Climate Legislation, Science and Activism

It is a very unfortunate fact that what the U.S. Senate does about the climate crisis, and when, is decisive when it comes to the possibility of an eventual solution to that absolutely critical issue. If the Senate does nothing, or very little, this year or for the next few years, the odds of staying this side of climate tipping points and avoiding climate catastrophe are definitely worsened, and they’re not so good right now.

The conventional wisdom among the inside-the-beltway, established environmental groups is that the hope for action lies with the legislation-writing process currently taking place under the leadership of Senators John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. But two of the most significant political developments last week as far as Senate climate legislation took place elsewhere.

One was the public announcement via an email from Bill McKibben sent to 350.org’s far-flung network that “we’re joining a group of our best allies in backing the proposed Cap-and-Dividend approach that would stop letting big polluters pour carbon into the sky for free.”

The other was the public letter from AARP, the 39-million member organization of seniors, to Senators Maria Cantwell and Susan Collins, authors of the CLEAR Act cap-and-dividend legislation. In their letter [pdf] they commend Cantwell and Collins for their “continuing leadership” and for offering “a thoughtful, bipartisan approach to reducing harmful carbon dioxide emissions while also mitigating potential energy cost increases to consumers.”

Strengths and Weaknesses

There’s a lot that is good about the CLEAR Act (Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal), especially in comparison with the Waxman-Markey ACES bill passed by the House of Representatives last June. It would make fossil fuel polluters pay for their poisoning of our atmosphere, with no free pollution permits. In the first year, 2012, that the legislation would take effect, they would need to pay, cumulatively, as much as $126 billion dollars via a 100% auction of pollution permits. Putting a price on carbon in this way, all by itself, is an important step forward.

A steadily-declining cap on carbon pollution would be enacted so that, over time, prices for carbon-based fuels would go up and co2 emissions would go down as a steady national shift takes place to energy conservation, efficiency and renewable energy. There are provisions for a tightening of this cap relatively easily by way of a simple majority (no filibuster allowed) of both houses of Congress in support of a Presidential proposal. There are no problematic “carbon offsets.” Wall Street and speculators are prevented from buying or selling permits. 75% of the money raised from the auction each year will be returned in equal monthly payments to every legal US resident. A family of four will receive approximately $1,000 a year to help with the higher energy prices the oil, coal and natural gas companies will pass along. Analyses have shown that about 3/4 of all U.S. Americans will actually gain additional money to spend via this program. The remaining 25% of the auction revenue will be put into a “Clean Energy Reinvestment Trust (or CERT) Fund” for various programs to reduce U.S. and international greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, for clean energy, energy efficiency, transition assistance and similar purposes.

A key feature of the CLEAR Act is its understandable, transparent architecture. It is 39 pages long, compared to 1,428 for the House-passed ACES bill.

There’s a lot to like about this proposal. Continue reading

We hold these truths to be self-evident that not all energy sources are created equal

Yesterday morning, I went to a press conference hosted by Clean Energy Works. I knew there would a variety of speakers but I didn’t expect was to be blown away by the words of two young women, both in high school at the Maggie L. Walker Governor’s School. I should have expected it.

As Callie Guy, a senior, pointed out to the crowd, “For my generation, the controversy over global climate change simply doesn’t exist. We know what the price of inaction is, and it will fall on me and my friends unless we act now. It is time for my generation to declare their independence from the fossil fuels of the past and lead our country on a clean energy revolution. “

Callie’s right. My generation has moved past deciding if global warming exists to deciding how to solve it. We refuse to listen to false solutions such as clean coal and nuclear. My generation will Define Our Decade with 100% truly clean, safe, green energy.

Maggie Chambers, a junior, closed the press conference with these words which I want to share with all of you.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident that not all energy sources are created equal, that all people are endowed with the undeniable rights to clean air, liberation from foreign oil, and the pursuit of permanent clean energy jobs- That to secure these rights, Government should follow the path of pursuing strong clean energy and climate legislation

LTE: Make it CLEAR

Chris Llewellyn is an amazing climate activist from Williamsburg. She was our CCANer of the Month back in June of 2007, which prompted me to go back and find that archived newsletter. Just a quick side note: It’s pretty amazing how far CCAN’s e-newsletters have come.

More importantly, I wanted to share her letter to the editor of the Daily Press about the Cap-and-Dividend solution, which was published earlier this week. Check it out below:

Make it CLEAR

BY Chris Llewellyn
Daily Press
March 8, 2010

Despite what our state attorney general says, the science is clear

This just in: Restaurant Nora to Cater "Artists for the Climate" Reception

I am thrilled to announce that Restaurant Nora — one of DC’s most famous eateries and America’s first certified organic restaurant — will cater a special reception from 6-7 PM as part of CCAN’s Artists for the Climate event.

Their participation was just finalized and you’re the first to find out about it.

Owner Nora Pouillon will prepare a range of delectable appetizers and refreshing organic beverages to help honor authors Bill McKibben, Jeff Biggers, and Mike Tidwell.

For a donation of $150 dollars, you will enjoy some of the city’s absolute best food and have the opportunity to personally meet the authors. In addition, you will receive your choice of two free, autographed books from the featured writers.

Forty front row seats will be set aside for our reception guests. Space is limited to 40 guests so get your tickets now!

Daily Scandal: Free Big Coal Window Ads in Inhofe and Senate Enviro Committee Office?

This is cross-posted from huffington post.

While the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is charged with protecting “the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the products we consume have a direct impact on the health of our families,” some of its staffers apparently feel it should also serve as a front for the devastating pollution of Big Coal.

As hundreds of citizens from ravaged coalfield areas in Appalachia and around the nation fill the corridors of Congress this week, calling on the House and Senate to pass the Clean Water Protection Act/Appalachian Restoration Act to stop the illegal dumping of toxic coal waste into our American waterways, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) and his staff on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee are reportedly providing free window space for Big Coal ads in our taxpayer financed federal buildings.

Check out this photo of the Senate minority leader’s office window at the E/PW Committee, sent by concerned coalfield residents from West Virginia, who have repeatedly asked the staffers to take down the offensive T-shirt on government property:

2010-03-10-Picture5.png

2010-03-10-senate2.jpg

While Sen. James Inhofe’s comments on climate change are legendary, his prairie land and plains state support for flattening Appalachia through devastating mountaintop removal mining is dangerously uniformed. Last spring, Inhofe sent a letter to EPA chief Lisa Jackson, charging her agency for delay in issuing Clean Water Act permits. Inhofe erroneously claimed:

“As you know, mountaintop mining is a vitally important economic activity. It provides a significant portion of the coal that contributes nearly 50 percent of the nation’s electricity. It also provides well-paying jobs and revenues for some of the neediest regions.”

Significant portion of coal?

Setting aside the reality that mountaintop removal’s irreversible destruction has eliminated over 500 mountains and nearly 1.2 million acres of hardwood forests in the carbon sink of America, led to the largest forced removal of American citizens since the 19th century, and jammed an estimated 2,000 miles of headwater streams and waterways with toxic coal waste, Inhofe’s distortion of the true cost of coal and his window dressing for Big Coal overlooks four main points:

1) As everyone else on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee does know–or should know– mountaintop removal mining provides less than 8 percent of all national coal production.

2) Mountaintop removal has bled the Appalachian economy and job market. As the recent study, “The Decline of Central Appalachian Coal and the Need for Economic Diversification,” makes clear:

Despite these economic benefits, coal-producing counties in Central Appalachia continue to have some of the highest poverty and unemployment rates in the region, and due to the dependence on coal for economic development, any changes in coal production will have significant impacts on local economies.

Specifically, a study last year by West Virginia University reseachers found:

The coal industry generates a little more than $8 billion a year in economic benefits for the Appalachian region. But, they put the value of premature deaths attributable to the mining industry across the Appalachian coalfields at — by a most conservative estimate — $42 billion.

And check out West Virginia blogger Clem Guttata’s analysis of the economics of mountaintop removal on the heels of Inhofe’s misinformed comments.

3) Even the most pro-coal legislators in Appalachia and on Capitol Hill recognize that Appalachian coalfields and across the country are facing a clock of peak coal, and need to shift toward a just transition for clean energy jobs and economic development.

4) Sorry Sen. Inhofe: Coal-fired plants provided only 45% of our electricity last year, and it’s declining.

You can let Sen. Inhofe and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, as well as all members of Congress, know what you think about public financing for Big Coal and misinformation here.

Avatar: the Problematic Environmental Blockbuster

Below is a blog written by Jenna Garland of the Southern Energy Network. Like her, I had conflicting thoughts after seeing Avatar (as well as a queasy stomach from the intense 3D action). I wonder if people realize that this destruction and greed is happening in our world today. Too bad Avatar didn’t win, I wonder what the director would have said about the film’s message. Joe Letteri, the Visual Effects Supervisor for Avatar, said in his acceptance speech: “To everyone watching, thank you for the great appreciation you’ve shown for our film. And just remember the world we live in is just as amazing as the one we created for you. Thank you.” Our world is amazing. Do people realize it is just as threatened as the world Avatar created?

While visiting my parents recently, my mother treated me to a 3-D showing of Avatar at a theater close to where I grew up. I went in with a fair amount of trepidation. I’ve been following the media coverage of the film, as well as conversations between friends and colleagues who had seen it in the weeks follow its premiere. I was feeling very nervous about the racial dynamics of the film, and though I’d heard many people describe the film as very pro-environment, I wondered how pro-environment a blockbuster movie could be; how much can its themes and messages really challenge the status quo of our fossil fuel-powered society?

After two and a half hours of pure visual spectacle, I left feeling a mix of emotions and with a ton of thoughts running through my mind. I felt angry. I felt very angry.

I felt angry that the Na’vi people needed an American to save them. I felt angry that the Na’vi people needed an American to save them from Americans! I felt angry for the truth at the heart of the action: the single-minded focus on profits over people and the environment, and the price indigenous people have paid for centuries.

The single most impactful moment for me was when the Head of Security, Colonel Quaritch, said Continue reading

The Scars on Our Mountains

Thanks to the constant updates via my Twitter feed, this week I discovered NASA’s Earth Observatory website. This website shows satellite images of the Earth — many tragic (arctic sea ice), some providing glimpses of hope (burn recovery in Yellowstone) and some simply bizarre (the growth of Dubai.) Perusing the images and attempting to interpret the changes from image to image was intriguing until the time lapse of mountaintop removal stopped me completely. I no longer marveled at the ability to capture such images, I was sickened at what we are doing to our mountains in Appalachia. I’ve seen mountaintop removal sites in person, but these images clearly show the scale and the permanence of the destruction.

According to the website:
“Below the densely forested slopes of southern West Virginia’s Appalachian Mountains is a layer cake of thin coal seams. To uncover this coal profitably, mining companies engineer large

Get in the Game Senator Mikulski

Here’s a question: If you’re a legislator and you voted to strengthen a particular piece of legislation, and that piece of legislation later came under threat, wouldn’t you make an effort to protect it? The answer seems logical enough, but then again, as we all know, everyday logic doesn’t always apply to the world of politics.

How else would you explain Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski’s failure stand up to protect the Clean Air Act from the attacks that it’s recently come under from the likes of Lisa “Dirty Air” Murkowski? After all, as the Senate’s Legislation and Records site shows, Senator Mikulski voted for the 1990 amendments that strengthened the original 1970 Clean Air Act, ensuring that it had the teeth it needed to really bite into problems like acid rain. But now when opponents of climate action are trying to knock those same teeth out, Mikulski is standing on the sidelines. Continue reading