Ch 2: Understanding U.S. Energy Policy

Chapter Two

Understanding U.S. Energy Policy

The best example of the United States taking the lead in climate change abatement is California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB-32) which sets targets of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, which will be a twenty-five percent reduction, and eighty percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This is by far the strongest state legislation and a landmark success, especially considering California is the seventh largest economy in the world. Governor Schwarzenegger said to the United Nations, “something remarkable is beginning to stir—something revolutionary, something historic and transformative… What we’re doing is changing the dynamic, preparing the way and encouraging the future… Do not believe that doom and gloom and disaster are the only outcomes…Humanity is smart, and nature is amazingly regenerative” (CA Progress Report: 2007).

City and state legislation have provided tremendous leadership, but, as the IPCC makes clear, American federal leadership is imperative. However, the Bush administration has been extremely obstructionist and partisan politics has prevented any meaningful action by Congress. President Bush has supported voluntary reductions and limited funding for renewable energy in the controversial Energy Act of 2005.¹⁷ This ineffective approach has been widely criticized by almost everyone except for the oil industry and the oil industry’s congressional cronies.

The following is a review of recent action happening at the federal level. I will first review the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007 H.R. 3221 PCS, originally called the New Direction For Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act, but I will refer to it as the former. This bundle of climate change related bills has been passed in the House of Representatives (241-172, 95% of Democrats supporting, and 87% of Republicans opposing) on October 8, 2007.

I will then quickly summarize the America’s Climate Security Act (S. 2191), introduced into the Senate in October 2007, and the Energy Policy Act of 2007 (H.R.6.ENR), which has passed in both chambers but has not been sent to the president.

Analyzing these energy bills is very informative with regard to what a majority of members of Congress feel America should do. It also provides insight into current and future federal legislation. I will present a summary of the major bills in this act and also provide comments about how each of these provisions compare to the IPCC and other research.

Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007

The House of Representatives passed a bill in September 2007 called the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007 (H.R.3221 PCS, introduced by Nancy Pelosi with 18 cosponsors in the House on July 30, 2007). It is about, as its official title describes, Moving the United States toward greater energy independence and security, developing innovative new technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs, protecting consumers, increasing clean renewable energy production, and modernizing our energy infrastructure, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation. This legislation represents the first serious federal action with respect to global climate change. The following are important highlights from the House of Representatives’ September energy bill, H.R. 3221.

The United States, according to this energy bill, “has a critical national interest in developing clean, domestic, renewable sources of energy in order to reduce environmental impact of energy production, increase national security, improve public health, and bolster economic stability” (Sec. 4102(1)).

The Senate is currently deliberating on the H.R. 3221 counterpart and these two will have to be reconciled. Whatever passes will guarantee to be the single biggest direct investment in climate change mitigation in the world. It would provide trillions of dollars to mitigation efforts and millions to adaptation efforts. It is an amazing piece of work that should be considered essential in advancing global welfare. President Bush has announced his intention to veto the bill, and until the November 2008 elections there is a very low probability of sixty-six percent of both chambers of Congress overriding this veto.

On September 5, 2007, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) objected to any further proceedings with respect to this bill (Senate: 2007). This strategic objection is to buy time because there is not yet enough support in the Senate. To establish this support public organizations and businesses have an important role to play in pressuring all members of Congress. As part of the policy process, it is important that members of Congress receive feedback and input about their work, especially when it is as important as this. Reviewing and submitting comments to representatives in Congress about this legislation at all stages of this energy transition can be a productive contribution to this important debate. Public involvement is a necessity for government effectiveness.

Carbon-Neutral Government Act of 2007

The House of Representatives finds that some of the adverse and potentially catastrophic effects of global warming are presently at risk of occurring. Not being one hundred percent certain “does not negate the harm persons suffer from actions that increase the likelihood, extent, and severity of such future impacts” (Sec. 6002(4)).

To preserve the ability to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations at levels likely to protect against a temperature rise above 2ºC (3.6ºF) and maintain the likelihood of avoiding catastrophic global warming will require reductions of GHGs of fifty to eighty-five percent globally (Sec. 6002(5)).

A failure to comply with GHG reductions would exacerbate the pace, extent, and risks of global warming, causing harms beyond what would otherwise occur. “Although the emissions increments involved could be relatively small, such a failure allowing incrementally greater emissions would injure all United States citizens” (Sec. 6002(10)).

The emission reduction target goal is to reduce GHGs as rapidly as possible, “so as to achieve zero net annual greenhouse gas emissions from the federal agencies by fiscal year 2050” (Sec. 6102(b)(2)).

Comments

The first target set is for limiting temperature increases below 2ºC (3.6ºF). This is probably an unrealistic target that necessitates a significant energy shift compared to our current path. The IPCC estimates that a low emissions scenario would result in 1.8 [1.1 to 2.9] °C (3.24°F, 1.98 to 5.22 °F) increase in global temperatures.

With no time frame specified it is impossible to know when this fifty to eighty-five percent reduction is to take place by.¹⁸ The bill should be explicit in attaching a date to their reduction goals consistent with the IPCC recommendations of a 60 percent reduction in global GHGs by 2060. However, President Bush has been opposed to this, which is probably why there is no date attached to these targets.

The bill specifies a target for federal agencies to achieve zero net annual GHG by 2050. ¹⁹ This bill, therefore, is extremely misleading: the government is not targeting carbon neutrality, but GHG stabilization. This is a significant difference! Not only that, but this bill also defies the IPCC recommendation that zero net annual GHGs should be achieved by 2030, and decline thereafter.

International Climate Cooperation Re-engagement Act of 2007

The House outlines some important developments in climate change policy. The House finds “Climate change is already having significant impacts;” “Climate change is a global problem;” and that President Bush’s plan, announced February 14, 2002, set voluntary ‘greenhouse gas intensity’ targets which would allow actual emissions to increase by at least twelve percent by 2012 (Sec. 2101(8)).

The Kyoto Protocol entered into force on February 16, 2005, after Russia’s ratification, legally binding reductions in GHG emissions at an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels for industrialized countries by 2012. The Protocol currently restricts the emissions of countries accounting for only thirty-two percent of global GHG emissions. A more recent development was at a summit in Brussels, Belgium, in March 2007, where the head of governments of the European Union committed its Member States to cut greenhouse gas emissions twenty percent below 1990 levels by 2020 (Sec. 2101(13)).

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett told the United Nations Security Council that the Council has a “security imperative” to tackle climate change and United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the Council that “issues of energy and climate change have implications for peace and security” (Sec. 2101(13)).

The IPCC scientists believe that a 450 to 550 ppm ceiling might limit the global rise in temperatures to no more than 3.6°F and avert impacts of escalating scale, scope, and costs (Sec. 2101(14)).

The House believes that the U.S. should promote “global security through leadership and cooperation,” participate in international diplomacy with the G-8 and the United Nations, include market-based solutions and international emissions trading developed under the Kyoto Protocol, and seek international consensus on long-term objectives including a target range for stabilizing GHG concentrations (Sec. 2102).

The bill establishes, within the Department of State, an Office on Global Climate Change (Sec.2103(c)(1)). Each year the Secretary of State shall prepare and submit a report on the strategy, policies, and actions of the United States for reducing GHGs and addressing the challenges posed by global climate change (Sec. 2103(c)(2)(b)).

The U.S. shall help combat corruption in foreign governments to improve stability and reduce the probability of disruptions of energy supplies. The U.S. shall increase energy security by decreasing energy reliance on corrupt foreign governments and seek to instill transparency and accountability (Sec. 2104(1)).

Over one-billion six-hundred million people lack access to affordable energy services and this represents an energy security challenge. Inaccessibility impedes development in education, health, agriculture, and the environment. Over sixteen trillion dollars needs to be invested in energy-supply infrastructure worldwide by 2030 to meet energy demand (Sec. 2201(4)).

The U.S. shall support policies and programs in developing countries that promote clean and efficient energy technologies (Sec. 2202(a)). Development assistance will also include increasing public awareness and participation in the decision-making of delivering energy and environmental services. To carry this out, a total of one-billion dollars will be appropriated 2008 through 2012 (Sec. 2202(c)).

Comments

A 450 ppm stabilization target was a popular consensus among those advocating a more aggressive approach (NASA’s James Hansen, The Stern Report, Environmental Defense, U.S. PIRG, etc) because even 450 ppm stabilization “would imply a medium likelihood (about fifty percent) of staying below 2ºC warming (ISSC: 2005). But now that we are at about 460 ppm GHG concentrations in 2007, the goal of 500-550 ppm is appropriate.

In response to the statement that over sixteen trillion dollars needs to be invested in energy-supply infrastructure to meet energy demand, it should be noted that the IPCC recognizes investments in energy efficiencies is much more cost, health and environmentally effective. (Also, the IPCC expects that it will probably take about twenty trillion dollars in investments, not sixteen billion). Focusing on reducing energy demand rather than meeting energy demand should be the priority in developed countries. Effective policies demand that legislation reflect this basic recommendation.

In less developed countries the priority should be assisting with sustainable development. Significant resources will have to be dedicated to this end considering two-thirds to three-fourths of GHG increases will come from developing countries. Developed countries will have to dedicate at least several trillion dollars to developing countries—the sooner the better. One billion dollars is a great start, to be sure, but more will be needed before 2012, and this is one of the best ways for Annex 1 countries to meet the Kyoto Protocol targets.

Research and Education

The Secretary of Energy shall support ($90m/yr) the following programs: advanced hydrothermal resource tools, general geothermal systems research (Sec. 4204), enhanced geothermal systems technologies (Sec. 4206(1)), and geothermal energy production from oil and gas fields (Sec. 4207).

A technology transfer center shall be established to make available information on research, development, and application of technologies related to biofuels and bio-refineries (Sec. 4202). The Secretary of Energy shall submit a report to Congress on development challenges in (a) increasing to 2.5 percent the proportion of diesel fuel sold in the U.S. that is biodiesel (Sec. 4404) and (b) increasing to five percent of the transportation fuels sold in the U.S. fuel with biogas or a blend of biogas and natural gas (Sec. 4405). Grants shall be provided ($25m/yr) for research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of biofuel production technologies (Sec. 4407).

The Secretary of Energy shall conduct a study of the methods of increasing consumption in the United States of ethanol-blended gasoline with levels of ethanol that are not less than ten percent and not more than forty percent (Sec. 4409). Appropriations for bioenergy research and development are amended in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to increase appropriations by about one trillion dollars (Sec. 4412).

The Secretary of Energy shall conduct a study of methods of increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles using biogas by optimizing natural gas vehicle systems that can operate on biogas, including the advancement of vehicle fuel systems and the combination of hybrid-electric and plug-in hybrid electric drive platforms with natural gas vehicle systems using biogas (Sec. 4414).

A report shall be submitted to Congress on the use of algae as a feedstock for the production of biofuels and on how to encourage and further its development as a viable transportation fuel (Sec. 4416).

The Secretary of Energy shall give grants ($25m total) to institutions of higher education conducting R&D of renewable energy technologies (Sec. 4417). The Secretary of Energy shall establish a university based R&D program and award five grants ($10m total) to study carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

The President shall establish ($10m/yr) an interagency United States Global Change Research Program to improve understanding of global change, to respond to the information needs of communities and decision-makers, and to provide periodic assessments of the vulnerability of the United States and other regions to global and regional climate change (Sec. 4614(a)).

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to complete a study of the current state of the science on the potential impacts of climate change on patterns of hurricane and typhoon development and the implications for coastal regions (Sec. 4624).

A global climate change exchange program is to be established ($3m/yr) to strengthen research, educational exchange, and international cooperation to reduce GHG emissions. This involves the financing of studies, research, instruction, and other educational activities dedicated to reducing carbon emissions (Sec. 2207).

There is to be established a foundation known as the ‘International Clean Energy Foundation’ to serve the long-term foreign policy and energy security goals of reducing GHG emissions (Sec. 2302). The foundation shall make grants ($20m/yr) to promote projects outside the U.S. that serve as models of how to significantly reduce emissions and create a repository of information on best practices and lessons (Sec. 2303, 2307).

The Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress, a study regarding the rebate program described in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Sec. 206(c)). The report shall determine the minimum amount of funding the program would need to receive in order to accomplish the goal of encouraging consumers to install renewable energy systems in their homes or small businesses (Sec. 9035).

The bill also includes one-hundred twenty-five million dollars per year for energy efficiency and renewable energy worker training programs, National Energy Training Partnership Grants for non-profits, grants for States to administer renewable energy and energy efficiency workforce development programs (Sec. 1002(A)), and a Solar Energy Technologies grant program ($10m/yr) (Sec. 4305).

Comments

This bill provides a number of important incentives for renewable energy research: biofuels (over one trillion dollars), geothermal and hydrothermal (ninety million dollars), and solar (ten million dollars). Such a large emphasis on biofuel research is not consistent with the IPCC report about the vital importance of forest and soil carbon dioxide sequestration and land conservation.

There is an enormous disparity between over one trillion dollars being spent on bioenergies versus only one-hundred twenty-five million dollars for energy efficiency, worker training, nonprofits, state workplace development programs and twenty-five million dollars for higher education. The IPCC report does not support this prioritization. In fact, the IPCC supports the exact opposite prioritization.

The use of algae and cellulosic ethanol from agricultural waste and grasses should be emphasized because it has proven to be more energy efficient than producing ethanol from corn (Runge: 2007).²⁰ However, corn farmers have created an exceptionally powerful lobby that is preventing this from happening (see Chapter three).

Sustainable agriculture should be explicitly defined to ensure that bioenergy production does not limit pollution, does not compete with scarce water resources, and internalizes environmental and health costs and benefits.

This bill is void any dates to accompany targets of two and a half percent biodiesel, five percent biogas and ten percent ethanol. The final bill should reflect real targets that include time frames.

The bill sends a clear signal that there will be a future rebate program for home renewable energy. And if the bill is successful then we will soon be driving hybrid-electric cars fueled with biogas.

The biggest omission from the Research and Education bill is any support for information instruments. Congress should consider including an appropriation for primary public education to require a curriculum that includes making important behavioral change and increasing the public’s ecological and political literacy. Also, this act does not include any appropriations for the Environmental Protection Agency even though their website describes What We Do: “Further environmental education: EPA advances educational efforts to develop an environmentally conscious and responsible public, and to inspire personal responsibility in caring for the environment” (EPA: 2007).²¹

Energy Implementation Programs

The Biomass Research and Development Board is established ($236m) to coordinate programs within and among departments and agencies of the Federal Government for the purpose of promoting the use of bio-based fuels and bio-based products (Sec. 9008(1)).

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 8108) is amended to promote renewable diesel and appropriate a total of about one trillion dollars (Sec. 5008).

The Secretary of Agriculture shall conduct a competitive research and development program to encourage new forest-to-energy technologies. The Secretary may use grants, cooperative agreements, and other methods ($36m/yr) to partner with cooperating entities on projects that the Secretary determines shall best promote new forest-to-energy technologies (Sec. 5011).

The Secretary of Energy shall establish a program to develop carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology (Sec. 4502(1)) as well as large-volume sequestration testing (Sec. 4503(3)). There shall be one billion and six-hundred and eighty million dollars total for 2008 through 2011 as well as five million dollars for the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a safety research program (Sec. 4504).

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is amended by adding a program to award cash prizes (fifty million dollars total) to advance the research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of hydrogen energy technologies (Sec. 4701(A)).

The Secretary of Energy shall support R&D, demonstration, and commercial application programs of marine renewable energy (Sec. 4104). The Secretary shall reward grants ($50m/yr) to institutions of higher education for the establishment of National Marine Renewable Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Centers (Sec. 4105; Sec. 4107).

A program shall be established for R&D of direct solar sources, including light pipe technology. There are to be $3.5m/yr appropriated through 2012(Sec. 4306). A program shall be established for R&D of solar-powered air conditioning. A program of grants ($220m total) shall be established for States to demonstrate advanced photovoltaic technology.

The Secretary of Energy shall establish a competitive program to provide grants ($65m/5yrs) to State governments, local governments, metropolitan transportation authorities, air pollution control districts, private or nonprofit entities to carry out projects to encourage the use of plug-in electric drive vehicles or other emerging electric vehicle technologies, as determined by the Secretary (Sec. 9403).

The federal renewable portfolio standard is amended to require annual percentage increase of the retail electric supplier’s base amount that shall be generated from renewable energy resources. Electric suppliers must supply at least six and a half percent by 2015 and at least fifteen percent by 2020 (Sec. 9611, H.Amdt. 784).

Loans ($4m each) shall be given to help small businesses develop energy efficient technologies and purchases (Sec. 3003).

Other programs include (a) grants ($850m/2yrs) to improve public transportation services and grants ($40m/4yrs) to advance hybrid railroads (Sec. 8301); (b) block grants ($120m/5yrs) to states to improve energy efficiency, education, research, or other measures that decrease energy consumption (Sec.9094, Sec. 9098); and (c) a four thousand dollar tax credit for plug-in hybrid vehicles (Sec. 12001(b)).

Comments:

This bill includes an additional one-trillion two-hundred and seventy-two million dollars for bioenergy. This is an extremely exploitative approach that may not be in balance with the need for reduced consumption. The Congress is following a hard-path that is contradictory to IPCC recommendations. Appropriating $1,680 million for carbon capture and storage is an inefficient use of revenues. This is compared to fifty million dollars for marine energy, and two-hundred twenty dollars for solar energy.

The emphasis on creating energy from the forest is worrying because forest mitigation is expected to significantly reduce GHGs. Forests need to be conserved, not used for energy. Land-use and forestry mitigation will provide more economic benefit by not being harvested for energy.

Including a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) of fifteen percent by 2020 is a big step forward, but because President Bush is opposed to this policy, it would be wise to accept a compromise that would eliminate this provision (unless there is a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override a veto, which there is not). Congress has debated and rejected an RPS seventeen times in the last ten years (Cooper: 2007) and the administration opposes even the addition of a narrow federal RPS for power generation (K&L, Gates: 2007).

On the other hand, an optimal national renewable portfolio standard (RPS) of twenty to thirty percent by 2020, rising to fifty percent by 2040 is much more appropriately aggressive (Cooper: 2007). The more aggressive target is in line with the IPCC’s support for “renewable electricity, which accounted for eighteen percent of the [global] electricity supply in 2005, can have a thirty to thirty-five percent share of the total electricity supply in 2030 at carbon prices up to 50 dollars per ton of CO₂-eq.”

The national renewable portfolio standard (RPS) is a great example of a mitigation/adaptation policy providing large economic benefit. A Pew Research Center report concludes that an RPS of twenty percent by 2020 would save consumers a total of $49.1 billion dollars nationwide or an average of one and a half percent per year (PEW: 2007).

Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy

The Advanced Research Projects-Agency—Energy (ARPA-E) is established within the Department of Energy to overcome the long-term and high-risk technological barriers in the development of energy technologies. (Sec. 4001(a)). The goals of ARPA-E are to enhance the Nation’s economic and energy security through the development of energy technologies, reduce energy related emissions, and identify and promote revolutionary advances in fundamental sciences. The Director shall target the acceleration of novel early-stage energy R&D of manufacturing processes for novel energy technologies. Congress authorizes the appropriation of $300m for fiscal year 2008, $1,000m for fy 2009, $1,100m for fy 2010, $1,200m for fy 2011, and $1,300m for fy 2012. No more than fifty percent fund allocation is for demonstration and coordination with nongovernmental entities for commercial applications of energy technologies and research applications (Sec. 4001(d)(4)) (Sec. 4002(b)).

Comments:

This bill appropriates four-billion nine-hundred million dollars over five years for long-term technological barriers and revolutionary science. It is worrying that Congress is placing such high priority and emphasis on technological solutions and so little on regulations and standards, taxes and charges, information campaigns, international development, or conservation. The IPCC explicitly reports that prioritizing bioenergy and technology, costs will be greater, inefficiencies will continue, and more effective tactics are being overlooked.

America’s Climate Security Act

Senator Lieberman (I-CT) and Warner (R-VA) have introduced the America’s Climate Security Act (S. 2191) in the Senate on October 2, 2007. This bill is in the very first steps on the legislative process.²² Support for bill this is likely to be highly partisan.

The America’s Climate Security Act includes the following:

• Capping Greenhouse Gas Emissions

  • Establishes a cap and trade system with 5,200 emission allowances in 2012 to decrease to 1,560 in 2050. This represents a seventy percent GHG decrease.

  • Includes agricultural and forestry offset projects

• Managing and Containing Costs Efficiently

• Allocating and Distributing Allowances

  • The emission allowances represent a starting percent of eighteen percent of emissions in 2012, raising to seventy-three percent by 2036.

    • Auctions and Uses of Auction Proceeds

    • Energy Efficiency

  • Updates state building energy efficiency codes and establishes regional heating and cooling standards.

    • Framework for Geological Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide

Environmental Defense issued a statement of support saying the bill would affect eighty percent of the U.S. economy and reduce emissions 15 percent below 2005 levels in 2020. Additional Support has been given by the National Wildlife Federation, Exelon Corporation, PGE Corp, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies (eNewsUSA: 2007).

Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act

The Act that is furthest along in the legislation pipeline is the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act (H.R.6). Its aim, as it’s official title describes: To reduce our Nation’s dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy, and for other purposes.

The following is a summary of major provisions in H.R. 6:

• Energy Efficiency

  • Voluntary commitments are supported to reduce industrial energy intensity; two billion and one-hundred million shall be appropriated for a low-income home energy program (Sec. 121), and fifty million dollars are appropriated for an energy efficient appliance rebate program.

  • Overall energy productivity should improve by at least 2.5 percent per year by 2012 (Sec. 252).

• Renewable Energy

  • One billion dollars are appropriated for weatherization rebate assistance (Sec. 206), fifty million dollars for a photovoltaic energy commercialization program, thirty-six million dollars for a sugar cane ethanol program (Sec. 208), and twenty million dollars for rural and remote community electrification grants (Sec. 209).

• Oil and Gas

  • New natural gas storage facilities are supported with subsidies for natural gas production from deep wells in the Gulf of Mexico and gas hydrate production incentives on the outer Continental Shelf (Sec. 321).

• Coal

  • $1.8b subsidies (Sec. 3102).

• Nuclear

  • Five-hundred million dollars are appropriated to subsidize two reactors and two-hundred fifty million dollars to subsidize four more reactors (Sec. 636).

• Vehicles and Fuels

  • Forty million dollars are appropriated for liquefied national gas (LNG), methanol or ethanol, and biodiesel fuels (Sec. 706); two-hundred million dollars for hybrid and hydrogen vehicles (Sec. 731); and one billion dollars for diesel fuel growth (Sec. 797); and $3,989m for the development of fossil energy (Sec. 961).

  • Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards shall be increased to thirty-five miles per gallon by the year 2020 (Sec. 502).

• Set America Free

  • Energy self sufficiency shall be achieved by 2025 within the three contiguous North American nation area of Canada, Mexico, and the U.S (Sec. 1422).

The Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act passed in the House of Representatives on January 18, 2007 (163-8) and in the Senate on June 21, 2007 (65-27). Differences are currently being resolved in the Conference Committee and then the bill will be delivered to the President.

President Bush has threatened to veto H.R. 6 if it contains price control language, which it does. The Administration also opposes the CAFÉ standards for medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks (K&L, Gates: 2007).²³

Even though the IPCC reports that transportation is only the lower end of the priorities, an economically beneficial mitigation policy is the modest goal of making the average car fleet thirty-five mpg by 2018. According a 2007 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists, investing in the fuel economy would more than pay for itself, saving a net thirty-seven billion dollars in 2020 alone. It would also lead to over two-hundred forty-thousand more jobs across the county. CAFÉ’s contribution to the climate change problem is significant: in 2020, it would help cut national oil use by 1.6 million barrels per day (more than we currently import from Saudi Arabia) and would reduce emissions from cars and trucks by two hundred sixty million metric tons of carbon dioxide (equivalent to taking about forty million of today’s average cars and trucks off the road) (UCS: 2007).

U.S. Energy Policy Synopsis

The Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007 (H.R.3221 PCS), the America’s Climate Security Act (S. 2191), and the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act (H.R. 6) all have extremely important measures to deal with the global climate change problem.

Subsidies for bioenergy, fossil energy, and coal represent the powerful agricultural and oil lobbies that have unparalleled inside access to the decision making process. Organizations and businesses should increase lobbying efforts: there is a very large financial incentive! And without this critical input, the resulting legislation is guaranteed to be sub-optimal with respect to both cost efficiency, and mitigation and abatement effectiveness.

Subsidies (billions) in H.R. 3221 + S. 2191 + H.R. 6

3,682 fossil : 2.36 renewable energy and efficiency

Not only does Congress refuse to stop subsidizing GHGs, but they are making a serious error in transitioning from the greatest market failure in history with about one-trillion seven-hundred billion invested in big oil to investing over two trillion dollars invested in big agriculture. This should not be allowed to happen. Costs are almost guaranteed not to be internalized by the producers. Instead of investing so much into one industry, the Congress needs to create a more equitable and diverse portfolio of mitigation and abatement policies.

Nevertheless if these bills are passed they would significantly help achieve necessary global warming mitigation, although it will not help as much with adaptations. The bill has the potential to be better if prioritizations reflected an evaluation based on environmental costs and distributional effects. There needs be additional legislation to reflect the importance of energy efficiency, conservation, and behavior patters.

H.R. 3221 could, according to the Center for American Progress, cut GHG emissions by nearly twenty percent by 2030. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promoted the bill by remarking that “It reduces 10.4 billion tons of dioxide emissions—more than all of the cars in America.” The sponsors of S. 2191 released a statement saying that their bill would reduce emissions eighteen percent by 2020. This is significant legislation! If these projections are accurate, and aggregated, then the United States would achieve GHG stabilization by 2030, which the short-term goal advocated by the IPCC.

The biggest disappointment of this climate change legislation is the exclusion of a carbon tax that would fix large market failures. Implementing a carbon tax or a fuel tax would be politically difficult but the IPCC and many other organizations such as Resources for the Future see it as one of the best tools to reduce emissions. Taxes are identified by the IPCC as one of the most cost effective polices that a government could implement.

An important omission from H.R. 3221 is a policy concerning carbon sinks or conservation, the most cost effective abatement methods available according to the IPCC. The bill’s only forest related policy is about harvesting it for energy. S. 2191 does provide incentives for forest conservation through the cap and trade program, but additional regulations are needed.

Even though the urgency of these bills is great, only H.R. 6 is likely to become a law before February 2009.²⁴ President Bush is threatening to veto all three bills because the administration strongly opposes the “implicative” R&D bureaucracy and also opposes the addition of a narrow RPS for even just federal power generation. President Bush has also expressed opposition to the cap and trade policies of S. 2191.

With eighty-seven percent Republican opposition for H.R. 3221, and similar opposition to S. 2191 because it includes the even more controversial cap and trade policy, it is unlikely a veto will be overridden with a two-thirds majority (66/100 votes in the Senate and 288/437 in the House) (K&L, Gates: 2007). There is a greater possibility of Congress overriding a veto on H.R. 6 because there is support from sixty-five Senators but only one-hundred sixty-three Representatives.

Costs

One of the most contested areas of global climate change policy has to do with the high cost of mitigation and adaptation. In a world with many problems it is extremely important to prioritize where scarce resources should be appropriated. Unfortunately, the debate about the costs has been simplified to “it is too expensive” versus “it is too expensive not to”. Republican leaders and some academics who oppose these bills have two major complaints with this legislation: it is expensive and restricting.

An open letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that these bills will “limit access to valuable domestic oil and gas supplies while failing to produce any new energy.” The Chamber also urges members of Congress to oppose any amendments establishing a mandatory federal RPS. (U.S. Chamber of Commerce: 2007). ²⁵ It is expected that large businesses that are currently profiting from overly generous government welfare to oppose fixing the market failures on which their profits are dependent on. This legislation will necessarily hurt big business and conglomerates and benefit local and community business who do not have a lobby and whose voice is therefore greatly under-represented in this debate.

The claim that energy policies should not restrict energy use is based on unsound logic and/or science. The status quo is dangerously unsustainable and we are beginning to see a new paradigm that highlights the benefits of reduced consumption. These changes are expected to produce significant health and environmental benefits. The only way that someone could conclude that this energy transition should not occur is if they make a great mistake in not taking these benefits into account.

A properly funded global transition to clean energy can and should be a boon to the great majority in the world. A reform necessarily means addressing failures in governance that would free trillions of dollars for renewable energy investments and help quickly improve global equality (see chapter three). A shift away from consumerism and to a more ecological and politically active life has been empirically shown to improve the “ultimate currency” of happiness as well (Ben-Shahar: 2007).

Sustainable development involves increasing foreign aid to countries with problems of disease, malnutrition, sanitation, and also addressing problems of subsidies and trade barriers. These issues are of top priority for all international economists and politicians, as reported by the Copenheigan Consensus in the book Global Crisis, Global Solutions (Lomborg: 2001).

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is one (among only a few) that claims investments in these development issues provide significantly greater benefits than investing in climate change mitigation and adaptation—that it is too expensive to reduce or slow global climate change. Global warming mitigation, according to the NCPA, would do little to prevent warming or future harms. “For a fraction of the costs, we could prevent much more harm and benefit many more people by adapting to a warmer world” (NCPA: 2007).

The ICPP report supports the claim that adaptation is cheaper, but it also reports that reducing consumption and using a large portfolio of both mitigation and adaptation policies are necessary. This approach would provide enormous benefits synergistic with the policies recommend the NPCA. My own critique of the three energy bills going through Congress is not that we should try to spend less, but that what we do spend should be used efficiently and effectively.

Likewise, the influential economist Bjorn Lomborg concludes in his 2007 global climate change analysis that reducing GHGs is “an expensive policy that will actually leave more people dead…At best, we can reduce damage only by 0.5 percent” (Lomborg, 59 & 114).²⁶

The first mistake these reports share is that they present a false choice between the Kyoto Protocol’s five percent GHG reduction and investments in developing nations suffering from disease, malnutrition, and sanitation. This is not a proper comparison because it ignores the IPCC’s recommendation of using a portfolio of policies that include Kyoto as just one, albeit important, policy synergistic with development aid.²⁷ Second, they are comparing a “Kyoto Forever” scenario that no expert has proposed. Focusing on the shortcomings of the Kyoto Protocol, especially considering it is meant to be a first small step, inflates the cost and is thus the preferred tactic when trying to prove how ineffective emission reductions can be.

President Bush, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Bjorn Lomborg, the NCPA, and others who have tried to frame the climate change challenge by focusing on the costs have ignored the fact that many mitigation policies would actually be economically beneficial. The use of cost-benefit analyses are being used irresponsibly by not taking into account important co-benefits. Nor are other factors such as non-linear events taken into consideration. Not addressing climate change as the most urgent issue facing the global civilization is likely to result from ignoring the geometric/exponential impacts of a number of potential tipping points—which is an inaccurate perception of reality. These oversights greatly diminish the quality of studies that conclude climate change mitigation and adoption is too expensive or unnecessary.

Paying the true cost of gasoline would result in paying over ten dollars per gallon of gas at the pump (Kimbrell: 1998). This is clearly not going to happen but is suggestive of how competitive renewable energy really is when externalities are internalized to fix this significant market failure. It is also suggestive of how out of tune with reality most Americans are: Americans pay an average of less than three dollars per gallon while Europeans pay over six dollars per gallon.

In calculating the true cost of gasoline, studies show external costs of about $1.7 trillion per year (Kimbrell: 1998). The government gives corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks, subsidies for extraction, production and use of petroleum, oversight, pollution cleanup, liability costs, and more than forty separate cost factors overall. The government is literally subsidizing GHG emissions and it needs to stop.

If distortionary fossil fuel subsidies were eliminated, the cost of renewable energy technologies would be much more competitive. Instead, the government, or more accurately, thirty senators have chosen to continue to subsidize both clean and dirty energy industries (see Moneyed Legislation section in Chapter 3).

The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change

Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank Nicholas Stern published a report in 2006 about the economics of climate change policies called the Stern Review. Stern calculates that one percent of global GDP should be invested to mitigate climate change effects. A failure to do so could risk a recession on the scale of twenty percent of global GDP. This suggests the greatest market failure ever seen.

Stern’s analysis seems consistent and balanced compared to other forecasts. For example, the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) has projected that climate damages will amount to one-hundred fifty billion dollars a year within this decade (with climate impacts costing the global economy about one-hundred fourty-five billion dollars in losses in 2004) and the world’s largest insurer, Munich Reinsurance, estimates losses amounting to three-hundred billion dollars a year within several decades. In 2002 Britain’s biggest insurer projected that, unchecked, climate change could bankrupt the global economy by 2065 (Gelbspan: 2004).

Future Climate Legislation

Global Carbon Tax

The least popular idea in politics and the most popular idea in economics is that if we want to cut emissions there needs to be a global tax on carbon. Taxes serve many functions: it raises revenue for government expenditures to fund public services and welfare, it can transfer wealth as a means of redistribution from the rich to the poor, and most important for climate change purposes, taxes are a way to address externalities by discouraging damaging behavior. A global carbon tax is an example of a pollution tax, also called a Pigovian tax, that would require little administration compared to a cap and trade system.

If the government places a tax of one dollar on a ton of GHGs, gasoline prices would go up about one cent a gallon. In a global macroeconomic model, the total present-day cost for a permanent one-dollar GHG tax is estimated to be at about three-hundred ninety million dollars per year (Lomborg: 2007). But the existence of secondary benefits are about the same order of magnitude as these costs, and studies conclude that an aggressive policy of GHG abatement with a twenty-five dollars per ton carbon tax is justified (IPCC: 2007; Ekins: 1996; Burtaw et.al.: 2001; Nordhaus: 2001).

On the very low end of cost analyses, Economist Bjorn Lomborg advocates, in his 2007 book Cool It, an initial global carbon tax around two dollars per ton, rising to about twenty-seven dollars at the end of the century. The total climatic impact, he reports, is to reduce the temperature increase by 0.2°F by the end of the century. And why did he choose this policy? Because “Uniquely, it costs about six-hundred billion dollars but creates twice that in benefits, meaning for each dollar it does two dollars of social good… Going much beyond the small optimal initiative is economically unjustified” (Lomborg, 36). Getting a double return on a tax should not be something that the public opposes. It would be irrational not to want this tax, unless of course you are profiting from fossil energy production, which is the case for the great majority of government representatives.

First, Lomborg’s conclusion is drastically different than the IPCC and many other economic experts’ recommendations of increasing carbon taxes up to at least fifty dollars per ton of CO₂-eq and as high as one-hundred twenty dollars per ton of CO₂-eq. Second, his justification is ill founded: he states that the “benefit comes centuries down the line” and therefore applies an inappropriately high discount rate to future benefits (Lomborg, 37).²⁸ The IPCC reports that mitigation policies such as a carbon tax would make noticeable differences before the end of this century.

Population

More attention should be given to population policies because achieving negative growth rates is an important policy goal for meeting GHG emission targets (Hamilton & Turton: 1999; Gaffin: 1998). The world population is about six-billion seven-hundred million and the growth rate is one and two-tenths percent and slightly declining (cia.gov: 2007). The link between increasing population and increasing GHGs is clear—the single greatest thing someone can do to limit their GHG is to not reproduce.

The United Nation projects the world population to be about nine to eleven billion people in 2050. Effective and expansive policies are needed to prevent the population from reaching this higher estimate. However, President Bush has continually denied about thirty-four million dollars per year to support the UN’s Population Fund (UNFPA) since 2002. The UNFPA estimates this would have been enough to prevent about two million unwanted pregnancies, forty-seven hundred maternal deaths, and more than seventy-thousand infant and child deaths per year. The U.S. should continue supporting the UNFPA as part of its climate and humanitarian policies.

Another important development in climate policy is to repeal the Mexico City Policy, better known as the Global Gag Rule. This rule states that non-governmental organizations that receive about four-hundred million dollars in U.S. aid can not use their own funds to impart medical counseling about or provide abortion services, petition their own government to liberalize restrictive abortion laws, or engage in public information initiatives or education measures about abortion (Population Connection: 2007).²⁹

Even within the U.S., reproductive education is limited to abstinence only and based on bad and misleading information. Congress should support the Responsible Education About Life Act (REAL) Act (H.R. 2553). This bill was introduced in May 2005 and previous sessions of congress. Its aim is “To provide for the reduction of adolescent pregnancy, HIV rates, and other sexually transmitted diseases, and for other purposes.”

The U.S.’s anti-education policies are coercive mechanisms that are not only exacerbating GHG pollution but are a human-rights violation.

Land Use

Former Arizona governor, Secretary of the Interior under President Clinton, and leader of the League of Conservation Voters, Bruce Babbitt advocates for a number of important land use policies in his book Cities in the Wilderness (2005). He argues for three major changes in American federal land use policy. These deserve special attention because land use conservation is one of the most important, yet overlooked, policies.

First, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) should be extended to protect critical ecosystems by applying before the fact of endangerment. The ESA has not been significantly amended since 1982 and it is past time to revise and update it. Babbitt writes “The act should be amended to contain a broad mandate to identify and protect landscapes and watersheds and critical ecosystems, whether or not an endangered
species happens to be in the neighborhood at a particular time” (Babbitt, 92).

Babbitt suggests revising the ESA to require a larger role of states and local governments, beginning with statutory standards defining open space (similar to laws in Arizona and Massachusetts). Federal grants could be used as an incentive for:

“states to employ a range of tools, including zoning, density transfers, land exchanges, mitigation credits, protective agricultural zoning, proper planning of highway and infrastructure programs, and purchases or donations of land or conservation easements to create significant protected landscapes” (Babbitt, 94).

A revised ESA should also include sanctions involving the Environmental Protection Agency authorization to withhold federal highway funds from states or cities that fail to adopt and enforce an effective program.

Second, because the U.S. will be required to begin dismantling production subsidies for farms of about fifteen billion dollars per year, there is “an unprecedented opportunity to redirect this money to permanent retirement of marginal farmlands and to restore a network of forested riparian corridors across the land” (Babbitt, 8). The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) should be changed in three ways:

First, designated lands will be retired for permanent prairie and watershed restoration.  Second, close and seal the loophole that allows farmers to collect CRP payments on one portion of their land while simultaneously plowing up new land.  Third, and probably the greatest need of change, is the CRP’s failure to define restoration objectives that will clearly identify lands to be taken out of production and dedicated to restoration (Babbitt, 112).

The process of defining objectives and drawing maps should be expanded into a collaborative federal-state-landowner process. Farm aid should always be conditioned on participation in restoration programs.

The third land use policy change that Babbitt advances is to change the Federal Water Power Act of 1920 that involves a licensing requirement that can help mitigate or reduce impacts on fish and wildlife. The change should make the same requirement for dams operated by the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and other
federal agencies (Babbitt, 141). Dams provide important services, including hydroelectric power that consists of about fifty percent of the U.S. renewable energy and six and a half percent of total electricity, but dams are also a threat to wildlife and many are in bad condition (EIA: 2006).

Land conservation is going to be one of the most important policies in climate change mitigation and adaptation. However, there is very likely going to be conflict over land conservation and food and bioenergy production. As Jacques Leslie writes in Deep Water: The Epic Struggle over Damns, Displaced People, and the Environment (2005), “The battle over dams is at the core of conflicts throughout the world involving water scarcity, environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, development and globalization, social justice, the survival of indigenous peoples, and the growing gap between the rich and the poor.”

Congress should implement land use conservation changes as soon as possible and prepare to make difficult trade-offs where the best policy (conservation) will almost certainly be in conflict with the represented policy (energy production). Unfortunately, the right decision will unlikely be made without significant increases in public pressure.

GDP v. Quality of Life

The problem with using gross domestic product (GDP) as a measure of development is that it does not include various non-market activities and social ills such as environmental pollution. It is incompatible with a change in focus from growth to sustainability. Instead of focusing on GDP as the primary indicator of success and advancing the public welfare, the government should focus on increasing people’s quality of life. This is, after all, the end of government.

Recent economic studies have developed a number of means to objectively determine a country’s quality of life that could be used as a model for government policies in trying to prioritize what to focus on. For example, The Economist magazine has established a Quality of Life Index based on a number of indicators, including: GDP-purchasing power parity,³⁰ life expectancy at birth, political stability and security ratings, divorce rate, church attendance or trade-union membership to determine “community life”, latitude (climate), unemployment rate, indices of political and civil liberties, and the ratio of average male and female earnings. The United States ranks twelfth, with negative scores in political stability (-37.3%), family life (-32.6%), and health (-4.7%) and the highest scores in material wellbeing (32.1%) and community life (23.2%).

Using a quality of life (QOL) index rather than GDP makes it possible to increase the “wealth” of society by focusing on addressing governance reform, the “severe erosion of community and family life,” and health care reform (The Economist: 2007). Improving these three quality indicators is extremely important to, and synergistic with, GHG mitigation and abatement.

AmeriCorps

The AmeriCorps is the largest government-funded domestic volunteer service organization, with about four-hundred thirty-five million dollars per year in funding. This program should be given increased support because it can help build local communities through an institutional approach that emphasizes building organizational capacity and inter-organization cooperation (Thomson & Perry: 1998; Perry, et. al: 1999). The AmeriCorps goals include satisfying unmet social needs, enhancing the civic ethic, and reinvigorating lethargic bureaucracies.

From 1994 to 2006 AmeriCorps has involved four-hundred thousand citizens serving the nation by working with more than two-thousand five-hundred nonprofit and faith-based organizations (Dorsey & Galinsky, 48).³¹ President Bush said he would like to see “every American to commit at least two years, four-thousand hours over the rest of your lifetime, to the service of your neighbors and your nation” (PBS: 2003). The reason the President Bush and others recommend public service is that studies have shown that “Most schools with service-learning [thirty-two percent of all public schools] cited strengthening relationships among students, the school, and the community as key reasons for practicing service-learning” (Skinner & Chapman: 1999).³²

In July 2003 the House of Representatives voted for a proposed amendment which would have cut twelve million dollars in the bill for AmeriCorps. The motion failed because “AmeriCorps volunteers play an invaluable role in providing important services and support for the least-advantaged citizens in the U.S. as well as impoverished individuals living abroad” (Progressive Punch: 2004).

AmeriCorps is one of the best institutional organizations the U.S. has to address economic inequality, build community leadership, and make many other positive contributions to society (Perry, et. al: 1999). It is also one of the best programs for the United States to address GHG neutrality from a top-down approach that is manifested as a bottom-up effort. The IPCC reports that enhancing decentralized decision making processes and equitable participation are vital to effective GHG mitigation.

The AmeriCorps should offer grants to high school youth (typically fifteen to eighteen years old) to become engaged in community energy awareness campaigns. The AmeriCorps should also target appropriations to organizations and businesses that provide cheap home energy audits or weatherization services to improve energy efficiency.

Conclusion

There has been very limited federal action to deal with the problem of climate change until this year. The U.S. is now experiencing a revolutionary change in its energy policy with the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007 (H.R. 3221), the America’s Climate Security Act (S. 2191), and the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act (H.R. 6). These bills offer a number of great policies:

• Cap and Trade program with auctioned permits involving a 70 percent reduction in GHG emissions covered by the permits (80%) between 2012 and 2050 (S. 2191).

• 35 mpg CAFÉ standard by 2020 (H.R. 6).

• 15 percent renewable portfolio standard (RPS) (H.R. 3221).

• Improve efficiency by at least 2.5 percent per year by 2012.

• Incentives ($1b) for weatherization (H.R. 6).

• Incentives ($345m) for efficiency improvements, worker training programs, and non-profits (H.R. 3221).

• Incentives ($235m+) for solar energy (H.R. 3221).

• Targeting 2.5 percent biodiesel, 5 percent biogas, and over 10 percent ethanol blends (H.R. 3221).

Putting a price on carbon with a cap and trade system is significantly inferior to a tax and should not be considered a substitute. It is about putting a price tag on carbon in the Earth’s atmosphere in the relentless search for new profit frontiers in the public domain–which can be seen from Europe’s failed attempt at pricing caron that resulted in enormous profits in the fossil sector. -Erik Phillips-Nania 1/19/08

Unfortunately, these bills also include a number of provisions that should be changed or included in future legislation. The optimal policies are not being established, in large part because small businesses and communities are under represented in the policy process. Congress should consider the following:

• Subsidize energy service companies (ESCOs) at least $500 billion.

• Create a GHG tax.

• Include carbon dioxide sinks with forest and soil conservation.

• Prioritize energy efficiency and then energy supply (H.R. 3221).

• Do not subsidize bioenergy over $2 trillion (H.R. 3221).

• Do not subsidize fossil energy $4b (H.R. 6).

• Do not subsidize coal $1.8 billion (H.R. 6).

Benefits of these policies are expected to include global equity, better governance, and even more happiness.³³

Cost-benefit analyses used to justify not using a GHG tax or other regulatory polices have made two severe mistakes: (1) comparing a Kyoto forever policy, instead of a comprehensive portfolio, against a policy that emphasizes development—which is synergistic and one of the most important climate policies, and (2) ignoring catastrophic tipping points, leading to an inaccurate perception of reality. These two mistakes consistently lead to climate change policies with inflated costs, which also happens when environmental and health co-benefits are not included.

I have suggested five possible policies that might not be considered as part of a comprehensive climate change policy. The first is a global carbon tax that is meant to fix market failures (caused primarily by distortionary subsidies). Second, there needs to be negative world population growth as soon as possible (compared to the current rate of one and two-tenths percent growth per year). Policies that are necessary to address this include a repeal of the Global Gag Rule, funding for the UN’s Population Fund, and the REAL Act. The third set of policies I suggest are land use recommendations from Bruce Babbitt. Legislation should update the Endangered Species Act, the Federal Water Power Act of 1920, and funding for the Conservation Reserve Program.

The fourth change in policy has to do with using different indicators that place less emphasis on production and more emphasis on sustainable development. Instead of measuring development with gross domestic product (GDP), countries should use a Quality of Life Index. The ramification of this in the U.S. would be more emphasis on governance reform, family and community support, and health care reform.

My final recommendation is for Congress to increase its support for the AmeriCorps. The AmeriCorps should focus on funding programs that engage youth in awareness campaigns related to behavioral patters and also programs that provide home efficiency audits and weatherization services. The AmeriCorps’ greatest advantage is in its decentralized nature and equitable participation.

 

There is a chance that H.R. 3221 and S. 2191 will not be deliberated on until after the November 2008 elections. Regardless, there is a window of opportunity that will last until at least January 2008 for H.R. 3221 and April 2008 for S. 2191, and there is a likelihood this window will stay open until July 2008 because of partisan politics.

The window of opportunity for organizations and businesses and individuals to lobby for the REAL act, and updates to the Endangered Species Act and the Federal Water Powers Act is dependent on external circumstances that focus the public’s attention on issues related to this legislation. Nevertheless, support at any time would be productive.

Public input in this process could help bring about more support, better policies, and increased public awareness. Because of the importance of this energy transition and the stakes involved it is important that the government does not establish policies based on bad information or input only from big businesses.

Effective lobbying for any of these necessary reforms could involve personally contacting your representative by phone, e-mail or video broadcast, writing to local newspapers about its importance, and/or joining online petitions,.³⁴

The climate policy currently being debated will affect billions of people. Nonprofit organizations and states especially have an incentive to lobby for this bill because this is where federal money will most likely flow. Incentives for individuals to lobby include better future home energy efficiency and renewable energy rebates, a cleaner and healthier environment, reduced risk of catastrophic events, personal security, global equity (reduced suffering), and a better world for the next generations.

It is the elite (big oil, big media, Bush’s cronies, those thirty-five senators who voted against H.R. 6, etc) who are pointing out the costs to the exclusion of important benefits because they are the ones who will be most disadvantaged from a shift in global equity. These people have significant power in terms of inside connections to the policy process and financial resources, but they are in the minority and should not be allowed to maintain the status quo at the peril of the ninety-nine percent of the rest of the world.

---

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

• Ford says “Change the World” with Energy Star, lightbulbs, etc.
• Energy, Environment Team Announced
• Gloomy Energy Report Sets the Stage for Climate Negotiations