International Researchers Discuss Climate Change Risks To Humans

By Julianne LaJeunesse - University of New Mexico/Talk Radio News Service

In a cross-Atlantic satellite panel discussion Wednesday, the National Institute of Health and top British researchers and health experts discussed a Lancet publication released today that highlights the impacts of climate change on human lives - an effort which the collaborators hope will further domestic and international policy on greenhouse gas and carbon emissions.

President Barack Obama’s Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told participants via a video recording that greenhouse gases affect more than just the environment, and that even if climate change wasn’t documented and known, the NIH would still be very concerned with greenhouse gases and carbon emissions.

“We know that depending on coal-powered plants that spew greenhouse gases is bad for our planet, but it’s also bad for our health,” Sebelius said. “We know that the growing share of meat in our diet is bad for our planet...[and] we know that depending on gas-guzzling cars is bad for our planet, but it’s also bad for our health since it can lead us to get less exercise.”

Sebelius carefully noted that coal plants, meat consumption, and vehicle use are “bad for our planet” when overused, but conserving resources, according to some study participants, will require policy changes.

James Woodcock, who represented the transportation section of The Lancet publication, said that in order to reduce vehicle use, walking and cycling must become more pleasant.

“If you’re talking about large increases in walking, cycling, and large reductions in car use, then you need to talk about policies that prioritize pedestrians and cyclists over those of motorists,” he said.

Those policies will need to be implemented on a country by country basis, and public support for domestic policy was encouraged by U.K. Secretary of State for Health Andy Burnham, who said “when the world comes together in Copenhagen, in just a couple of weeks time, it will be essential that we strike a deal that is equal to the challenge that we face.”

Ohio Senator Advocates Climate Bills That Include Border Adjusted Carbon Fees

By Julianne LaJeunesse - University of New Mexico

The Economic Policy Institute held a briefing Thursday with Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), environmentalists, and members of industries that would experience financial and physical changes under proposed climate change bills like the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill and the Kerry-Boxer "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act."

During the briefing, Robert Scott of EPI talked about his recent report "Climate Change Policy—Border Adjustment Key to U.S. Trade and Manufacturing Jobs." He found an audience in Brown and Leo Gerard, President of the United Steelworkers, when he suggested that U.S. jobs and a competitive U.S. industry presence can be recognized through stronger bill language on "border adjustments" as found in the Waxman-Markey bill.

Border adjustments are fees that are charged to countries who use an unregulated amount of carbon to create exported products. That charge is used as a way to level the playing field for countries whose emissions are regulated.

Brown said he appreciated Waxman-Markey's included adjustments, but said the allowed level of presidential discretion in the bill is questionable.

"This needs to be done in a way that is automatic... not allows a president, whoever the president is in the years ahead, to have discretion on this," Brown said. "Because we know how presidents don't move very aggressively on protecting our national interests on manufacturing and trade."

Gerard agreed, saying the amount of presidential authority afforded in the Waxman-Markey needs to be brought back to Congress.

"We've had a terrible experience with presidential discretion for eight years with President Bush," Gerard said. "He exercised his discretion and it cost America tens of thousands of jobs."

In his report, Scott said that if Congress does not support legislation that maintains and improves U.S. competition for energy-intensive and trade-intensive manufacturing, the country could lose as many as 4 million jobs to countries like China and Asia.

Opponents of increasing government control of carbon emissions say that the United States isn't financially ready to divert its money toward greener jobs, particularly in energy-intensive industries such as steel, pulp and paper, glass and clay and nonmetallic mineral products.

According to the Americans for Tax Reform website, their reason for opposing the Waxman-Markey bill in particular, are because the bill "raises taxes on American families, increases the cost of energy, and eliminates American jobs."

Post-Recess: Senate Takes Their Turn On Energy/Climate Discussion

By Courtney Ann Jackson-Talk Radio News Service

The energy and climate debate is making its way to the Senate, just two legislative days after the House passed the Waxman-Markey energy bill. The Committee on Environment and Public Works heard from White House and other government officials Tuesday. They highlighted the importance of making the U.S. a leader in the clean energy market, reducing the effects of global warming, and creating new jobs in the process.

“Clean energy is to this decade, and the next, what the Space Race was to the 1950s and ‘60s. America is behind,” said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. “American businesses need strong incentives and investments now in order for this nation to lead the twenty-first century global economy.”

Other officials present included: Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

Chu said that he applauds the House for passing the clean energy bill and said he looks forward to working with the Senate to pass “comprehensive energy legislation.” He also noted that denial of the climate change problem will not change the outcome but comprehensive legislation that caps and then reduces carbon emissions will.

Committee Chairwoman Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said, “I expect you will hear fierce words of doubt and fear and worse from the other side of the aisle regarding our legislative efforts to move forward with clean energy jobs legislation. This is consistent with a pattern of “No we can’t.” I believe this Committee, when the votes are eventually taken on our bill, will reflect our President’s attitude, which is “Yes, we can, and yes, we will.”

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) agreed that the bill will pass through their committee but he does not believe it will pass on the Senate floor. He said the Senators will have more time to review the many points of the legislation than House members did prior to their June 25 vote.

Gov. Haley Barbour (R-Miss.) also testified Tuesday and stressed the importance of informing the public about the facts of energy policy.

“The gigantic effect of energy policy on American life means Congress should work particularly hard to ensure Americans know the facts about the policies Congress is considering. To the contrary, the House of Representatives added more than 300 pages of its 1200 page energy bill a few hours before it was brought to the floor and passed. That is just the opposite,” said the Governor.

Pelosi Paints the Capital Green

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

To mark Earth Day, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi introduced a plan to paint green the marble columns of the Capitol with energy efficiency and environmental initiatives. She calls it the “Green the Capitol Initiative.”

Pelosi’s plan involves 15 distinct steps to conserve energy and reduce waste, and is aimed specifically at congressional offices. Among Pelosi’s 15 measures are the use of compact florescent light bulbs, recycling used office items, and conserving electricity by powering off lights and computers while not in use. Additionally, Speaker Pelosi is encouraging the use of public transportation and the conservation of basic office supplies.

“The Capitol, which has always served as a beacon of freedom, is now a shining example of sustainability.” Pelosi said. She continued that the House has reduced its carbon emissions by 72 percent recently. She continued that if all Congressional offices adopt this plan, it will result in a savings of $1 million in energy costs and will cut energy consumption in the Capitol by nearly 10 percent.

Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-Oreg.), who Pelosi called “the main instigator” of the green plan, believes that Congress is setting a good example for the rest of the country. He said, “If we model the behavior we want the rest of America to follow, it has a profound effect.”

Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM) said that one of the first things he did when coming into Congress was institute a recycling program in his offices. He grinned at the savings

“Just during the transition from the 110th to 111th Congress, Congress saved over 60,000 pounds of paper. Lujan joked with the Speaker, “I was going to bring an example of that, but I couldn’t forklift it in, just to give an example of what we’ve truly saved.”

Pelosi called it the moral responsibility of Congress. Her office is encouraging all members to adopt these “green” plans. “I think most members of the Congress are doing some of this,” but she could not give exact numbers on who has implemented all of these recommendations. “The Speakers office is doing all of this,” Pelosi said proudly of the recommendations.

Is Cap-and-Trade the Answer?

Coffee Brown, University of New Mexico, Talk Radio News


At the Washington Post Company Conference on "Planning for a Secure Energy Future," Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said, "We are the Saudi Arabia of coal." It's harmful, he acknowledged, but we have it in abundance and we’re dependent on it. If we don't use coal, China and India will. We should have committed to alternative energy 30 years ago, "but American attention to these matters goes on and off like the light when you throw the switch," he said.
Clean coal is a relative term. We can substantially reduce emissions, but how and at what cost will involve serious debate, he said.
"The Europeans have had at least two fine messes" applying cap-and-trade, Dingell said, adding that there are many options, all having flaws, and Congress will have a huge fight over them.
Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) said coal is a great energy source, "but it has one bad feature: if we burn the coal reserves that we know exist in this country and in China, the planet will cook." He said the coal industry needs cap-and-trade, because if it does not become clean, it becomes unsustainable. Cap-and-trade revenue could fund the necessary research. "The future of this industry depends on the existence of that research," he said. "These are job-creating opportunities."
We have overestimated the cost and difficulty of such projects, according to Inslee. We had to commit to the Apollo project, and then we succeeded. "We are on the cusp of enormous technological transformation, but it cannot happen at the pace it has to happen unless we have (the pressure that cap-an-trade would exert),” he said. “As long as we can burn coal that is not sequestered, it strangles in the bed all of these new companies that are champing at the bit to start getting going." "This pace of global warming is not Al Gore's schedule,” he said, adding that it is a fact of nature and it is happening much faster than had been predicted even one year ago.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said, "By the year 2020, our country is expected to need 40 percent more electricity generation than we're using today. Coal has to be part of that picture." It's about 53 percent of total national energy generation.
We are not building new coal plants, and China is building many, he said, “and they're not using carbon capture.”
Pointing out that efficient carbon capture is 10-15 years away, but cap-and-trade starts immediately and benchmarks begin in 2012, Upton says that the technology should precede the regulations.

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) agrees: "This is like (anesthetizing) the patient while the researchers are still trying to figure out how to operate." He characterized cap-and-trade as a redistribution of wealth from businesses to individuals. "Far from being a job creator, I think this could be a huge job killer."
He said that when cap-and-trade decreased sulfur dioxide emissions, circumstances were different.
All of the participants at the conference agreed on the reality and the danger of climate change, but debated whether various alternative energies are practical, and whether cap-and-trade should drive the reduction of carbon emissions or await more cost-effective technology.