Hill Heat

At his town hall meeting last week, House Energy and Commerce chairman John Dingell unveiled the outline of his global warming legislative plan, which he will introduce in committee on September 1:

• cap-and-trade system with an 80% cap by 2050
• $100 per ton CO2 emissions tax
• 50-cent increase in federal gax tax
• funding for research on renewable energy
• ending the McMansion mortgage deduction (homes larger than 3,000 square feet)

Glenn Hurwitz at Grist pens a stinging assessment of the chairman: Dingell is dispensible.

So far, he’s fought hard against all steps forward, but it hasn’t made much difference in policy. That suggests that environmentalists and Democrats would be well served to reconsider conventional wisdom about Dingell. Partly because of his gratuitous and repeated swipes at leadership and the environmental movement, his sway with both leadership and rank-and-file Democrats is considerably less than it once was. As the RES vote and Hoyer’s prediction that Congress will pass aggressive fuel efficiency standards shows, his support is no longer essential to passing major environmental legislation. This doesn’t mean that Democrats or environmentalists can ignore all sometime-opponents of environmental progress within the caucus (some, like Gene Green and Charlie Gonzalez, have shown that they retain considerable pull), but it does mean we can stop obsessing about Dingell.

Earlier at Grist David Roberts criticized the Greenpeace activists protesting Dingell’s recent efforts to block an increase in CAFE standards: Dingell’s dimwitted detractors.

Argh. Silly, gimmicky, irrational crap. If this is what Dingell runs into, it’s no wonder he holds green activists in such contempt. Relative to what Dingell’s proposing, the difference between a 35mpg CAFE (which he supports) and a 45mpg or 50mpg CAFE (which greens support) is meaningless. Utterly and completely trivial. A distraction. If we could get in place a carbon tax and a cap-and-trade system, the effects will dwarf minor changes in CAFE. Instead of hectoring Dingell about CAFE, activists should be using their energy to push other legislators to support these bills.

Matt Stoller interviews Congresswoman Hilda Solis on Global Warming and Race at OpenLeft. Rep. Solis is hosting a global warming forum in Los Angeles this week.

Stoller writes:

By turning global warming into a jobs issue, Solis is working to reframe the often depressing and disempowering rhetoric of the environmental movement into language that different groups can get behind. There are interesting and unexpected allies here. A few weeks ago, I accompanied a Sierra Club lobbyist to a visit with freshman Tim Walz, and he’s using the same strategy in his rural Minnesota district – sustainable energy means jobs. Conservative rural residents are now proud of wind turbines, because it means economic growth. The political combination of rural and urban constituency groups is quite potent.

Good Magazine put out an excellent global water supply infographic poster.

Warming Law continues its unparalleled coverage of Massachusetts v. EPA.

Simon Donner takes a look at the question of emissions intensity.

John Dingell’s second global warming town hall in Michigan’s 15th District.

University of Michigan – Dearborn Social Sciences Building 4901 Evergreen Road Dearborn, MI 48124

Environmental Defense was one of several prominent environmental groups to embrace the Lieberman-Warner proposal:

Joe Lieberman and John Warner are providing remarkable leadership. By developing an approach that has environmental integrity and support from both sides of the aisle they are doing what is necessary to actually make law.

Matt Stoller of Open Left, who has been highly skeptical of all cap-and-trade approaches, let alone the Lieberman-Warner proposal, wrote this analysis yesterday:

Anyway, the bill Bush is going to get behind is the Lieberman-Warner bill, opposed by the Sierra Club but supported by the intensely corporate-friendly and compromised Environmental Defense. There’s a green civil war coming, with ED President Fred Krupp playing the role of the DLC. The other environmental groups are split, with the Pew Center and the Nature Conservancy following Krupp over the cliff. The Union of Concerned Scientists and NRDC are ‘concerned’, and the LCV and the Sierra Club are clear that this is a bad move. If you want to see a dysfunctional, degraded, and compromised movement that have lost touch with their mission statements, look no further than ED, Pew, and the Nature Conservancy.

Today, Tony Kreindler of ED responded on Stoller’s site. Here’s an excerpt:

What Lieberman and Warner have offered is a blueprint for a climate bill with an airtight emissions cap and a market for carbon that will spur investment in cost-effective emissions reductions. They also have a plan for managing economic impacts, and importantly, it doesn’t compromise the integrity of the emissions cap. Does that favor corporations over the environment? We don’t think so, and we won’t support a bill that fails the environmental test.

The discussion is continued at Open Left.

During a Global Warming Town Hall meeting in Ann Arbor on Tuesday, August 7, Congressman John D. Dingell (D-MI15) will take questions regarding a carbon tax bill he intends to introduce as part of a multi-tiered approach to reducing carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions.

Under Dingell’s leadership, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce passed energy efficiency legislation that would remove from the atmosphere more than 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions (through the year 2030), which is more than the annual emissions of all cars on American roads today. The legislation is expected to pass the full House this week.

In the fall, Dingell also plans to develop a comprehensive, mandatory, economy-wide program with the goal of achieving as much as an 80 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. He is a co-sponsor of the Hill-Terry bill, HR 2927, which would mandate separate car and truck standards to meet a total fleet fuel economy standard between 32 and 35 mpg by 2022; increases up to 40 percent over current standards.

Pioneer High School Schreiber Auditorium 601 W. Stadium Blvd Ann Arbor, MI 48103

In summary, US-CAP members Environmental Defense, Pew Center on Climate Change, and Nature Conservancy offer unequivocal praise of Lieberman-Warner.

NRDC (US-CAP) and Union of Concerned Scientists say it’s a starting point that needs fixing.

Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club say it has major problems; the Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters say that focus should stay on the Sanders-Boxer bill.

A number of organizations have not yet weighed in. Full quotations and links to the statements are below the fold.

Last weekend, Sen. Barbara Boxer led a delegation from the Environment and Public Works Committee to Greenland:

• Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.)
• Ben Cardin (D-Md.)
• Bill Nelson (D-Fl.)
• Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)
• Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)
• Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)
• Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.)
• Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
• Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)

Inhofe sent staffer Mark Morano, a former writer for the rightwing Cybercast News Service. Richard Alley of Penn State University, the lead author on the United States Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was the scientific advisor on the trip. They met with Arkalo Abelsen, Greeland’s environmental minister.

• Barbara Boxer: Urge Your Senators to Support the Sanders/Boxer Global Warming Bill!

The Subcommittee on Energy will receive testimony on how to improve our renewable fuels infrastructure to accommodate the increasing volumes of renewable fuels in the transportation sector.

Witnesses

• Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
• Alexander Karsner, assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, Department of Energy

• David Terry, project coordinator, Governors’ Ethanol Coalition
• Charles Drevna, executive vice president, National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
• Jonathan Lehman, advisor, VeraSun Corp.
• Deborah Morrissett, vice president of regulatory affairs/product development, Chrysler Technology Center
• Phillip Lampert, executive director, National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition.

2:44 PM Klobuchar Ethanol and biodiesel are near and dear to Minnesota, but I believe this is also an issue of national security. I’m glad the energy bill requires auto manufacturers to have 50% of their vehicles be flexfuel by 2015. Minnesota ranks first in E85 infrastructure.

2:56 PM Karsner An E85 infrastructure should be a goal but not an exclusive goal. We see no technical reason why flexfuel vehicles cannot be more ubiquitous across all markets.

Dorgan Do you think the marketplace will solve this problem?

Karsner I think the question is whether we have the proper stimulus.

Dorgan I’ve talked about the gas company impediments.

Karsner I had lunch with Gov. Pataki. On a state by state basis those issues are being addressed. On E85 we have a need to address it.

Dorgan Franchises are barred from listing E85 on their signs.

Karsner I can’t speak for the position of the franchise owner, but the New York model may be something we need to examine.

Dorgan Conoco Phillips will not allow sales on the primary island. Should we just wait for the states to deal with it?

Karsner The New York example has been tested. I’m not an expert on contract law. Is it an impediment? Obviously, yes.

Dorgan When we see this kind of restraint on the sale of E85, should we act, or say so be it?

Karsner Something needs to be done. Some policy stimulus. I don’t start with the premise that the oil companies are necessarily an adversary to the outcome.

Dorgan It appears to me their actions are adversarial to the sale of E85.

Karsner Were I a franchisee I likely would see it that way.

Dorgan What about as a policy maker? Keep it off the main island, don’t allow credit cards, don’t allow advertising.

Karsner I understand your meaning. Fundamentally you have a conflict between the national imperatives and the law. The problem is that this is private contract which both parties have joined freely with.

Dorgan You seem to suggest the intermediate blends might get faster adoption.

Karsner Intermediate blends goes as low as anything above E10. All pumps are certified for E15. In theory you could aggressively pursue E85 and E15 at the same time.

Dorgan Our goal is 36 billion gallons. If we don’t market it, we won’t get there.

3:22 PM Under questioning from Tester: Karsner It may be that the oil companies’ agreements are not aligned with the national security imperative.

Tester There’s a lot of misinformation out there about ethanol. Is there action on the part of the DOE to solve that problem?

Karsner It’s not a one-time story.

Last week, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) presented the Containing and Managing Climate Change Costs Efficiently Act (S. 1874), a piece of legislation authored by Joe Lieberman’s former environmental advisor, Timothy Profeta, who now heads the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University.

The proposal would establish the Carbon Market Efficiency Board which would oversee the emissions trading market established by cap-and-trade legislation. The board would operate much like the Federal Reserve Board, providing information on price and low-emission technology investment trends to Congress and the public, and it would adjust the price of emissions permits when a “market correction” is needed. The first measure is to expand companies’ ability to “bank” permits, or borrow permits against future year reductions. The second measure, to be used if high prices are not relieved by the first measure, is to add a slightly larger number of permits to the market. This temporary increase would be compensated for by reducing available permits in a later year, when more options have been developed.

Profeta testified about the proposal in last week’s hearing. His white paper goes into further detail.

The bill is intended to be folded into the Lieberman-Warner package to be presented as a discussion draft at the end of the week.

John Warner (R-Va.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) are cosponsoring the bill, in a bipartisan show of strength by pro-business Senators. [The League of Conservation Voters/Chamber of Commerce scores for the senators are: Warner 14%/100%, Graham 29%/92%, Landrieu 43%/75%, Lincoln 43%/67%. By way of comparison, Lieberman is 71%/44%.]

At today’s hearing on the California waiver, EPA administrator Stephen Johnson refused to condemn or even comment on the Department of Transportation’s lobbying against the waiver. He also refused to state whether or not the administration is opposed to the request.

In his testimony, he admitted speaking to the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, Mary E. Peters, at the beginning of the comment period, and obfuscated over what they discussed. He admitted that they discussed reaching out to her “constituency”, which when pressed by Sen. Boxer, he understood to mean governors and members “particularly interested” in transportation. He avoided saying what the Secretary’s intentions or views were and whether he recommended the “constituency” should send in comments.

His new excuse for not making a decision on the waiver request is the “voluminous” amount of comments. He was understandably accused of footdragging by the Democrats on the panel.