels. partly to stretch fuel resources. 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). greatly reduces the physical quantity of waste that must be permanently stored. 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. Kicking the Carbon Habit: Global Warming and the Case for Renewable and Nuclear Energy. 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. 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. 6 – Senior news editor for the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (William. while in some ways complicating the whole situation by creating more streams of different radioactive materials that all have to be specially handled. producing more energy than they consume. Teddy & Megan .

244 In 2006. Conventional power plants use thousands of gallons of water for the condensing portion of their thermodynamic cycle. 07 . 119 Ellis. the Department of Energy warned that consumption of water for electricity production could more than double by 2030. less efficient plants can be much worse.President of IEER.or ground-water source). actually consume more. Perhaps the most important—and least discussed—advantage to a federal RPS is its ability to displace electricity generation that is extremely waterintensive. closed-loop cooling technology convert more water to steam that is vented to the atmosphere. withdraws an average of 57 million gallons every day from the Altamaha River. energy policy (Benjamin and Chris. Coal plants also use water to clean and process fuel. and degree of independent oversight and regulation. Radioactive Realities: Why Nuclear Power Is a Poor Way to Meet Energy Needs. they accounted for almost 40 percent of all freshwater withdrawals (water diverted or withdrawn from a surface.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. and all traditional plants lose water through evaporative loss.” 2004. require massive supplies of water to cool reactor cores and spent nuclear fuel rods. http://www. notably water resources.newenergychoices.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.245 A conventional 500 MW coal plant. 247 Data from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) also confirms that every type of traditional power plant consumes and withdraws vast amounts of water. while they withdraw less water. substantial amounts are lost to the local water table entirely. while modern power plants may reduce water withdrawals by up to 10 percent. http://www.248 Nuclear reactors. for example. for instance. Nuclear waste management: Wastes associated with nuclear power. June.249 With electricity demand expected to grow by approximately 50 percent in the next 25 years.3 billion gallons per day. holds a Ph. The nation’s oil. “Atomic Myths.plutonium in current designs. These vulnerabilities relate to: Nuclear weapons proliferation: Nuclear power technology has a large overlap with nuclear weapons technology. in engineering (specialization: nuclear fusion) from the University of California at Berkeley (Arjun. in particular.400 MW Sherer coal facility consumes as much as 9.250 Waste from nuclear power contaminates water resources. 4 . Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). to 7. In Georgia. Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.pdf) If projected electricity demand is met using water-intensive fossil fuel and nuclear reactors. Closed-loop systems also rely on greater amounts of water for cleaning and therefore return less water to the original source. continuing to rely on fossil fuelfired and nuclear generators could spark a water scarcity crisis. Mitchell. This staggering amount is equal to the entire country’s water consumption in 1995.913 gallons of water for every MWh of electricity it generates.. Because much of the water is turned to steam.*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). Nuclear power plants create weapons usable materials . roughly equivalent to all the water withdrawals for irrigated agriculture in the entire United States. One nuclear plant in Georgia.3 billion gallons of water each day. a national nonprofit organization committed to reforming U. Advanced power plant systems that rely on re-circulating. natural gas. care of construction.ieer. if new power plants continue to be built with evaporative cooling. enough to service more than 196. they contribute even more to the nation’s water scarcity. consumes around 7. Teddy & Megan .org/pubs/atomicmyths. the 3. from mill tailings to spent fuel. Newer technologies.000 gallons of water per minute.246 Older.D. In 2006. or the equivalent of 17 Olympic-sized swimming pools every day. are very long-lived and threaten essential resources. even though the details of accident mechanisms and accident probabilities vary with design.S. Severe accidents: Severe accidents on the scale of Chernobyl can occur with nuclear power plants. and nuclear facilities consume about 3. America will soon be withdrawing more water for electricity production than for farming. Thus.000 Georgia homes. coal. but actually “consumes” (primarily as lost water vapor) 33 million gallons per day from the local supply.

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

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

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

Burned by the political firestorm over his proposed BTU tax in 1993. Head of the Economic Advisory Firm Sonecon and Undersecretary of Commerce in the Clinton Administration. a system that sets a limit on emissions. Eleven years have elapsed. it seems that some politicians have already made up their minds before real debate has even begun. voters should be thankful we passed. President Bill Clinton.S.S. The treaty imposed deep cuts in emissions for developed countries. issues emission permits to covered industries and creates a market for trading permits.html) Politics and baseball have a great deal in common. And since it’s unlikely that politicians will opt to maintain the status quo. and it’ll destroy the economy Shapiro. legislators are currently pushing to impose a similar emissions scheme here in the States. Under cap-and-trade. Japan. Teddy & Megan . Despite all of these environmental and economic failings of the EU cap-and-trade system. 2/3/09 (William. In the words of Yogi Berra. arguing : “I tried [a carbon tax] once. According to a recent study in Nature. the United Nations. emissions under the ETS have actually increased by 10 percent. This was the approach then-Vice President Al Gore proposed at the climate summit in Kyoto. Washington our economic growth was much stronger. Climate Task Force (Robert. mandate a cap-andtrade system. http://www. Given its impact on the European Union. Al Gore now prefers carbon-based taxes over cap-and-trade. The system also has failed to establish a stable price for carbon — a goal widely considered a prerequisite for any effective climate change effort. One. 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 daily price shifts as great as 70 percent. The Democratic Congressional leadership supports cap-and-trade. stunted economic growth and spawned cheating in the carbon trading system. that was 7 percent below 1990 levels. but still allowed to sell “excess” permits to us and Europe. The clearest illustration of the problems with cap-and-trade is the European Trading Scheme. the EU emissions jumped by 3.Climate Politics Page 123 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Can’t Solve Warming Can’t solve warming – too many daunting Roll Call. American voters have heard this before. some U. In that respect. Roll Call. Can’t solve warming – cheating is inevitable O’Keefe. continue the present approach that relies on higher efficiency standards. In the first two years of the EU cap-and-trade system. the government sets an annual “cap” on greenhouse gas emissions. the prices for ETS permits are highly volatile. 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. President-elect Barack Obama is committed equally to fighting climate change and restoring economic growth. the increased costs under cap-and-trade will be hidden in the added costs of goods 123 Ellis.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. it’d be a different story entirely. To the contrary. These are the main reasons why the father of climate-change politics. themselves exempt from caps. the debate will largely boil down to the last two choices. would attract speculation and new financial derivatives. unsettling everyone’s markets and undermining investment. there’s little if any evidence that the ETS has had any effect at all on emissions in Europe. have failed to meet their targets. looked at the consequences and blinked.rollcall. while America’s carbon dioxide emissions only increased 2. with strong support from Vice President Al Gore.) has three options. But basic economics punctuated by the developments now gripping the U. Three. traded on financial markets. 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 to evade or manipulate the system. given its support by some environmental groups and a number of European governments. can sell to other ETS members. to break a deadlock and gain support from Russia and other developing nations that were effectively exempt from reducing their emissions. my former boss. Since the entire global permit market only currently amounts to some $60 billion. and global financial systems clearly point in a different direction.S. Volatility like the kind experienced in the ETS would translate into much more volatile energy prices. However. “The Real Choice Between Cap-and-Trade and CarbonBased Taxes”. cap-andtrade systems are riddled with daunting problems. trillion-dollar risks for the financial system. And the volatile prices for the permits themselves. and in that time almost all EU nations. “Time for a Fresh Debate Over America’s Climate Policy”. But the Clinton administration never even sent the Kyoto treaty to the Senate for approval. Two. A carbon tax system would apply a stable price to carbon. putting us at risk for another crisis. reduces that limit over time. still pushes forcefully for a cap-and-trade scheme.3 percent.” But here’s the catch. drafted the Kyoto Protocol. creating direct incentives to develop and use less carbon-intensive fuels and more energy-efficient technologies. were to join Europe — and China as well — in cap-and-trade. new auto technology and lower emission technology. Between 2000 and 2006. However. http://www. According to a new report by the Government Accountability Office.rollcall. permits prices moved up or down by an average of 17. Going forward. and lets a new market sort out the messy job of determining the prices of emissions. A cap-and-trade system is very unlikely to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions — and more likely to introduce new. such volatility doesn’t threaten economic stability. based on the Kyoto protocols covering most of Europe. if the U. in 1997. Chief Executive Officer at Marshall Institute. The Clinton/Gore administration made the same promise but. they have increased energy costs. once we set aside those offsets. the major Kyoto signatories.html) We all have a moral imperative to get climate policy right. for example. It didn’t work for me. leaving everyone better off.” More than a decade ago. These regimes may offer the path of least current. Another factor is the “offset” permits that European “transition” economies. To achieve that. One reason is that major emitters such as Germany simply exempt many of their facilities generating greenhouse gases. toward a carbon-based tax program with most of the revenues recycled in forms of tax relief.5 percent per month. the incoming administration and Members of the 111th Congress will have to carefully weigh all the serious options being proposed to reduce carbon emissions. impose a carbon tax. While well-intentioned. political resistance. As last Thursday’s House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing illustrated. Though both policies will raise the price of energy. (That’s even more significant when you account for the fact that Not only have the EU emissions policies missed their objectives. The best way to do both is to give up cap-and-trade and learn to love carbon-based taxes. 1/15/09.5 percent. “This is like déjà vu all over again. in the end.S. Mitchell.S. including governments. gives away or auctions permits to produce those emissions. proposing a 2012 target for the U.

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

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

if any. environmental benefit. Mitchell. **research assistant in the Thomas A. analysis by the architects of the endangerment finding.cfm. the EPA. Teddy & Megan .1 to 0. strongly suggests that a 60 percent reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2050 will reduce global temperature by 0. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (4/23.2 degrees Celsius by 2095. In fact.2 degrees Loris and Lieberman 2009 .Climate Politics Page 126 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Can’t Solve Warming Cap and trade only reduces temperature by .[2] 126 Ellis. "Five Reasons the EPA Should Not Attempt to Deal with Global Warming". http://www.*senior policy analyst in Energy and the Environment for the Heritage Foundation. Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2407. WEA) The extraordinary perils of CO2 regulation for the American economy come with

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

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

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

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

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

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

which means. The computer calculates that X is approximately equal to 700.11 shows 10-year averages for acreage burned in the United States.3-inch rise in rainfall means that we're burning 930.) reduced fire in the United States.9 degree rise in temperature means that we are burning 630.3 inches of rain per year.000.14. (In the cool 1960s. heat. and rain. p. the average was a little around 5 million acres per year going up in smoke. If you have enough data—usually at least 10 "independent" observations of the "modeled" variable ("acreage burned") and for each predictor ("temperature" and "rainfall")—you can run a fairly straightforward statistical calculation that determines the values of X and Y that best describe the hypothesized mathematical relationship between fire. we averaged about 28.000 more acres per year.13 is decadal average precipitation over the United States. In the warm 1990s. Despite our straightforward math.12 shows summer (June— September) temperatures since 1960. you specify an equation that defines a hypothesis about the way something works. Figure 6.000-acre foreststack. the 0.000. or a rise of 2. or in the current era of irrational fire suppression. In other words. we used to just let things burn. Environmental Sciences @ UVA. It's not very hard to take the temperature. the 1930s. But. about 38 million acres went up each year. Consider what's happened since Bambi. Scientifically speaking. By the 1990s that moved up to 30. the cartoon deer who probably spawned more ecological mismanagement and traffic fatalities than any other animal in cinematic history. and Figure 6.9°F in the period.3 inches. but that doesn't mean there's more to hear about. a rise of about 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. It's shown graphically in Figure 6. say. We hear more about it. on the average. But there's also an increase in precipitation.000 more burned acres.000 acres is a needle buried in an annual 5. So every inch of rain above normal reduces the annual burn by 400. and the Media”.) Before the 1942 release of Bambi. (And don't assume your 133 Ellis. Teddy & Megan . Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies @ Cato and Prof. This isn't just a straw doe. This little "model" explains a bit less than half of the total year-to-year variation in acreage burned in the United States.000 acres. and burn data and turn it into a mathematical "model. Figure 6. an average of 25 million combusted in the 1920s. Y is equal to 400. it was also around 5 million. the total "change" in the climate-related signal according to our model is minus 300. That's part of the reason why. “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists.they’re decreasing burned acres Michaels in ‘4 (Patrick. Mitchell. How about this one: Acreage burned = X (temperature) – Y (rainfall). that a year that is one degree warmer than normal will have 700. That net change of minus 300.000fewer acres because of the increased moisture.Climate Politics Page 133 of 156 7WJ – HPSW AT: Forests No increase in forest fires ---.000 acres. the 2. Politicians. In the 1960s. Since 1960.000.5. There is a warming trend. when we look at. 142-145) It is also one of the easiest to dispute. rainfall. you can't tell the climate signal from the random noise." First.

2 degrees Fahrenheit) in just a few thousand years. estimates the planet's surface temperature blasted upwards by between five and nine degrees Celsius (nine and 16." 134 Ellis. They believe that levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) rose by 70 percent during PETM's main phase to reach 1.natural. But these "feedbacks" are poorly understood and some scientists believe there could be others still to be identified. The theorised sources include volcanic activity and the sudden release of methane hydrates in the ocean. which leads to the loss of more ice. as this could shed light on aspects of global warming today. There must have been some other factor that stoked temperatures higher. called the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. How PETM happened is unclear but climatologists are eager to find out. led by Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii. "Our results imply a fundamental gap in our understanding about the amplitude of global warming associated with large and abrupt climate perturbations. attaining a concentration of between four and five times that of today. AFP 4/13/2009 (Agence France Presse. A trio of Earth scientists.8-6. http://www. But all this CO2 can only account for between one and 3. What seems clear is that a huge amount of heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases -. depriving it of a bright. this exposes the uncovered sea to sunlight. try to account for the carbon that was spewed out during PETM. 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.3 F) of PETM's warming if the models for climate sensitivity are right. For instance. Teddy & Megan .5 C (1. says the paper. the findings are relevant as they highlight the risk of hidden mechanisms that add dramatically to warming. Previous research into this period. or about the temperature of a lukewarm bath. scientists said on Monday. Some of these so-called "positive feedbacks" are already known. "This gap needs to be filled to confidently predict future climate change. That causes the sea to warm. reflective layer. The Arctic Ocean warmed to 23 C (73 F). or PETM. Even though there are big differences between Earth's geology and ice cover then and now.700 parts per million (ppm).google.were disgorged in a very short time.Climate Politics Page 134 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Greenhouse Theory Flawed The dominant greenhouse theory is incomplete—it fails to explain past warming. the team found. when a patch of Arctic sea ice melts." warns Zeebe's team. and so on. Mitchell. which in turn helps the sea to warm. "Mystery mechanism drove global warming 55 million years ago".com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jXKGlsM4aZXPmItKk9TowSECsEYg. as opposed to man-made -.

" During the warming period. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -the same ones used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for current best estimates of 21st century warming -. Dickens said. WEA) Could the best climate models -.usatoday. the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. As the levels of carbon increased. Rice 7/14/2009 (Doyle. "In a nutshell.caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM. This makes the PETM one of the best ancient climate analogues for present-day "Could we be wrong about global warming?". study co-author and professor of Earth Science at Rice University in Houston. 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. http://blogs. Mitchell.html. USA Today Science Fair. What caused the remainder of the warming is a mystery. The report found that only about half of the warming that occurred during a natural climate change 55 million years ago can be explained by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." In their most recent assessment report in 2007. is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of this ancient warming. for unknown reasons. says a new study published online today in the journal Nature Geoscience. The conclusion. Teddy & Megan . known as the “Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum” (PETM). "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models." says oceanographer Gerald Dickens. global surface temperatures also rose dramatically during the PETM.all be wrong? Maybe so. Average temperatures worldwide rose by around 13 degrees in the relatively short geological span of about 10.000 years. theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record.Climate Politics Page 135 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Climate Models Bad Climate models are inaccurate—newest journals flow our way.the ones used to predict global warming -. 135 Ellis.

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

This means that carbon emission-reduction policies have a regressive impact on income distribution – unless coupled with revenuerecycling policies that protect the real incomes of the poor and middle classes. the years in which we modeled the bill.5 percent in 2050 and the National Black Chamber estimates that in GDP will be 1. home heating oil would increase 56 percent.1 million greater than the baseline assumptions.5% in the first decade below the baseline. Here are thirteen reasons to oppose cap and trade. The carbon dioxide reduction targets are still the same at the end of the day. Washington is forcing costlier energy options on the public. Heritage found the average GDP lost is $393 billion.) It will increase your energy bills. however.000 per year.000 per year.) More subsidies for unproven technologies and energy sources. Rebates or not. The Brookings Institute. since low-income households spend a larger percentage of their income on energy.5 million fewer jobs than without a cap-and-trade bill. that’s equivalent to about 1.500.5 percent ($730 billion) below the baseline in 2050. for the average year over the 2012-2035 timeline. Although upper income families tend to use more energy (and thus emit more carbon per household). all in the year 2030. and worst of all. selective hearing can dictate what you believe Waxman-Markey will do to the economy and how it will affect global warming. the poor suffer most.) It will destroy 1. Census population projection estimates. Brookings predicts GDP in the United States would be lower by 2. If cap and trade were so sure to work. hitting a high of $662 billion in 2035. and the way they will be met is by raising the price of energy high enough so people use less. it’s about $71. why is all this even necessary? 137 Ellis. 4. electricity prices go up by 22% and gasoline increases by 23 center per gallon.600. Since renewables are lavished with substantial tax breaks. 1. Cap and trade is an energy tax that falls disproportionately on the poor. stimulating the economy while igniting a green revolution.Climate Politics Page 137 of 156 7WJ – HPSW The cap and trade debate. Nothing could be further from the truth. 6. Mitchell. A study done by Charles River Associates prepared for the National Black Chamber of Congress projects higher unemployment of 2. Proponents of a carbon cap acknowledge this. natural gas prices would rise by an estimated 16%. Heritage’s CDA found that by 2035 gasoline prices would increase 58 percent. 5. When all the tax impacts have been added up. If only a small portion (15 percent) of the energy tax revenue is given back to the consumer.3 percent ($350 billon) below the baseline in 2030 and 1.) It will reduce economic growth. the tax impact is $4. projects that cap and trade will increase unemployment would by 0. a supporter of a carbon tax. And if you add up the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035. 2. from higher energy prices by handing out rebate checks or tax cuts.) It will cost a family-of-four an additional $3. there is a projected 2. You hear it won’t cost Americans families very much – about a stamp per day is what proponents of the bill say. All three aforementioned studies found significant losses in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). especially the poor. A federally mandated RES is proposed only because renewables are too expensive to compete otherwise. But Heritage isn’t alone in these estimates. In effect. 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.3-2. Using U. 3.” Policymakers sought to protect consumers. job loss will be 1. Since 85 percent of America’s energy needs come from carbon emitting fossil fuels.S. saying.7 million fewer jobs than without cap and trade. That’s a lot of postage stamps—162. natural gas prices would increase 55 percent. CRA’s and the Black Chamber’s study found that relative to the baseline.4 trillion (in 2009 dollars). From 2012 to 2035. the burden on the poor obviously becomes heavier. like most debates in Washington. By 2035. and thus doing damage that no check would cover. In the year 2035 alone.15 million jobs. One side says it’s cheap. cap and trade would be massive tax on energy consumption. has become a numbers game. the accumulated GDP lost is $9. the poor pay more […]. we find that the average per-family-of-four costs rise by almost $3. “Relative to total expenditure. our primary measure of economic activity. the other says it’s expensive.) It hits low-income households hardest. You hear it’s a jobs bill – that investing billions of dollars in new green technologies that will create or save millions of jobs. a national mandate will cost Americans both as taxpayers and as ratepayers.7 million jobs in each year of the policy through 2030–after accounting for “green job” creation. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that. Depending on what side of the political isle you fall on. by reducing their workforce for example.500 to be exact. electricity prices would jump 90 percent. Teddy & Megan . the higher energy prices would reduce economic activity by forcing businesses to cut costs elsewhere.

Climate Politics Page 138 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. WEA) any attempt to reduce carbon dioxide would be poison to an already sick Heritage Foundation WebMemo #2407. 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. economy runs on fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide. since low-income households spend a larger percentage of their income on energy. which will see job losses in some industries that exceed 50 percent.cfm.heritage. Since 85 percent of the U. the EPA's proposed global warming policy would severely limit economic growth.[1] If Congress and the President do embark on such a potentially treacherous course. But importantly. Above anything else. Even when the economy does recover. Many such trade restrictions could violate World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and lead to legal sanctions against the U. Cap and trade destroys economic growth – taxes all energy use. America's trade partners are unlikely to agree. single-year GDP losses exceeding $600 billion in some years (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). consumers and producers will find no relief from artificially inflated prices by turning to lower-cost imports. Mitchell. it is clear that the adoption of protectionist polices as a part of a U. against foreign competitors whose governments have chosen to be less draconian. increased unemployment. restrictions.S. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis study of the economic effects of carbon dioxide cuts found cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses of $7 trillion by 2029 (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars). Hard-pressed U. as the climate change zealots propose to erect trade barriers to raise the costs of foreign products produced under less severe environmental policy constraints. 138 Ellis.[1] High energy costs result in production cuts. and ultimately a much slower economy. http://author. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies (4/23.Jay Van Andel senior trade policy analyst int he Center for International Trade and Economics at Heritage (4/24.S. energy cost increases of 30 percent or more. Heritage Foundation. Even if some of the proposed measures hold up against legal scrutiny in the WTO. the potential for nations to retaliate against U.000 for several years. http://www. whose profitability will have been destroyed by new climate change regulations. higher energy prices fall disproportionately on the poor. Any U.S. and annual job losses exceeding 800. reduced consumer Some U. Teddy & Megan . imposing a cost on CO2 is equivalent to placing an economy-wide tax on energy use. C&T Kills Economy Climate bill will decimate economic growth – higher costs and trade restrictions Markheim 2009 . **research assistant in the Thomas A.cfm. WEA) The projected cost of a climate scheme on the U. Hit particularly hard is manufacturing. When all these negative effects are taken into account. Daniella. "Climate policy: free trade promotes a cleaner environment".S. ensures billions of dollars lost from the GDP each year and increases unemployment Loris and Lieberman 2009 . households and firms will face much higher costs for energy and energy-intensive goods.*senior policy analyst in Energy and the Environment for the Heritage Foundation. "Five Reasons the EPA Should Not Attempt to Deal with Global Warming".S. categories that include virtually every product in our economy. 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. trade measures is very real. whether consistent with WTO agreements or not.S.heritage.S. climate regime does far more harm than good and should be avoided. WebMemo #2408. companies and policymakers may find it fair for the government to prop up domestic businesses.

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. cap-andtrade raises the cost of living for everyone by raising energy costs and consumer prices for virtually everything. And jobs would be lost. known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act. http://www." atmosphere. "The tax imposed by the cap-and-trade system is therefore equivalent to raising the family's income tax by about 50 percent. "The accumulation of these gases in the atmosphere is expected to have potentially serious and costly effects on regional climates throughout the world. according to a Spanish economist. Review Messenger." Byrd insisted that clean coal can be a "green energy." Feldstein wrote recently in the Weekly Standard. blasted the cap-and-trade legislation.Ph. D-W. let alone make up for the jobs that are lost. but legislation he and congressional Democrats are backing would do just that”. though it may not do so until September." Byrd said. Staff reporter for WND. From his testimony before he joined the Obama administration.reviewmessenger. D. “President Obama has pledged not to raise taxes on middle- income Americans. Americans would also feel the pinch because cap-and-trade will hurt economic growth. "I remain bullish about the future of coal. two jobs are lost for every green job created." West Virginians may not be the only Americans that will suffer economically if cap and trade passes the Senate.600 a year." That's $1.Climate Politics Page 139 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. saying in a statement that "I cannot support the bill in its present form. "green" jobs. 7/16/09. The effect is the same as if they had had their taxes raised. Robert Byrd. regardless of income. "Human activities are producing increasingly large quantities of greenhouse gases. Rather than directly raising taxes on Americans. Teddy & Megan .S. whose government has invested heavily in "green" jobs.600 carbon tax in perspective. They would be bad for families and would slow the economic recovery as well. contemplate going to countries such as China where carbon emission caps are unlikely to be taken seriously. in Political Science from Harvard (Jerome R.zwire. over 30. July 17th 2009. That would give all Americans time to register their opinions on the bill. The increase. testified before Congress on cap-andtrade in 2008. R-AZ." Admitting that a cap-and-trade program amounts to a "carbon tax. C&T Kills Economy Cap and trade kills the economy—taxes would prevent consumer spending and thousands of jobs will be lost Kyl. The Heritage Foundation's analysis found that Arizona would lose thousands of jobs. July 16th 2009.000. and am so very proud of the miners who labor and toil in the coalfields of West Virginia." "Those of us who understand coal's great potential in our quest for energy independence must continue to work diligently in shaping a climate bill that will ensure access to affordable energy for West Virginians. 6/17/ The Heritage Foundation concluded that it would slow long-term growth by almost $10 trillion over 26 years..600 that families won't be able to spend or invest in the economy. mandatory limits on carbon emissions from various sources (like electric utilities).US Senator (Jon. I am convinced it can be defeated again. 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. Proponents of the cap-and-trade proposal argue that job losses will be offset by the creation of new.cfm? newsid=20346352&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept_id=222077&rfi=6) On June 26.Va. “G8 falls flat on Carbon Ban”. it estimated a family's cost of living would increase by $1." he testified. a typical family of four with earnings of $50. perhaps even catastrophic problem. director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama administration. Those sources would then either reduce carbon emissions or buy or trade emission allowances to achieve the required overall emissions reductions.. particularly CO2." 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. "To put that $1.000 in the first year alone. Economist Peter Orszag. In Spain. Congress should not be considering new taxes. But it's not certain those jobs will materialize.000 now pays an income tax of about $3. 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. Cap and trade prevents growth—businesses and families won’t be able to compete in the global economy Corsi. will feel the effects of this tax hike. Senate could take up the House legislation. and this year's version will once again face opposition from Senate Republicans and some moderate In 2008. http://www.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. Sen. When the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analyzed the cost of reducing carbon emissions by 15 percent below 2005 levels. In addition to the tax increase. it was clear Orszag believed global climate change resulting from human causes was a serious. Mitchell. This year won't be the first time that the Senate has considered cap-and-trade. If Americans communicate their opinions about this bill to their representatives in Congress. when he was the director of the Congressional Budget Office in the Bush administration. similar legislation went down to defeat. At a time when the economy remains shaky and unemployment has reached a 25-year high. Eloy News.

140 Ellis. In the meantime. at a time the businesses are trying to compete in a global economy. at a time when families are struggling just to keep jobs. will face yet one more cost of operations in paying cap-and-trade costs. including those involved in raising children. Moreover." The truth is that: Cap-and-trade will increase gasoline prices and the cost of energy in the 25 states that get more than 50 percent of their electricity from coal. when the science behind climate hysteria is more certain. Proponents of cap-and-trade schemes typically assume the economic costs of what they perceive as the "climate change catastrophe" produced by man-made carbon dioxide emissions far outweigh the economic cost of the scheme itself. Acknowledging that to the success of a cap-and trade program because they would be the most important mechanisms through which businesses and households would be encouraged to make investments and behavioral changes that reduced CO2 emissions. Teddy & Megan . Mitchell. Orzag testified that "price increases would be essential revenue for the federal government. 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. Businesses that emit carbon dioxide. including manufacturing companies. not lose homes and pay monthly living expenses.Climate Politics Page 140 of 156 7WJ – HPSW that would require across-the-board emission reductions by all firms. Orszag estimated a cap-and-trade emissions program could generate as much as $145 billion a year in the cap-and-trade program would function as a tax corporations would most likely pass on to consumers in the form of higher prices. the imposition of what amounts to a cap-and-trade tax may further depress the economy. Red Alert recommends we concern ourselves with the climate change catastrophe later. I agree with Bob Edwards (“Reader disagrees with cap-and-trade talk. 7/18/09 (Ed. “Electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” under this program.C. "Beware the consequences of cap-and-trade". C&T Kills Economy Kills the economy.tidewaternews.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. 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. too. if you fall within a socioeconomic level of no more than 150 percent of the poverty line. for an individual with no dependents will double and include annual inflation adjustments. 443: “Protection of Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. Mitchell.S. Tidewaternewsdotcom.? Nothing but pandering! Another interesting section is No. In January 2008. energy rates will drastically increase. the “Energy Refund Program” will allot monthly cash payments to offset the additional burden of energy costs caused by this bill. how could anyone justify putting more people out of work? In addition. July 18th 2009. July 15) that the cap-and-trade bill will cost Americans jobs and further damage the economy. On Page 1. In an economy that’s losing many jobs a month.” Wednesday.Climate Politics Page 141 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext.increases energy costs and destroys consumer spending Hartman. the government will be here to bail you out. Yet. I do not want to scramble for additional funds to cover outrageous electric or fuel bills.C. The E. On Page 1.193. 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. Teddy & Megan . That is three years that our government will knowingly force Americans out of work. 141 Ellis. What does a so-called “energy bill” have to do with E. The authors of this onerous bill know that American workers will be displaced and that it will cause energy costs to soar. The cost of transporting goods to market will drastically increase. This cost will be passed to the consumer.” It allows the administrators of Medicare and Social Security to access the general revenues of the U.209 this bill references the Earned Income Tax Credit.T. The Heritage Foundation estimates that the cost will range from $426 in 2012 to $1.I.I. government if it’s determined that the capand-trade bill resulted in the reduction of revenues going into these two trust funds. In our faltering economy. http://www. On Page 1.241 in 2035. presidential candidate Obama admitted.

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

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

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

Of those employed in private-sector trucking-related jobs. Few Americans realize that trucks deliver nearly 70 percent of all freight tonnage or that 80 percent of the nation's communities receive their goods exclusively by truck. 6/19/2008 (C. Even fewer are aware of the significant employment. That is why the trucking industry is extremely sensitive to how climate change legislation may further escalate fuel prices. Government Affairs Con-way. Inc. The trucking industry is composed of both large national enterprises as well as a host of small businesses. Randall. mining. For most truckers. Department of Transportation. Over the past five years. and tax revenue generated by the motor carrier industry.can’t absorb costs and allowances don’t solve Mullett. Mitchell. while the price of diesel has nearly tripled during the same time period.S. Randall. public utility. 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. 96 percent of motor carriers have 20 or fewer trucks and are characterized as being small businesses. if they are making a profit at all. Government Affairs Con-way. the trucking industry is the driving force behind the nation's economy. construction. transportation. 6/19/2008 (C. Vice President. 3. Teddy & Megan . ATA urges Congress to carefully evaluate other approaches to evaluate and address fuel price impacts that result from climate change legislation. Trucking industry is key to the economy Mullett. and agricultural sectors. fuel has now surpassed labor as their largest operating expense. Committee on House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) This hardship surprises few in the industry. Trucking is a highly competitive industry with very low profit margins. Trucks haul nearly every consumer good at some point in the supply chain.5 million are commercial drivers. total industry consumption of diesel fuel has gone up 15 percent. Committee on House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) With more than 750. According to the U. all of whom operate in extremely competitive business environments with narrow profit margins. service. Vice President. Our industry can not absorb rapid increases in fuel costs. personal income. This explains why many trucking companies are reporting that higher fuel prices have greatly suppressed profits. retail.000 interstate motor carriers in the United States. 145 Ellis. Trucking generates approximately $646 billion in revenue and represents roughly five percent of our nation's Gross Domestic Product.Climate Politics Page 145 of 156 7WJ – HPSW 2NC Trucking Industry Module Cap and trade will jack the trucking industry. Provisions to release more allowances to help mitigate fuel price spikes will not provide timely relief to our industry. Nearly nine million people employed in the trucking industry move approximately 11 billion tons of freight annually across the nation. Inc.

6/19/2008 (C. 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. Randall. We are extremely sensitive to rapidly shifting operating costs given our thin operating margins of between 2-4 percent. Beyond equipment costs. Committee on House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) The trucking industry is concerned over what cap-and-trade legislation will do to the price of fuel we consume. decreased fuel economy between 2-4%. Vice President. The average national price of diesel fuel this week is now over $4.2 pounds of CO2 per gallon of fuel. 146 Ellis.Climate Politics Page 146 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Trucking Industry Brink Trucking on the brink. historical expenditures for fuel in the absence of any climate change legislation being passed. Additional EPA diesel engine emission standards in 2007 drove Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2002 drove up engine costs on average of between $3. I wish to further expand upon the critical role diesel fuel plays in our industry. Inc. Not only have equipment costs increased due to federal requirements. Mitchell.000 and.000 to $5. Inc.89 more than just one year ago. which is $1. These margins continue to be chipped away given the numerous and unprecedented costs being imposed upon the industry.000 to $10. 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. but state regulatory mandates have substantially increased the financial burdens being placed upon our industry. Burning diesel fuel is the main source of carbon emissions from our industry equating to 22.69 per gallon. Government Affairs Con-way. Diesel fuel provides greater fuel economy and the higher energy content necessary to transport widely diversified loads under extreme operating conditions. economy between 6-8 percent. Teddy & Megan . For instance. Government Affairs Con-way. 6/19/2008 (C. most critically. we have experienced record increases in insurance premiums and. Randall. In 2006 alone trucking consumed over 39 billion gallons of diesel fuel.margins thin Mullett.S. Vice President. 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. by many accounts. This means that a one-cent increase in the average price of diesel costs the trucking industry an additional $391 million in fuel expenses. new diesel engine emission standards imposed by the U.000 while decreasing fuel up the cost of engines between $8. Even small increase in fuel prices could devastate trucking industry Mullett.

000 interstate motor carriers operating in the United States ranging from single truck operators to fleets with thousands of trucks. Trucking Key to Economy Trucking collapse jacks the entire economy Mullett.Climate Politics Page 147 of 156 7WJ – HPSW Ext. medicine. Mitchell. Randall. Approaches to dramatically reduce carbon emissions from line-haul trucks will curtail the delivery of vital consumer goods across the nation such as food. Committee on House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality) The trucking industry opposes carbon emission caps being placed on the trucking sector as unworkable and impracticable given the There are more than 750. and clothing. The table below clearly shows these relationships. Keep in mind that as the nation's population continues to grow. interstate and diverse nature of our business operations. 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. Constraining the country's freight delivery system will do nothing short of shutting down life as we know it. 6/19/2008 (C. Government Affairs Con-way. 147 Ellis. Teddy & Megan . so does the corresponding demand for more consumer goods. Vice President. Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is no accident that President Obama and his acolytes keep calling for "clean energy". It will raise electricity rates 90% after adjusting for inflation. Teddy & Megan . and babbling endlessly about "green jobs" as the real jobs of Americans are systematically destroyed. the keystone of capitalism. This bill will impoverish Americans and destroy the nation. Society of Professional Journalists. by their actions. reduce the aggregate domestic product (GDP) by an estimated $7. by the actions of this Congress. and all undeveloped nations. must hate America.rightsidenews.000 jobs on average with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 1. purposefully exempted China. Prices for gasoline and natural gas will rise by 74% and 55% respectively. 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. I seriously doubt that more than a relative handful know what Cap-and-Trade means or that it is even being debated. Its limits are. The government owns 607 million acres of land in a nation founded on the belief in the sanctity and power of private property.4 trillion. "energy independence". Mitchell. The Waxman-Markey bill will.Climate Politics Page 155 of 156 7WJ – HPSW C&T Bad – Poverty Cap and trade creates more poverty – it targets taxes and unemployment toward already low-income individuals Caruba. It is estimated to destroy 844. It is no accident that his Secretary of the Interior unilaterally cancelled 77 oil and gas leases or that. and their grandchildren will. 7/17/09. it totally ignores the fact that all the other nations of the Earth will continue to generate "greenhouse gases." The United Nations Kyoto Protocol. Upon taking office. intended to reduce these gases. live in a very different. The Democrats in Congress and the present occupant of the White House. It is estimated that 300 million barrels of oil and 8. http://www. "Cap-andTrade Bill: Villainy On A Grand Scale". but they. on March 25.html) The Waxman-Markey bill is villainy on a grand scale. 155 Out of 307 million Americans. India. their children. meaningless.000 jobs. very costly America. 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. Our present annual GDP is about $14 trillion. They pose the greatest threat to its future that has ever existed in our history.Member of American Society of Journalists and Authors (Alan. by 2035. by definition. Even if the bill were to become law. July 17th 2009.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lie beneath these "protected" acres.900.

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful