Tuesday, April 28, 2009

The Strategy for Passing Climate Change Legislation



This blog will soon turn to some of the media coverage of science policy; in particular, the cap-and-trade bill because it is just so critical to the direction that energy science, research and development take in coming years - over the medium term, really.

Nate Silver of the election season fame just made a post adapting this image:


From this survey.  Silver calls for Democrats to "personalize" the debate in order to have a better shot a pushing legislation, and he is absolutely right.  As he points out, general polling on climate change indicates support for legislation to mitigate.  At the same time, in situations where economic growth is in conflict with emissions reductions, economic growth will almost always win because people never oppose economic growth (as Roger Pielke Jr., puts it: do you have a job and want a keep it?  do you not have a job but want a job at some point?  then you are a big fan of economic growth).  

In the context of expensive energy, and a flat demand for energy in the developed world (indeed, growing to the extent that immigration drives population growth in countries like America), it is unlikely that people will vote for climate legislation over economic productivity over time. 

How might Waxman, Markey, and the Democrats make the debate seem more personalized?  As is often the case, the political process is more comprehensive than many like to think, and is addressing this issue in subtle ways.  For example, Rick Boucher [D-VA] has proposed moderating amendments to the bill.  To coal state democrats, such a move may garner support, and make the bill seem like it is addressing the climate issue, while also not taxing the bottom of the pyramid - "you," "your family," and "your community."  While somewhat variable based on one's personal ethics, it can be generally argued that people care more about the bottom of the pyramid than the top of it; barring fringe deep ecologists, people (evidenced by their consumption behavior and voting behavior) do prioritize themselves and their families over distant, developing countries, and certainly plant species.  

What more migh the Democrats do?  It's a fine balance, making a cap-and-trade bill pass a majority's personal and informal cost-benefit analysis.  The pyramid at the top of this post, as Silver points out, isn't necessarily irrational; indeed, developing countries are likely to be most affected by climate change, and species are going extinct already, before the wealthy world is feeling the punch of climate change.  Nevertheless, what may be irrational is that people are discounting the future damages to their families and communities.  Framing the issue in terms of childrens' future is an effective tactic, but must still not appeal to excessive fear.

Sadly, in the absence of fear, discounting prevails and economic growth will remain hard pressed to see compromise in the name of climate change mitigation.




Saturday, April 25, 2009

Water Research Bill Passes House

Broad bipartisan support for the bill was displayed on Thursday.  The bill now awaits a vote in the Senate.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Water Research Bill Out of Committee

H.R. 1145, the National Water Research and Development Initiative Act of 2009, was reported by the committee for consideration by the House.

The bill will direct research into consumption of water, for use in developing water regimes into the future.  Sounds interesting, and not all that expensive.  It may be opposed as by some nonetheless as needless spending, but the majority party may be able to steamroll it through as more important matters demand attention; or it will be tabled indefinitely.

Earlier in this blog, this piece of legislation was mentioned among several others; however, there was a committee hearing in which the expert panel strongly pushed for the passage of this bill, and called for federal funds for water research.  Apparently, the committee itself was convinced enough to recommend the bill for debate; it remains to be seen how far it makes it.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Waxman Markey Draft Part IV: Transitioning to a Clean Energy Future

                Transitioning is in the title of the fourth title, and it’s absolutely critical to making any of this work – in terms of mitigation of climate change, and adaptation to it.  This title is unique in that it calls for significant development of groups focused on adaptation to climate change, and being aware of what policies will be necessary as the climate does change. 

                The first subtitle of the draft works to assuage fears of America losing its competitive edge as producers have to pay for their carbon emissions.  Ideas that are floated include rebates for producers in the short term, to make up some of their increased costs; the exact source of these funds – and indeed, the amount that it will really cost – is rather unclear, and likely to be opposed by Boehner and Cantors’ people.  Additionally, a “border adjustment” is proposed by which products imported to the United States must be charged for their carbon emissions.  This provision will be called protectionist by some, and is likely to lead to legal conundrums and the development of loopholes, as free-trade continues to try to persist.  China is the obvious loser from such a policy, insofar as the United States provides a large market for Chinese products; having to pay the costs of the carbon associated with their products will disadvantage Chinese companies, and may lead to international tension.  At the same time, this is an assurance that American companies cannot simply shift production overseas where carbon is still perfectly externalized, and sell their product back to Americans.  Of course, as throughout this bill, the consumer remains as a stakeholder and will feel a shock from the draft in terms of prices, despite these efforts to ease the transition.

                While consumers are left rather out of the transition loop from the last sub-title, the second sub-title focuses on workers.  In advocating bailing out the auto industry, the threat to thousands of American jobs was used as a primary argument.  The President has been fairly honest in his rhetoric, about the state of American jobs.  He has expressed in interviews and town hall meetings the understanding that many (most?) outsourced jobs are not coming back – and that new jobs need to be created.  To this end, the draft authorizes extensive training in green jobs, via the secretary of labor.  It remains to be seen what such training might entail, because we aren’t yet sure what green industries will be the “winners” when the costs of carbon are internalized; naturally, the bill stops short of picking winners (save for the loser that is nuclear). 

                Finally, the draft gets to adaptation.  The adaptation/mitigation debate is an interesting one, the ethical and practical subtexts of which this blog will not fully explore.   While the effects of climate change are uncertain but surely dependent on our actions now and into the future, there is also data to suggest that climate changes have been initiated in an irreversible way, and adaptation to these changes will be necessary.  The draft takes this up by directing NOAA to form a National Climate Service.  This organization will evaluate the actual changes to the climate, and from their impacts can be assessed and policy alternatives can be considered.  The draft goes on to outline a variety of organizations relevant to adaptive policy in some detail; there are groups set up to investigate vulnerability, some set up to examine health impacts, and others made to consider the impact of climate changes on natural resource use.

                All of these effects of climate change are real, and it is commendable that adaptation has a place in climate change rhetoric.  To the extent that we are obligated to avert a full upheaval of Earth’s climatic systems in the medium term, mitigation must be pursued; however, it is important that the most vulnerable people on Earth are not sacrificed in the name of future generations.

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Waxman Markey Draft Part III: Reducing Global Warming Pollution

It is in Title III of the draft that cap-and-trade, and other market based mechanisms for mitigation are introduced.  Before looking at the details, a note about cap-and-trade:  in order to be an effective tool for reducing reductions, the actual “cap” part of the cap-and-trade needs to be substantially lower than current emissions, it needs to be ratcheted down over time, and it needs to avoid excessive grandfathering.   Additionally, and I will argue to an emasculating extent, this title leans very heavily on offsets to reduce global warming pollution.

The draft takes steps towards meeting these criteria, but the immediate economic implications of cap-and-trade are likely to favor growth and sustained affordable prices or consumers.  The companies – including oil and utilities – that are responsible for 85% of American GHG emissions are mentioned particularly by the draft.  Federal allowances are provided for each ton of CO2 emitted, and companies emitting over 25,000 tons of CO2 (apparently, only companies emitting over that amount) must obtain credits from the federal government for each ton of CO2 that they emit.  The particulars of the initial allocation of credits are unclear, but it seems inevitable that some sort of grandfathering in of allowances will occur; to the extent that the cost of reducing emissions is lower when overall emissions from a firm are higher (to the “left” of a marginal control cost curve), the heaviest emitters should indeed cut their emissions quickly if this bill is enacted.  The draft calls for a ratcheting down of the cap such that by 2050, emissions are 83% below 2005 levels (3% below ’05 levels by 2012, 20% by 2020, and 42% by 2030).  As expected, the most severe shocks that will occur from legitimate emissions reductions are left to the medium term.

In any event, reducing emissions to 20% of 2005 levels by 2020 is an ambitious enough call that opposition will be fierce.  There will be a fairly substantial coalition of both republicans and blue dog & coal state democrats that will be pushing to loosen the cap, should the bill pass at all.  John Boehner (who called the threat of  climate change "comical") and Eric Cantor are already working to rally what political capital they have to stop this bill from doing what it's intended to do.  

The draft then goes on to call for carbon offsets and other means of reducing emissions through mechanisms that do not directly operate on American soil.  Two billion tons of emissions reductions are called for in just the “prevention of international deforestation.”  To account for some of the shortcomings of offsets – including the potential for them to not be permanent – the draft requires 5 tons  worth of credits for 4 tons worth of CO2 that is offset.  The limitations remain, and 2 billion tons is a large portion of emissions to ascribe to the somewhat nebulous black box of offsets.

An interesting quasi-loophole is written into the draft: 2.5 billion tons of “strategic reserve” allowances will be created, that can be auctioned off if prices rise unexpectedly high.  It’s interesting that although the “free market” character of cap-and-trade is what makes it politically palatable to many, there is an implicit mechanism to actually disrupt the mechanics of the system should they yield consequences that are, essentially, unpopular.  

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Americans and Nuclear Power: Did the Dems Blow It?

Reading the Waxman-Markey draft, and noting the exclusion of nuclear power from the clean energy title, I questioned why there was such an omission.

According to Gallup, support for nuclear power among Americans is growing. 

(click for big; the blog layout precludes fully embedding the image in the context of my relative technical incompetence)


 It would be useful to look at more polls, and as the debate gains importance in the news headlines, my hope is that someone like Nate Silver will pull out some useful analysis about where the debate is headed (Silver's ability to interpret statistics - including uncertainty! - in an accessible way is absolutely incredible, and I hope his career didn't end with the election.  It's a rare talent that he has, and moreover, he has a relatively large audience, albeit some of which is academics, that are willing to listen and learn about statistics and uncertainty)


I'm no Silver, but it is interesting to note that Republicans favor nuclear power to much higher degree than Democrats: 71% support in the GOP versus 52% among Dems.  To the extent that Waxman and Markey's new bill will require bipartisan support to pass, it is possible that they have rather dropped the ball on a great opportunity to rally support for policy that will lead to climate change mitigation - and indeed energy security.

Waxman Markey Draft Part II: Efficiency

It is good to see energy efficiency featured prominently in the draft, as Title II.  Energy efficiency has been a large part of the mitigation strategy of countries like Japan, where buildings and households have been rather efficient.  The extent to which this can take a bite out of global emissions remains to be seen; however, to the extent that we are uncertain about how effectively the world can meet emissions and climate targets globally, energy efficiency is a promising way to move in the direction of climate mitigation, with deliberate certitude.

                In particular, the draft provides incentives for states to make more stringent building codes, authorizes retrofit funds, and calls for the development of a new rating system for buildings; there is no federal code that is imposed directly by the bill, unsurprisingly.  Building efficiency could perhaps have an impact with respect to mitigation if taken very seriously; it was touted as a “wedge” in 2004.  It’s strange, but for some reason 2004 seemed like a popular time to make overly optimistic predictions about the climate, and our trajectory in mitigating emissions.  To this end, the draft proposes rebates for poor families living in old homes who wish to move into more efficient, newer homes.  This sounds well and good, but its feasibility will be entirely dependent on the housing market, at least to a degree. 

                This title also asks the DOE (who’s rhetoric has been similar to this bill in other areas such as  coal) to impose appliance efficiency standards.  It is unclear what sort of impact this would have, although it does appear to mesh synergistically with the draft’s advocacy for further deployment of smart grid technology in Title I.

                A commendable move by the draft is its call for the Obama administration to reconcile federal automobile standards with those of California.  By having the EPA simplify its code for transportation efficiency, loopholes can be reduced and the mitigation impact can be amplified in a (again synergistic) way.

                Next, the draft asks for utility efficiency.  It calls for utility companies to increase efficiency such that consumers will cut their natural gas and coal consumption by roughly 1% by 2012%, and well over 10% by 2020.  While I do not feel qualified to comment on how appropriate this time scale is, my sense is that it would be more productive to focus on particular mechanisms by which this could be done.  At the same time, should such a regulation pass with teeth, then the buck would be passed to utility companies; given the already intense opposition to this bill, and the considerable clout that industries affected by this provision has, this section does not seem likely to prevail.  At best, perhaps, the target will move before the teeth of regulation have an opportunity to leave a sufficiently painful bite mark.

                

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Congress not in session this week

The House will meet again on April 21, and the Senate April 20th.

There should be plenty of discussion in the next week about the Waxman-Markey draft, among othe things.

Waxman Markey Draft Part 1: Clean Energy

The new American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 draft version has been released – it’s quite a beast, at 648 pages.  I was pouring through the actual draft itself, attempting to tease out some more interesting tidbits – this was rather daunting, and fortunately a summary is now available!

The debate on this bill is already fierce, even among Democrats.  Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat and co-sponsor of the bill has told the press his intention to seek more modest goals for reductions in emissions, especially in the short term.  Many Republicans, as well as Democrats who are tied rather strongly to particular industries (coal)are likely to move debate in a similar direction to Boucher.  It remains to be seen whether or not the final draft that moves through Congress will have substantial regulatory teeth, or will be a largely emasculated symbolic piece of paper.  All this, of course, before the bill actually comes to a vote; my sense is that if the bill were to go to a vote now in its present form, it would have roughly a snowball’s chance in hell of being passed.

The draft is divided into four titles: clean energy, energy efficiency, global warming (mitigation), and transition, which focuses on easing shocks to consumers en route to our ostensibly sustainable future. 

The clean energy title promotes a variety of technologies – primarily through development and deployment.  Renewable energies like wind, solar, biomass and geothermal energy are promoted with fairly ambitious requirements: 6% renewable (nationally) by 2012, and 25% renewable by 2025.  This is more ambitious than Obama’s own calls, but considerably less ambitious than the suggestions of some others (Al Gore, who calls for zero reliance on fossil fuels in the short - medium term).  It is interesting to note that nuclear power does not fit into the “clean energy” title, in spite of being “clean” in terms of carbon emissions.  The extent to which nuclear power will ultimately fit into future plans is questionable.  Also, it is unclear exactly why it was omitted.  Nuclear power is politically problematic, as people are concerned about many salient related issues: storage of waste, prevention of weapons proliferation, and potential creation of terrorist targets. 

Waxman himself has been skeptical of nuclear power before.  According to his website, he voted to bar a website promoting the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.  Waxman calls Yucca Mountain a mistake, an decries the website in question’s failure to present potential dangers associated with waste storage.

The next part of the clean energy title is Carbon Capture and Sequestration, or "clean coal."  Without explicitly putting any additional funds into research, the draft calls for development and deployment of the technology.  This is interesting, because clean coal does not exist.  In spite of this, clean coal continues to occupy a very prominent position in the climate and energy discourse.  Still, congressmembers who are linked to coal are not satisifed; in addition to seeking to play up the potential for coal fired power plants to co-exist with climate legislation through carbon capture and storage, they will push for easier regulations in general that do not require much substantive action in the short term.  

Third, the clean energy title calls for more efficient vehicles.  Included are financial incentives for battery powered cars, municipalities that work towards efficient vehicles, and further incorporation of biofuel into the existing liquid fuel supply.

The rest of the title includes some interesting provisions: federal purchase of renewable energy contracts, credits for increased distributed renewable energy generation, and of course expansion of smart grid technology!

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Climate & Energy Bill Revealed!

And the ugly politics begin!

As described in the New York Times, Henry Waxman and Ed Markey revealed their climate and energy bill draft.  The bear of a bill sets relatively  aggressive targets for cutting emissions.  It requires a 20% cut from 2005 levels by 2020.  

Some are already calling these early targets too aggressive. Rick Boucher [D-VA], a democrat (or if not him, someone - no question) will try to ease up on the urgency imposed by the bill.  

As the debate unfolds, this will be an extremely hot topic!

Introduced legislation

H.R. 141, the Acid Rain and Mercury Control Act was introduced by John McHugh [R-NY].

The act calls for cuts in powerplant sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide of 75% by 2012.

McHugh is from a region in the northeast affected by acid rain, which explains his interest in the issue.  

The reason this is a noteworthy introduction is that further reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions would ultimately come down on the coal industry.  It will be interesting if this bill does actually go anywhere, as that could be informative as to the political status of coal.

Coming up:  a glance at how the story so far looks, and how it's been represented in the media.

Enacted Legislation

H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Land Management Bill, has been enacted.

This large bill designated a lot of land, in a lot of places, as federally protected.  The bill directly protects areas, and directs federal agencies to work towards the ecological restoration of other areas.  

It's worth a glance!

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Introduced Legislation

More legislation introduced.  As usual, the odds of anything getting out of committee and through congress is low, but new bills are still of interest because their language modifies the discourse relevant to science policy.

H.R. 1794, a bill To Provide Incentives to Reduce Dependence on Foreign Oil 
Introduced by Dan Lungren [R-CA]

Lungren doesn't have much of a history of leadership in this area, so it is interesting that the Sacramento suburb rep decided to introduce this bill.  Energy issues are very salient to his constituency (along with many, many others of course), and this bill clearly frames the matter in terms of energy security - as opposed to climate issues. 

That said, the bill is fairly broad in scope.  It calls for a tax credit for any facility (electrical generation) that pratcies climate neutral combustion.  'Clean coal' is directly alluded to, as the bill mentions that climate neutral combustion includes combustion in which CO2 is recaptured and used to extract hydrocarbon energy from below ground.

Largely, the bill seeks to extend Internal Revenue Code of 1986, which interestingly provided clean energy credits.  Carbon neutrality is emphasized, and the bill further proposes to extend tax credits for solar energy.

Also, examine these sections:  

"SEC. 5. PRIZE PROGRAM.

The Secretary of Energy shall establish a program to award a prize in the amount of $1,000,000,000 to the first automobile manufacturer incorporated in the United States to manufacture and sell in the United States 60,000 midsized sedan automobiles which operate on gasoline and can travel 100 miles per gallon.

SEC. 6. LITHIUM ION BATTERY TECHNOLOGY

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2010 for the development of advanced lithium ion battery technology."

The bill is calling for direct monetary incentives for improved gas mileage($1bn is significant even to a major auto company), and a "reward" for creating an advanced lithium battery - similar to what John McCain proposed during his 2008 presidential campaign.  The effectiveness of such a strategy is debatable; aside from the limited supply of lithium, production of a commercially viable battery doesn't really require a reward incentive.  

Finally, the bill offers to treat any property used to produce biofuels (ethanol and methanol, specifically) as not chargeable to a capital account.