The Climate Minute

Why the EPA's Clean Energy Plan will stand up in court- Climate Hawk's Companion

Last summer, the President announced his Clean Power Plan to reduce emissions from coal powered electricity plants. The Plan consists of regulations that are sure to be challenged in court. Dave Roberts at Grist recently posted an explanation of the legal basis for the CPP. We take a moment to discuss the issues with our own legal expert.

Check out live  links at our blog, https://massclimateaction.wordpress.com/2015/02/10/why-the-epas-clean-energy-plan-will-stand-up-in-court-climate-hawks-companion/

Because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions, because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that the United States put a price on carbon.

Thanks for listening.
…Ted McIntyre

EPA weighs in on KXL- The Climate Minute Podcast

The Keystone pipeline is heading for a showdown, and the EPA rides to the rescue.

Here are some links:
•    The pipeline goes through Nebraska, not Nevada (my bad!) Visit our friends at Bold Nebraka
•    The EPA sent Mr Obama a nice note telling him that the Keystone XL pipeline will lead to a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Let’s hope the President reads it before making his decisions.
•    Pope Francis will address a Joint Session of Congress in September. It will be interesting to hear what he says about climate change.
•    Up in Australia, Prime Minister Tony Abbott (of “Ax the tax” fame) seems to be in deep trouble.
•    The Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty is coming closer, but most of the media ignore it, except for Ed.

Check out live  links at our blog, https://massclimateaction.wordpress.com/2015/02/08/epa-weighs-in-on-kxl-the-climate-minute-podcast/

Because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions, because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that the United States put a price on carbon.

Thanks for listening.
…Ted McIntyre

Five issues that will shape the news of 2015- The Climate Minute Podcast

What are the underlying issues that will drive climate progress in 2015? We discuss a Congress that denies global warming, low oil prices, the Trans-Pacific partnership, upcoming negotiations in Paris, and the impact of the Pope’s views on global warming.

First, we note that Cape Wind is in jeopardy. There seems to be enough momentum behind the wind industry the progress in other areas is likely.

Congress is targeting the Keystone pipeline. Read  Dave Roberts who says about the whole controversy that “This is the first time since cap-and-trade that the movement defined a clear fight specifically about climate. They picked something Obama could block and then set out making the case that he should block it. It was something that could could have passed without a blink from anyone, and they charged it with meaning. They marched, protested, organized, wrote, and marched some more. They got big money to enter political races behind the issue. They got key allies to speak out against it. They’ve managed to delay and delay it. They even got Obama to say that he’ll reject it if it has any impact on greenhouse gases. (Imagine that standard applied to all future infrastructure projects!)”

It seems the President will veto the bill, but this is just the beginning of a long fight.  Bill McKibben said  “This is a tribute to the millions of people who have made this one of the center pieces of a fast growing climate movement. So far their desire to protect the land and climate have been a match for the fountains of dirty money that constitute the oil industry’s only real argument.”  If you want to find your rep’s phone number, click here, for your Senator, click here.

Robert Reich says this about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

Even better for global companies, the tribunal can order compensation for any lost profits found to result from a nation's regulations. Philip Morris is using a similar provision against Uruguay (the provision appears in a bilateral trade treaty between Uruguay and Switzerland), claiming that Uruguay's strong anti-smoking regulations unfairly diminish the company's profits.

What does the acronym INDC mean? “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions.” Say that three times fast! It is a statement of how much carbon each country will promise to cut in the preparation for negotiations in Paris at COP21 next December.

Pope Francis is said to be preparing an important statement on climate next year, but will likely anger some conservatives.

See the links at https://massclimateaction.wordpress.com/2015/01/09/five-issues-that-will-shape-the-news-of-2015-the-climate-minute-podcast/

Check out more  links at our blog, http://massclimateaction.wordpress.com or our Facebook page facbook.com/massclimateaction.

Because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions, because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that the United States put a price on carbon.

Thanks for listening.
…Ted McIntyre

The American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act: The Climate Hawk's Companion

Recently, US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, after giving  seventy nine speeches on the floor, dedicated an eightieth speech to his proposed Act of Congress, the American Opportunity Carbon Fee Act.  Our panel of thoughtful Climate Hawks discusses the bill and it’s implications.

In his speech, the Senator said:
“It’s that simple.  Make the polluters pay the full costs of their products.  Level the playing field for other forms of energy like wind and solar to fairly compete.  Keep the fee mechanism simple.  Maintain a border adjustment that keeps American goods competitive.
On the flip side, the carbon fee will generate significant new federal revenue.  The technicians are still working on the official revenue estimate for the bill, but it should be at least $1.5 trillion, and perhaps more than $2 trillion, over the first decade.  Whatever the exact number is, all of it should be returned to the American people.”

(Warning! The next sentences are full of important but obscure words. Click the links to learn more about each.) Senator Whitehouse’s bill would remedy a market failure caused by negative externalities in the use of fossil fuels. It would provide this remedy by imposing a price on carbon , essentially a fee on each barrel of oil or coal. The amount of the fee will be determined by the calculation of the social cost of carbon , which estimates the cost of the damage caused by burning the fuel. The fees would be revenue neutral , generating up to two trillion dollars over the next decade, which would all be returned to each citizen.



Here are some other interesting links:

http://citizensclimatelobby.org/

http://www.remi.com/carbon-tax-study

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2014/10/04/richard-doax-climate-change/16747421/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/19/3594242/sheldon-whitehouse-carbon-tax/
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/19/3594242/sheldon-whitehouse-carbon-tax/

http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2014/11/19/new-senate-bill-would-build-polluter-pays-principle-into-climate-action/
See the links at http://massclimateaction.wordpress.com/2014/11/28/the-american-opportunity-carbon-fee-act-the-climate-hawks-companion/

Check out more  links at our blog, http://massclimateaction.wordpress.com or our Facebook page facbook.com/massclimateaction.

Because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions, because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that the United States put a price on carbon.

Thanks for listening.
…Ted McIntyre

Severe, Widespread, and Irreversible: The Climate Minute Podcast

In a big news week, we focus on the latest IPCC report and the outcome of last Tuesday's elections.

The executive summary of the IPCC Synthesis Report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPM.pdf

Some Commentary on the report
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/11/10-things-you-need-know-new-ipcc-climate-report

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/04/3587527/ipcc-irreversible-impacts/

WIll the new Massachusetts Governor take action on climate? Maybe.
http://theconversation.com/republican-charlie-bakers-win-in-liberal-massachusetts-offers-path-forward-on-climate-change-33779

Perhaps there is less hope in the US Senate.
http://grist.org/politics/the-new-gop-senate-is-already-gearing-up-to-cause-climate-mayhem/

Because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions, because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that the United States put a price on carbon.
Thanks for listening.
…Ted McIntyre

The Climate Minute: Are we hypnotized by markets? Plus more New York bound buses (PODCAST)

New England is wrestling with it’s energy demands, but Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick is increasingly uncomfortable with new gas infrastructure, (maybe due to local opposition to pipelines) despite pressure from the  Governor of Maine.  Still, Massachusetts is doing just fine with solar power, thank you very much.  Cape Wind is still fighting nuisance lawsuits , and we hope they have as much success as they had against the last twenty six nuisance law suits.  Climate change raises questions about "water security" in the future. Right now, citizens of Detroit are fighting deliberate home water shut-offs. Whatever the merits of the argument are on each side, this is unlikely to be the last water related environmental justice case. A draft of an upcoming summary IPCC report is blunt and stark, observing the irreversible nature of the changes we are creating, and the need for discipline to NOT burn the underground fossil fuels that we already know about (much less prospecting in the Arctic!) Jared Diamond wrote a book about how various societies failed to recognize the obvious seeds of their own destruction.

The New York Times reports that the Obama Administration may look for ways to get a climate agreement that bypasses the Senate. Needless to say, heads are exploding on at least one side of the political aisle.

The EPA’s website says it uses the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) (which is a number calculated by the Federal Government) “to estimate the climate benefits of rulemakings. The SCC is an estimate of the economic damages associated with a small increase in carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions, conventionally one metric ton, in a given year. This dollar figure also represents the value of damages avoided for a small emission reduction (i.e. the benefit of a CO₂ reduction).”

Due to doubt and suspicion from some in Congress, the GAO looked in to the process of making the SCC calculation, and concluded it was done according to the right procedures. This lack of evidence of “cooked books” will no doubt disappoint the confusionists, but they can just continue to repeat their tired older talking point.

 

We should recognize however that the “Social Cost of Carbon” is a profound touchstone basis for a market-based approach to resolving climate issues. An interesting post at Grist wonders if the climate movement has become hypnotized by market fundamentalism. 

The post says

“Thus the climate movement is possessed with near theological discussions about which market tool is better. Is it a straight-up carbon tax, or should we create a carbon cap, auctioning permits to pollute and allowing polluters to buy carbon emissions reductions in a trading marketplace? ideally seeking the lowest-cost carbon reductions possible. What is lost in the discussion is how we actually met big challenges in the past, challenges that require the creation of new technologies and industries. Market fundamentalism conceives new innovations and industries to rise magically out of properly adjusted market systems. Build the incentives and they will come. A study of economic history shows it just ain’t so.

This is a thought-provoking article. As an example of the role of government versus markets, read about the potential for “perovskite” based solar cells. The material was only recently recognized and could be a game changer- but maybe not. Will the ‘market’ fund the development of this speculative technology, or should the government (i.e. we the people) make the investment?

A great opinion piece in the New York Times (The Climate Swerve ) considers how the great mass of people might come to recognize the moral and ethical stakes at play in the issue of global warming.

 

Preparations for the People’s March in September are in full swing. A recent press release suggest the event has gone global:

• In New Delhi, thousands will take over the streets on September 20 to demand a renewable energy revolution.
• In Australia, organizers are expecting hundreds of individual events to take place across the country, including a major march in Melbourne.
• In London environment organisations and faith groups are combining forces to create a historic march through the city to the steps of Parliament.
• In Berlin three parallel marches will combine forces in a colourful festival.
• Events are already being planned in Ghana, Kenya, DRC, Nigeria, and Guinea, along with a major march in Johannesburg.
• In Paris, local groups will create the “Paris Marche pour le Climat,” with parades, marches, and bicycle rides planned across the bridges of the Seinne.
• Reports are also coming in of large mobilizations planned in: Kathmandu, Rio, Sao Paulo, Jakarta, Dublin, Manila, Seoul, Mumbai and Istanbul.

 

From Massachusetts there will be bus departures from Amherst, Cambridge, Cape Cod, Framingham, Holyoke, Jamaica Plain, Longmeadow, Northhampton, Wellesley and Worcester (so far!) For details, and for buses from all over the country, go to the Transportation Page.

 

Because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions, because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that the United States put a price on carbon.

Thanks for listening.

…Ted McIntyre

The Climate Minute: Pipelines and Plain Text (PODCAST)

This week we discuss pipelines in Maine, carbon taxes and legal theories.

 

You can read about the South Portland decision on tarsands  here , here  and here as well as the  Administration’s  off shore oil plan here , here and here and about climate risk preparations and new off-shore wind energy leases .  The media did a slightly better job covering climate stories recently. This link tells the sad story of the Aussie Carbon Tax

 

The Courts are back in the news.  After reading about the Plain Meaning Rule you can render an opinion regarding  attacks on the new carbon regulations or on the interplay of the EPA and the ACA. The old saying goes “Know your enemy”, so you can read about clause 111d here.

 

Because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions, because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that the United States put a price on carbon.

Thanks for listening.

…Ted McIntyre

The Climate Minute: The "Don't confuse me with the facts!" Edition (PODCAST)

The Climate Minute: Commencement at Irvine (PODCAST)

The President gave a commencement speech at UC Irvine recently, and delivered a frank and pragmatic recognition that climate change must be addressed. You can see the speech here, read about the President’s plan here and check out the EPA’s recent plan to control carbon pollution from existing coal fired power plants here.

Because of all the evidence, we must insist that the US put a price on carbon!

….Ted McIntyre

The Climate Minute: New polls, new reports, new pipelines (PODCAST)

This week we discuss the international implications of the new EPA rules, as well as polls showing support for carbon fees and proposed pipelines here in MA.

 

Recent polls show increasing support for carbon pricing.  Is it because Obama recognizes the need for a price on carbon?  Recent reports show that a carbon tax is good for the economy! There is new gas pipeline proposed for Massachusetts. Check here for information about what to do about it.

 

Because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions,  because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that  the US put a price on carbon