Climate Change

The Oval Office Address: Will The President Go For A "Price On Carbon"?

Bill Scher — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:23:34 -0400

It is rare for a President to deliver an Oval Office address on a subject that is not directly about war. When a President does so, he signals to the nation that the problem at hand is not only of the utmost importance, but requires the nation to come together to fix it.

This does not always work. President George W. Bush did not reform our immigration system. And, more relevant to tonight, President Jimmy Carter did not solve the energy crisis.

As this President already must know, one speech never solves a complicated problem. Follow-through is essential.

But as he also must know, a good speech never hurts.

President Obama delivers his first Oval Office address tonight, and only he knows what he wants to accomplish tonight.

CBS' Mark Knoller speculates that the President's primary objective "above all else" is "to show that he's on top of the [BP Gulf gusher] crisis." But that doesn't seem right. An Oval Office address isn't required to accomplish that.

The Oval Office setting offers the potential to galvanize a nation to action. The White House has signaled to CNN and Huffington Post that tonight's address will discuss "what we must do to decrease our dependence on oil and other fossil fuels." That sounds more like an Oval Office priority.

If the President tonight emphasizes the need for a comprehensive climate protection and clean energy jobs bill, he follows through with additional pressure, and most importantly, the public responds to the President's call, that could break the current Senate gridlock.

As I argued last week, neither the public nor the Senate is making the connection between the Gulf gusher and the climate crisis. This is the opportunity for the President to do so.

But as everyone in Washington who have pored over the poll data already know, the climate crisis by itself is not motivating enough.

What is? The prospect of millions of jobs generating clean American energy and energy-efficiency. The freedom from constant oil price spikes with stable, affordable clean energy. And curtailing the perennial threats of environmental disasters that destroy local economies like the Gulf coast. Conveying how the clean energy future can improve our day-to-day lives is essential.

Yet that basic picture has been painted by President and others before. People like it, but remain skeptical Washington is going to do anything about it.

What would make this speech different?

If the President explains the necessity of putting a price on carbon pollution to accelerate the transition to the clean energy future, making all goods and services powered with clean energy cheaper than with dirty energy.

Since everyone in Washington who works on climate issues knows that a price on carbon pollution is the linchpin to averting a climate crisis, drawing that line in the sand signals to the Senate that President is making a comprehensive climate protection and clean energy jobs bill the next big priority.

Of course, "price on carbon" is too wonky to be a silver rhetorical bullet. But the President has the capacity to make "price on carbon" a simple rallying cry to focus citizen activist energy, and push the Senate to act boldly.

Even if the votes in the Senate cannot be wrung out in the next few months, and an "energy-only" bill is the best fall-back position before the election season stalls legislative activity, by setting the "price on carbon" goal post, the President would define ultimate success and prepare citizen activist troops for the following battles.

But while we watch tonight to learn if the President raises the bar, let us also remember we in the grassroots have responsibilities too,

Whatever the president says about climate and clean energy tonight, it is in our best interest to press the Senate to take action tomorrow.

Yes, Nuclear

Dave Johnson — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:33:21 -0500

I believe that global warming is the most serious threat humanity faces. So we need to use every possible technology we can to replace energy sources that put greenhouse gases into the air. This includes nuclear energy.

One big problem with nuclear is figuring out what to do with the dangerous radioactive waste. But here's the thing, when we burn coal and oil we're just putting the dangerous waste product into the air and it is destroying the planet. So we can't make the perfect the enemy of the good -- nuclear waste is not destroying the planet and fossil-fuel waste is. We simply have to replace coal and oil as our energy source.

Climate change is an emergency. We need to do everything we can. This means we need to put up every windmill we can, every solar panel we can, every solar power plant, biofuel and geothermal facility that we can. We need to retrofit every building to be energy efficient, switch to electric cars, stop eating meat that is not grass-fed. We need to do research into finding ways to sequester carbon from coal. And we need to build nuclear power plants. What part of "everything we can" did I miss?

Please, let's make this a discussion. Please leave a comment with your thoughts on this.

BUT

As we proceed with this, we need to learn some lessons from the past. As we build a new generation of reactors there are some things that need to be clear from the outset.

Make them safe. This means a highly regulated effort, not a free-for-all for profits. Tax dollars are involved, and even if they were not public safety must be the primary focus. Newer reactor designs eliminate Chernobyl-style "meltdown" fears but we need close supervision by government. We need the government "meddling" and "interfering" and "snooping" every step of the way. We, the People need to be sure that every best practice is followed and no corners are cut to make a buck.

Buy American. If we are building nuclear power plants we should regulate that they create American jobs, not offshore in China or anywhere else. There are federal funds guaranteeing loans for these projects and they should specify that we Buy American. Use American –made components, right down to the steel. China's and other country's governments are helping their own economies, let's us help our own economy this time.

There are also safety concerns for Buy American. We need very close inspection of every component and material that is used in these plants. How would we monitor the manufacturing of the components and the quality of the steel if it is done outside the US? Do you remember the faulty welds in the Chinese components that shut down San Francisco's Bay Bridge last year?

Protect the environment. There is also the environmental impact of making steel in China and then shipping it versus making it here -- in our highly productive steel industry. China creates three times the greenhouse emissions when they make steel that our own steel plants create. This is one reason their steel costs less. What is the point of building nuclear to lower greenhouse gas emissions and using greenhouse gas-creating processes?

So I say Yes, Nuclear, and make sure that we use Big Government oversight to keep it safe, create American jobs and mostly to protect the environment.

Note: Here is what triggered this: Obama ups nuclear investment for climate fight

President Barack Obama announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees Tuesday to build the first U.S. nuclear power plant in nearly three decades, a move designed to help advance climate legislation in Congress.

. . . The government backing will go to help Southern Co build two reactors at a plant in the state of Georgia. The reactors, which some experts estimate will cost $8.8 billion, could be in service in 2016 and 2017.

... "To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple."

Bitter Cold, Tough Negotiations Over Transparency

Bob Baugh — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:59:28 -0500

Thursday morning found Copenhagen bitterly cold with a cutting wind and covered in snow …much like the negotiations and the feelings of civil society. The Bella Center is on lockdown mode with heads of state and elected governmental leaders arriving. Civil society (unions and other non-governmental organizations) representation has been cut to 300 out of the more than 10,000 in town. The trade union presence has been reduced to 9 delegates.

Inside the center confusion, anxiety and despair have taken hold over the past few days as posturing continued and debates about process reigned over substance. One of the few bright spots was our ongoing fight to keep just transition language in.

Two days ago, after meeting with the U.S. negotiator who accepted our suggestions on new language as better than his own, our attempt to get Argentina promote the compromise failed only to have a new version show up in the next draft. That survived until last night when India bracketed the language (objected). Then, we are told, Argentina approached them and said they wanted the language kept in and India agreed. We’ll see what happens when the next draft comes out.

If only it was as easy to reach agreement on other issues as it has been on our just transition language. No kidding. There are many critical issues like finance for adaptation, targets, forestry, border adjustments and more on the table that should have been resolved before now.

One of the most difficult issues revolves around the MRV, measurable reportable and verifiable emission reporting. This transparency is all about the idea of “trust but verify,” a much needed commodity to actually build trust between nations for the long term on meeting commitments. The U.S. has reporting of major emitters as a legal requirement whit the first reports coming in this January.

This morning Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed COP 15. She told the COP that the U.S. would participate in a $100 billion a year fund by 2020 to help the poorest most vulnerable developing countries. This was a much welcomed message and other nations have stepped up as well. She did however say it was contingent upon those nations also agreeing to meaningful mitigation efforts and reinforced the need for transparency (MRV).

Secretary Clinton closed her speech by quoting a Chinese proverb which says, “when you are in a common boat, you have to cross the river peacefully together.” She urged a constructive and creative approach toward a workable solution and said “we need to avoid negotiating approaches that undermine rather than advance progress toward our objective.”

Following her speech Secretary Clinton is living up to her words with back-to-back bilateral meetings with key developing and developed nations. She and others are back at the negotiating table with the clock ticking. Tomorrow more that 117 heads of state will meet. The betting is they did not come to Copenhagen to declare defeat. The challenge is to see what they will achieve.

Why Americans Really Need To Pay Attention To Copenhagen

OurFuture.org Staff — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:04:36 -0500

Climate talks, forest agreement in little danger of 'creating a better world for nothing'*

Natasha Chart — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:35:12 -0500

Stall, confusion and indecision reign in the UNFCC COP15 summit in Copenhagen according to negotiators for both developed and developing nations, with the possible exception of the REDD+ agreements, which are intended to reimburse poorer countries for preserving existing forests.

The last publicly available drafts of the Kyoto Protocol (KP) and Long Term Cooperative Action (LCA) agreements were filled in with placeholders like "to be elaborated" at critical points, such as the financing and trade measures. So for any of these major pieces to be nearly complete (how complete is very much in doubt, though,) seems quite astonishing and I think it's worth examining in terms of whose interests are being represented.

Forest Cover

So while the REDD deal is being reported in the New York Times as though "all major points of disagreement ... had been resolved through compromise," including concerns about protecting indigenous rights. Yet a look at the UN release on the matter says, "activists complain that [indigenous rights have] been moved out of a legally binding part of the text."

Now, maybe people who are concerned about getting kicked off their land might be inspired to activism, or might have inspired other advocates, but maybe they're just people concerned about getting kicked off their land who are tired of being on the losing end of 'compromise.' Maybe being described as activists misses the point.

Environmental Defense Fund's Fred Krupp, (EDF, btw, being so important that they've got their own office in the trailers where the country delegations are set up) was quoted in the Times article saying that the main benefit of REDD was the way it would let US companies reduce their emissions at "lower cost." By which he almost certainly meant a lower cost than actually reducing emissions, offsetting unhealthy practices through the purchase of land rights to land that other people may already live on and hadn't agreed to sell.

Krupp described this business bonanza as being "very important politically," which I expect will cut little ice with people who stand to be made homeless by it. Without legally protections, indigenous peoples are about as protected by any agreement as the world's children are by UN proclamations on their rights and welfare.

I don't hear anyone describing Krupp as a 'business activist', for example, (indeed I've never heard that term used to describe anyone,) though he's probably better labeled that way than an indigenous person coming to the UN to ask for tenancy rights for their very own ancestral land.

Perhaps the UN press staff should have left it at saying 'some indigenous peoples' were unhappy with the deal, and the Times should have made it more clear who was actually doing the compromising in this case. Because I don't think the Amazon Indians who are counting on REDD to save their home want it to come with an eviction notice.

Moreover, there's concern that the legal definition of "forest" for the agreement purposes might also include tea or biofuel plantations. Such export-oriented agricultural development is often also responsible for the displacement of indigenous peoples, may be initiated by governments who aren't keen on democratic consultation, and are scientifically, emphatically, not the same as established forest cover.

When it does come to negotiating something substantial in terms of technology transfer, financing and trade, are the rest of the compromises going to mean greater exposure for the little guy, as well?

The G77 Speak Out On Inclusion

The G77 negotiators, such as Bernarditas de Castro Muller of the Phillipines, and head of the African Group, Kemel Djemouai of Algeria, and Sri Lankan ambassador Dr. Palitha T.B. Kohona, are certainly concerned that with things going as they are, they're going to end up on the menu.

Multiple complaints have been made regarding the process arranged by the meeting's Danish hosts, who are said to be cutting many nations out of secretive side negotiations and refusing to release draft texts to the parties.

At a press conference Monday night, Muller said their bloc had been "shifted aside" from negotiations, and was frustrated that the ministers of 48 nations had met privately over the weekend. She said that no 48 countries should be allowed to decide for everyone "no matter how important they are," and that it was wrong that so much of what was in the agreements appeared to be "self-financed adaptation."

Djemouai agreed that it wasn't fair for wealthy nations to do nothing, while the poor were asked to make commitments. Under Kyoto, developing nations have only voluntary responsibilities, while developed nations have legally binding emission reduction obligations. He said that "maybe in 50 years it will be fair," referring to future projections indicating that the share of developing country emissions will become the largest sources of additional greenhouse gases.

Their concern stemmed largely from the fact that even with a binding treaty, emissions from wealthy nations have continued to rise. At present, the LCA track isn't expected to produce a binding treaty, only a political agreement, along with a great deal more relative pressure on poorer countries to abide by it.

As Bolivia's ambassador, Pablo Solon, said after the US negotiator, Todd Stern, recently rejected the idea that the US had culpability in the climate crisis, "the industrialised countries ... have used up two thirds of the atmospheric space, depriving us of the necessary space for our development and provoking a climate crisis of huge proportions. ... In Bolivia we are facing a crisis we had no role in causing. Our glaciers dwindle, droughts become ever more common, and water supplies are drying up. Who should address this? To us it seems only right that the polluter should pay, and not the poor."

Yet as Meena Raman of the Third World Network explained in a December 14th Copenhagen news update, this question of whether both the KP and LCA discussions will go forward is a key sticking point. The EU and Japan are insisting that they want to be part of an agreement that includes the US, which the KP treaty isn't, and that they want there to be only one treaty. The developing nations prefer Kyoto and want a new commitment period negotiated, and appear to think that too little of either good faith or assistance has been extended for them to make binding commitments.

Where REDD Fits In

If REDD actually worked, it could net developing countries as much as $33 billion per year in carbon credit trades, which is more than three times the best offer of direct assistance suggested by wealthy nations who have so far offered a maximum of $10 billion.

The promise of that much additional money might well overcome objections to a verification mechanism that applied to developing nations. If it were an additional benefit on top of direct aid, REDD might just make things work.

Further, after strident objections by US negotiators to financially supporting initiatives that would benefit China, they appear to have agreed to refuse to take adaptation and mitigation funds. While they're still holding to a developing nation status, which they say is warranted by their per capita GDP, they're also saying that unlike many other countries, they can self-finance much of their development.

It'll be interesting to see how that unfolds after their insistence that wind projects in China should still be eligible for Clean Development Mechanism financing, but who knows. Even the US has shown lately that it can be less belligerent.

Still, there are serious problems with what's known about REDD to date, and it doesn't warrant unlimited exuberance.

Indigenous rights remain in limbo, the definition of a forest is as much in question as it was back in November after the Barcelona REDD talks, there are logging loopholes that allow developed nations to refuse to count logging below a projected baseline of logging activity as emissions, and the NGO observers who would generally remind negotiators of all this are being shut out.

As Brad Johnson said this week, "The UN is doing better on setting a mandatory and declining cap on access to Bella Center than on carbon emissions."

Funny, but true, and no less true of REDD so far than anything else we've seen. This agreement won't actually help if it simply creates "museums for trees", while allowing wealthy nations to go on about their business as usual. If climate change continues killing forests because preventing new emissions is counted as if it were cutting them, this will all have been for nothing.

* Quote in title from this article on the no regrets path to stabilizing the climate.

G77 Suspend COP15 Talks: "These Negotiations Are A Joke."

Natasha Chart — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 10:55:29 -0500

Members of the African civil society delegations held a protest in the main hall of the COP15 summit today to support their negotiators' decision to hold up the climate summit talks, temporarily suspending the conference, over the sidelining of the Kyoto Protocol discussions, that were proceeding in parallel to the Long-Term Cooperative Action (LCA) talks in which the US is participating.

"Nothing is being offered by the rich countries," said Negusu Aklilu of Ethiopia's Forum For Environment, "it's just a joke. Climate change is not a joke in Africa, but these negotiations are a joke."

"As we speak now, [Kyoto] is the only binding agreement that we have," said Aklilu. He reiterated the stance that there needed to be a binding agreement, saying that wealthy nations were refusing to engage and were deep in a "politically motivated, 'after you' syndrome."

Aklilu said he'd like decisions to be science-based, and that while a 40% reduction by 2020 is now being discussed, new information from the IPCC suggests limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius would be necessary to save coastal Africa.

And then there's the question of mitigation and adaptation aid.

Going into more detail over something I've heard from several NGO representatives, Aklilu explained that much of the aid being discussed goes back to 1992 aid agreements that called for an ongoing commitment from wealthy nations of 0.7% of GDP. Not only have developed nations not generally kept this pledge, they would now like to repackage the same commitment as climate aid.

Aklilu said they wanted additional aid because climate change was an additional burden on their countries.

Message To Congress, Copenhagen: America is Cutting Carbon, One Way Or Another

Bill Scher — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:45:03 -0500

The Environmental Protection Agency formally declared that greenhouse gases are a pollutant that it can regulate under the existing Clean Air Act. And the timing of the announcement was no accident.

Before the President travels to the Copenhagen climate summit, the EPA and the White House are effectively sending the message: no matter what happens in Congress, America will cut our carbon.

The uncertainty of Senate action on climate has restricted the President's ability to make firm commitments. But now the President can clearly say, I have the legal authority to reduce greenhouse gas emissions even if the Senate refuses to get its act together.

Sen. Jim Webb sought to box Obama in last week, sending a letter saying, "I would like to express my concern regarding reports that the Administration may believe it has the unilateral power to commit the government of the United States to certain standards that may be agreed upon at the upcoming [conference] ... only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country."

News to Webb: Sure, Obama can't ratify a legally binding treaty by himself, but he absolutely can make a commitment to act under current law.

And making such a commitment will help considerably to extract similar concessions from other nations when he participates in final negotiations at Copenhagen next week.

Obama is also sending the message to Webb and other Senators on the fence that if they don't act, he will.

And special interests resisting legislation will surely prefer cutting deals with Senators than being subject to a completely free hand from the EPA. So the EPA move puts considerable pressure on the Senate to find compromises similar to what the House already struck.

Because one thing is clear. Under this President, America will be cutting its carbon, one way or another.

It's only up to the Senate to decide which way it's going to be.

Is China Still A Developing Nation?

Natasha Chart — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 13:18:26 -0500

This past week, the UN suspended funding for several Chinese wind farms, ruling the China had been gaming the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) subsidies paid by developed countries to developing countries for clean technology projects they would not have otherwise not have built.

The last point is key, what climate negotiators call "additionality." An agreement or sustainability mechanism is considered to be working if it reduces emissions from a business-as-usual scenario. This idea is going to come up a lot in the climate talks, almost as much as who gets considered a developing or developed nation. The definition determines who gets money and who gives it in this quest to make aid dollars have the most impact possible.

Needless to say, the CDM was not designed as an industrial dumping subsidy for flourishing, well-established industries, such as Chinese turbine manufacturers.

China is truly an economic powerhouse and their government went out of their way during the Olympics to highlight how modern and advanced a society they are. No one could dispute that, nor that they're stiff competition for us in the full range of heavy industry. Though it's hard to say that entirely disqualifies them as a developing nation. Much like India, they're almost two countries: one urban and high-tech, the other almost indistinguishable from a Medieval peasant economy.

According to World Bank estimates released last year, as of 2005, China still had 200 million people living in poverty. That's around six times the population of Canada, for comparison. Really, plenty enough people to be a whole country unto themselves, and it's this face that China presents to the world when it comes to climate negotiations. I'm not going to say that it's wrong for them to do that, either.

Human beings are the most significant arbiters of value for other humans and we should always value each other over dead matter. However, the 200 million in poverty in China live in a country that gets about half of the CDM money, though they make up just less than a tenth of the world population living in poverty.

If we're to really get all countries reducing emissions, what money is made available should at least be shared around more equitably.

I think it's a positive step that Obama has promised to help India and China with research and environmental enforcement., the moreso because it seems to have worked to get them moving in the right direction. They're major world economies with significant global impact and similar situations, and it seems fair for them to say that they didn't bring the world to its current state of crises, that they're late to a game the US, Europe and Japan have been playing for quite a while.

Though as with any other country, Chinese efforts to cut emissions that are meaningful must meet the test of additionality.

Right now, the world is increasing emissions at an increasing rate. Previous climate talks have been centered around getting all of us to increase emissions at a decreasing rate, which is to say, to still be increasing emissions, but more slowly. The scientific imperative is that emissions decrease significantly from previous levels if we want to stave off catastrophe, and that they become negative (that we start pulling more carbon out of the atmosphere than we put in) if we're to keep a stable climate like the one we've had for most of recorded history.

It isn't an accident that there was an explosion of human population and civilization during a period, brief in geologic time, notable mostly for its stability and mildness. Mild climate was a key factor in making civilization as we know it possible.

China has certainly started looking at clean technology as a business opportunity, as well. They have set binding internal targets, even if they've opposed external targets. However, there are serious questions about whether their current emission proposals represent a cut from business as usual. As a leading manufacturing economy, their impact either way, regardless of their relative newcomer status, will affect us all and bears particular attention.

And here we come back to where the US needs to step carefully. China needs to be brought into an agreement, yes, but so do we.

In addition to additionality, the political will required to maintain climate agreements will only stay with us if it accompanies increasing, widespread prosperity. China, India, and all the rest of the developing nations, must rise. Though if workers in developed nations are allowed to fall, that will inevitably choke off support for continuing with technology transfer and development assistance.

Everybody must win or everybody will fail. I don't mean to come over all self-help on you, but it's only the veriest truth.

If jobs and prosperity fall in the US, the US will continue being an enormous obstacle to world emission cuts, as we have been, lo, these many years.

But is China a developing nation or a rival on equal footing? What can both parties give that will best promote cuts from business-as-usual emissions? What mechanism will bring the greatest prosperity to average people in both countries, lifting their population out of poverty and keeping ours from sliding down into it? How we answer these questions will have a huge effect on whether either country comes to the table in good faith, and on that, much of the fate of the world hangs.

A Backdrop For Copenhagen

Natasha Chart — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 12:16:24 -0500

Jonathan Hiskes at Grist has written up a Copenhagen 101 primer for anyone who's just tuning in to the latest round of world climate talks, so I don't have to. Which is great, because there were three main points I wanted to go over.

First, the imperative: the planet is likely on track to lose life support ability for 5 billion people below current levels and our window to prevent this outcome is closing rapidly.

Catastrophic changes could happen within the lifetime of someone born today and have already begun. As Energy Secretary Steven Chu noted earlier in the year, California could be an uninhabitable desert within 40-50 years, and the state is already seeing mass dust storms, snow pack failures and widespread forest die-off. Around half the Midwest was declared an agricultural disaster area this year. Just for this country in the next couple decades, we could face drastic upheavals and it's no better outside our borders.

We're seeing ice changes happening 20 years ahead of schedule, sea levels that could rise over a meter by the end of the century, and a number of environmental indicators pointing to a worst-case scenario.

So here's the thing, there isn't a bigger problem than this facing humanity. This is the one that will make all our other difficulties impossible to solve.

Both the US military intelligence community and the Chinese government recognize climate change as a threat to national security, no matter what Exxon-Mobil says.

Second, the obstacles: who's going to pay for all this and why do we keep asking that like it's a bad thing?

There are other obstacles, like Exxon-Mobil, but mostly, somebody has invest the startup costs. Germany has done this in-country, as they've met their Kyoto targets three years early and have a strong economy and manufacturing base to show for it.

Though paying for climate mitigation and a clean energy transition is like being offered a chance to get in on the ground floor at Microsoft.

The old economy is dying, and the remnants of it are creating ever lower-paying jobs and an ever-decreasing standard of living. It isn't clear that policymakers have realized this yet, but unemployment and underemployment lead to even bigger deficits and kill the prospect of recovering a broad tax base for struggling state and local governments. We're headed for the bottom right now, if we maintain business as usual.

We must create new industries and new markets to get out of that situation, just as the way out of the Great Depression was direct job creation.

Clean energy, energy and efficiency retrofits, updated transit infrastructure - this is the way forward. People may worry about going forward, but there's no standing still option, only back.

Which is the dirty, big secret of the fossil fuel industry, that they've set us on a path of inevitably declining living standards, fewer jobs and worse health. Indeed, if forty years from now there are more people living and shivering in makeshift huts than there are today, it will be the direct result of listening to the Luddites of the oil, gas and coal industries who don't want our energy economy to advance beyond what it was 100 years ago.

Third, we're all in this together: the climate is a global phenomenon and there's no real escape from it.

Some areas may feel the impact worse than others, some are feeling it earlier than others. But in a globalized economy, wild and unpredictable weather can have worldwide repercussions. Consider that Hurricane Katrina caused an oil price spike, and a scramble throughout the world oil industry over the interruption of refinery and transport services.

A serious commitment to reduce emissions needs to be a worldwide commitment. This has been previously used as a call for inaction by delayers in Congress, dragging their feet until some other country does something first. (Since when did Congress get to be so whiny, so unconvinced that America was capable of great things, anyway?) But it is true that as developing countries pull themselves up, if they do what we did to industrialize, it'll cook the planet.

Developing nations must have the financial support and knowledge resources to lift people out of poverty and create opportunity with the latest, cleanest technology. Now that Obama's planning to attend the last, crucial day of the summit, partly in response to the commitment of so many world leaders to personally attend and really try to get an agreement, that might happen.

If it doesn't happen, we're cooked. And I don't mean that metaphorically.

How The Climate Change Bill Can Help Save 4 Million Jobs

Isaiah J. Poole — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 10:54:32 -0400

Taken out of context, this argument sounds almost like a right-wing or corporatist knock against the climate change bill that's pending in the Senate: The bill that was introduced this week by Sens. John Kerry and Barbara Boxer could put at risk 4 million American jobs unless it's amended to help American manufacturers.

But it's anything but. Here's why.

As Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Leo Gerard of the United Steelworkers explained in a conference call with reporters Thursday, it doesn't matter how good climate change legislation is in the United States if corporations can get out from under it by moving production to other countries that don't have the same regulations. In fact, we could end up making the greenhouse gas problem worse.

The solution is to extend the principle of imposing a price on pollution that's at the heart of the climate change legislation to imports whose production results in high carbon pollution.

That's the idea behind the "border adjustment mechanism" that Brown is trying to get written into the climate change legislation with the support of several other Midwest senators. The basic idea, as Brown explained it, is to impose a tax on the pollution produced by the imported item that parallels the tax imposed on domestically produced goods that cause pollution. The effect would be that in order for imported goods to be competitive in the American market, they would have to employ green manufacturing processes.

According to a report released Thursday by the Economic Policy Institute:

If the United States develops climate change policies that only apply to domestic companies without regard for their effects on trade, two outcomes are likely. Production of energy-intensive manufactured goods, especially price-sensitive manufactured products that already face high levels of import competition, could rapidly be outsourced to countries like China and India that do not restrict GHG emissions. This could lead to loss of jobs in manufacturing and related industries, and to a growing trade deficit.

Worse yet, increased production of energy-intensive goods such as iron and steel, pulp and paper, basic chemicals, and glass products in developing countries would be likely to increase net global GHG emissions.

That's already happening in the steel industry. Steel production outsourced to China produces twice the volume of greenhouse gas emissions—2.5 tons per ton of steel produced—than does steel produced in the United States, according to the American Iron and Steel Institute. China's failure to comply with the same environmental rules that American manufacturers do, and not labor costs as it is often believed, is a key reason Chinese suppliers can undercut American producers on price.

Gerard said that a climate change bill without border adjustment protections would not do the greatest harm to Rust Belt states but to states like California and Texas, based on EPI's findings. Those are the two states that have the highest dependence on the industries that would be most directly affected by climate change legislation.

"A border adjustment mechanism and allowances are by no means protectionism," said Scott Paul, director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing. "They are permitted by World Trade Organization rules. The Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, who is one of the fathers of modern free trade theories, recognizes that border adjustment is the most effective way to have a global solution on this."

He added that in order to get a meaningful global agreement at the climate change summit in Copenhagen in December, "we need to have all sorts of tools in our toolbox." One of those tools, Brown agrees, is technical assistance to other countries to help them meet pollution-lowering goals.

While the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee prepares for hearings on the climate change legislation, the Alliance for American Manufacturing on Monday will host in Philadelphia a "Keep it Made in America" town hall meeting with Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., who is one of the supporters of a border adjustment provision.

The usual coalition of businesses and conservative ideologues will be fighting this with doomsday scenarios of protectionism, but blue-collar workers have lost too much already as a result of the policies borne out of the Chamber of Commerce-Heritage Foundation axis to reject the simple, elegant argument of a level and fair playing field.