Articles by Joseph Romm

Blue dogs for energy efficiency

This group of 43 conservative and moderate Democrats from around the country have a new energy plan. Here's what they say about energy efficiency:

8. Energy Efficiency

• Energy efficient technologies and energy conservation are among the most important ways for the U.S. to reduce its energy consumption, benefiting both consumers and producers of energy.
• Blue Dogs support the furtherance of energy efficient technologies including green buildings, energy saving appliances, advanced lighting technology, and better fuel economy standards.

Blue Dogs support the promotion of energy efficient light bulbs, high-efficiency vehicles, advanced batteries, home appliances, and energy storage. The Coalition believes the federal government should lead the way by moving toward green buildings and energy efficient programs for all federal buildings as soon as possible. Private sector energy efficiency improvements to new and existing buildings -- both residential and commercial -- should also be encouraged. Fuel economy standards for automobiles and small engines should also result in energy savings.

We also support improving energy efficiency assistance to state and local governments and believe that state utility regulatory commissions should adopt federal standards to promote energy efficiency. The Department of Energy’s successful Energy Star program should also be expanded. Finally, Blue Dogs support tax incentives for consumers and businesses that are early adopters of energy efficient technologies.

Kudos to the blue dogs.

Contrary to what you might have heard

A new study by the Union of Concerned Scientists finds:

Increasing the average fuel economy of America’s new autos to 35 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2018 would save consumers $61 billion at the gas pump and increase U.S. employment by 241,000 jobs in the year 2020, including 23,900 in the auto industry ...

The study is available here.

According to the analysis, nearly $24 billion of the gasoline savings would become new revenue for automakers in 2020–paying for the improved technologies plus some profit ...

[P]utting fuel economy technology to work would also cut our oil addiction by 1.6 million barrels per day and reduce global warming pollution by more than 260 million metric tons, akin to taking nearly 40 million of today’s average cars and trucks off the road in 2020.

It’s as bad as we thought

Don't miss this tidbit from Former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona's Tuesday testimony before Congress:

He described attending a meeting of top officials in which the subject of global warming was discussed. The officials concluded that global warming was a liberal cause and dismissed it, he said.

"And I said to myself, 'I realize why I've been invited. They want me to discuss the science because they obviously don't understand the science,'" he said. "I was never invited back."

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

It’s weak

I really don't think we have time to waste on safety valves. That said, the new bill by Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) is worth understanding because it is garnering a lot of support -- at a cost:

But to secure labor and corporate support, the measure also places a limit on the price industry would have to pay for such permits. And to win the endorsement of Alaska's two Republican senators, the bill contains billions of dollars in new money to help their state cope with the effects of climate change on roads, bridges and coastal areas.

And even with this bribe for climate adaptation, Ted Stevens (R-AK) would not concede that the drastic effects of climate change ravaging his state are caused primarily by human emissions:

Regardless of whether these changes are caused solely by human activity, we must take steps to protect people in the Arctic.

Everything you could possibly want to know about the bill is available here. What is the bill's safety valve, which they euphemistically call the "Technology Accelerator Payment"?

Additional emissions permits could be bought at $12 per metric ton of carbon dioxide emissions in the first year, rising by 5 percent above the rate of inflation each year after that. The money from the permits would be widely spread to finance research into clean energy, mitigate the effects of global warming, compensate farmers for higher fuel costs and help low-income families pay their heating and gasoline bills.

I'm with the Sierra Club's Dan Becker:

It's too weak ... It would be better to wait until more members of Congress understand that the heat is on them to act, and that may have to wait until the next Congress and the next president.

I'm also with NWF's Symons, quoted in Greenwire (sub. req'd):

"I've not heard anything to suggest this bill is achieving what the NWF has asked for," said Jeremy Symons, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation's climate program.

Symons said he did not support the bill's expected "safety valve" provision, which would set a limit of $12 per ton of carbon dioxide in the first year for how much industry must pay for reducing their pollution. The price ceiling, Symons said, would crimp the overall integrity of the emerging U.S. carbon market and halt innovation in new energy technologies.

Here is the email that Bingaman's office sent around: