Uncategorized

Anti-coal campaign gets some good news, but battle is far from won

We'll still be protesting on Monday in D.C., but it looks like the protest may be half victory party too!

Late Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent a letter off to the Capitol Architect -- the guy in charge of buildings and grounds, as well as the century-old, mainly-coal-fired power plant that Congress owns and which is located just a few blocks from the fancy dome and the National Mall. The two leaders told him to stop shoveling coal into the power plant's boiler and finish the switch to natural gas.

Now, it just so happens that this is the same coal plant targeted for the first mass civil disobedience in the history of the American climate movement. When Wendell Berry and I sent out one of many invitations to this gathering last fall, we stressed that it was going to be a Very Serious Event; among other things, everyone was supposed to wear dress clothes. That was mostly, I think, because we wanted the home viewing audience to be reminded of something important: the crazies and loons and nutballs are not the people in the streets demanding an end to the carbon age. We're the sane ones, the conservatives seeking to preserve a planet something like the one we were born on to. The radicals are the guys who want to double the carbon content of the atmosphere and see what happens.

But now our sobriety will be sorely tested. It didn't take much of a push to convince Congress that the time for change had come. It's an almost giddy feeling -- sort of like what most of America felt on election night when the voters actually chose to elect the smart guy. It feels like the system is working (sort of) the way it's supposed to.

Not, of course, that Reid's and Pelosi's decision accomplishes all that much by itself. This is one small power plant. We need to start shutting down the whole vast coal archipelago that provides half the nation's electricity. That's going to be a tough, grinding job that requires a huge movement. And it's somehow going to have to stretch around the world, to China and India and everywhere else where coal is commonplace. (That's why we've got 350.org up and running; we're not going to solve this one city at a time).

But hey, starting Opening Day with a no-hitter is pretty darned good. Shutting down a coal-fired power plant before you even have a protest should give us some momentum to build on. Come on down Monday for the party; it's going to be a good one.

Bill McKibben is co-founder of 350.org, and author most recently of Deep Economy.

Why I'm joining 2,000 people for a global warming mass arrest on Monday

On Monday, I'm going to get arrested just two blocks from the U.S. Capitol building. I'll peacefully block the entrance to an energy plant that burns raw coal to partially power Congress. My motivation is global warming. My colleagues in civil disobedience will include the poet Wendell Berry, country western signer Kathy Mattea, and Yale University dean Gus Speth.

Up to 2,000 other people from across the country will risk arrest, too. We'll all be demanding strong federal action to phase out coal combustion and other fossil fuels nationwide that threaten our vulnerable climate.

This mass arrest might seem symbolic and radical to many Americans. Symbolic because it's purposefully organized amid the iconic images of Washington, D.C. And radical because, well, isn't getting locked up kind of out there? And isn't global warming kind of vague and distant?

But I live five subway stops from the U.S. Capitol. My home is right here. There's nothing symbolic -- for me -- about trying to keep the tidal Potomac River out of my living room and off the National Mall where my son takes school trips. There's nothing symbolic about fighting for homeowner's insurance in a region where Allstate and other insurers have already begun to pull out due to bigger Atlantic hurricanes. And what's vague about the local plant species like deadnettles and Bluebells that now bloom four to six weeks earlier in D.C.-area gardens thanks to dramatic warming.

International mercury pact shows that India and China will follow our lead

The news that the Obama administration is on board with an international pact to significantly decrease mercury use is fantastic for those of us committed to switching from dirty coal power to clean, renewable energy sources.

This is a bold step for the U.S. -- one that is a long-time coming for coal-fired power plants. Coal plants are one of the largest sources of man-made mercury pollution in the U.S.

Mercury pollution causes brain damage and other developmental problems in unborn children and infants, and it has been linked to a greater risk of coronary heart disease in men. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found that 8 percent of women had mercury blood levels exceeding the level deemed safe for unborn children by the Environmental Protection Agency. Our mercury regulations should be strict to protect public health and the environment.

Yet it was this quote from the Washington Post article on the international mercury treaty that stuck out to my colleagues and me: "Once the administration said it was reversing the course set by President George W. Bush, China, India and other nations also agreed to endorse the goal of a mandatory treaty."

For too long we've heard the regulation nay-sayers use the excuse that whatever restrictions and regulations we introduce will only hurt the U.S. economically because China and India will not do the same. This mercury treaty shows the reality: If the U.S. acts first, then China and India will follow.

This bodes well for carbon legislation. The U.S. must act first on carbon regulation. China and India will follow our lead.

Cap-and-trade rebates to taxpayers favor efficiency over equity

UPDATE: There are two important updates at the bottom of this post.

Another striking feature of the way cap-and-trade is treated in Obama's budget: rebates to taxpayers are administered through a payroll tax deduction. This is interesting stuff indeed.

The question of how to rebate auction revenue back to people (to offset the increased costs of energy under a cap) reveals a tension between equity and efficiency.

If the goal is equity, the payroll tax rebate is probably not the way to go. On one hand, it's far more progressive than an income tax rebate (about a third of U.S. workers pay no federal income tax at all). On the other hand, there's reason to believe it's less equitable than a simply writing an equal check to every citizen. That's what a recent report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recommends. (Technically it recommends refundable tax credits, more or less the same thing).

CBPP says flat rebates would be more equitable than income or payroll tax cuts -- the latter would less regressive, but regressive nonetheless:

CBO found that if all the revenue from auctioning emissions allowances were used to reduce payroll tax rates, households in the bottom 60 percent of the distribution would get a smaller benefit from the tax cut, on average, than they would lose from higher energy prices. Those in the next 20 percent would come out even and the top 20 percent of the population would get a tax cut that exceeded their increase in energy costs. [my emphasis]

In addition, "seniors and others without earnings would receive no rebate" -- no pay, no payroll tax.

To solve the first problem, you could put a cap on payroll tax rebates, so higher income workers don't get a windfall. To solve the second problem, you could make seniors, the disabled, and other folks with no earnings eligible for a special tax credit. But if you're going that route, why not just use the same tax credit for everyone?

If your goal is efficiency, however, the payroll tax rebate is better. Efficiency here means emission reductions with the least macroeconomic impact. A cap-and-trade refunded through payroll taxes effectively raises one tax (an fossil energy tax) and lowers another. The idea is to get less of what you're taxing (fossil energy) and more of what you're taxing less (work). That's why Obama's people are calling it the "Making Work Pay" measure.

Still, the CBPP says it's not worth it:

The efficiency gains are largest -- although still quite small -- when the rebate comes exclusively in the form of a payroll tax cut. But that approach leaves millions of low-income and senior households out in the cold.

Guess efficiency beat equity in the Obama budget team. That would be Summers and Orszag at work. Yay economists!

UPDATES: Two important notes to add:

First, there is a cap on the payroll tax deduction: the tax credit offsets payroll taxes "up to the first $6,450 of earnings." So that does reduce the regressivity somewhat. Thanks to Kate for pointing this out.

Second, it might not be clear in the post that the tax credit's effect is to offset payroll taxes, but the credit itself is administered via the income tax. Those who pay payroll tax but no income tax will just receive an income tax credit -- a check. The payroll tax is the target but the income tax is the instrument. Why this is, I'll leave for people who know way more about the tax code than me.

British recycling site to feature celeb cast-offs

This just in: MySkip.com, which as near as I can tell is the British version of Freecycle (TM!), is hosting a 24-hour Celeb Throwaway next week to show users just how sexy recycling can be. While the names of the participants have been revealed, their items have not. What will Boy George donate? Sheryl Crow? Cuba Gooding Jr.? The cast of Mamma Mia? One's imagination hardly dares wander.

Advances in climate science took a nosedive in NASA satellite crash

By now you’ve probably heard about NASA’s carbon-measuring satellite, the one that went kerplunk into the ocean near Antarctica in a disastrous launch attempt Tuesday morning. I was feeling bummed […]

Solar hot water heating's day in the sun

The California Center for Sustainable Energy is implementing a pilot solar water-heating incentive program in San Diego. The success of the pilot will go a long way in determining how the program gets rolled out to the rest of California -- which is important because, as you can see from this great study by CalSEIA, the value of solar hot water is quite high. That's why it was nice to see a weatherman from a local news station get in on the act, climb up a roof, and tell people just what they should be doing with a sunny day. (Video here.)

[Note to Al Roker: I also heard the San Diego TV guy say there's no way you could do as good of a job. He dared you to try to promote solar nationally as well as he did locally. He also called you a punk.]

Also of note: a local solar installer has announced a $0-down financing program, with payments set at avoided energy cost (estimated at a 7-year payback). That's the first time I've heard of a program like that for solar water heating, and is the kind of innovation that will be necessary for the technology to find its place in ... wait for it ... the sun.

Green Energy Act introduced to Ontario's provincial parliament; feed-in tariffs key mechanism

The following is a guest essay by author, advocate, and renewable energy industry analyst Paul Gipe. His latest book, Wind Energy Basics, will be published by Chelsea Green in early 2009.

-----

On February 23, Ontario's powerful Minister of Energy and Infrastructure George Smitherman introduced into provincial parliament in Toronto Bill 150, to be known as the Green Energy Act.

The massive and far reaching bill -- the summary alone is eleven pages -- tackles renewable energy, energy efficiency, and building codes as well as streamlines project permitting.

Among its many provisions is the Ministers ability to use feed-in tariffs as a key implementation mechanism. Unlike the German Renewable Energy Sources Act, Bill 150 does not include specific feed-in tariffs. The tariffs will be determined in a separate administrative process.

Minister Smitherman is not only the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure but also Deputy Premier. As such, Smitherman is second only to Ontario's premier Dalton McGuinty in the cabinet.

In recent public presentations, both Minister Smitherman and Premier McGuinty have emphasized that they intend for the Green Energy Act to push Ontario to the forefront of renewable energy development in North America. Most ambitiously, they have said that the Green Energy Act will create 50,000 new jobs in the province within three years.

Ontario has been hard hit by the collapse of the auto industry. Before the financial crises, there were more people employed in the auto industry in Ontario than in the entire state of Michigan. Since the middle of 2008, Ontario has been shedding tens of thousands of auto industry jobs.

The government hopes to turn some of the now idle factories to manufacturing green products such as wind turbines and solar panels.

In Ontario's Westminister form of parliamentary rule, a majority government can almost guarantee passage of a bill introduced with the support of the cabinet. Amendments may be offered and debated but passage of the bill is almost certain.

In the red

Before the 2007 IPCC report was released, this infographic was taken out (click for larger version):

Seems the scientists were uncomfortable with it, deeming it too subjective, or too scary, or something. Basically the red shows the growth of various risks between 2001 and 2007. Surprise: risks have grown!

Andy Revkin has more.

Dear public advocates for addressing climate change,

You're doing it wrong.