The Ridiculousness of Cap-and-Trade as a “Carbon Tax” May 6, 2009

 

I’m hearing a lot of talk from Republicans critical of the Waxman-Markey global warming legislation who are claiming that the cap-and-trade scheme contained in the bill is a “tax” on energy.  The whole idea of cap-and-trade arises from the notion that a free market is the best way to determine the prices for things of value. 

 

Yet, what this issue comes down to is that those who oppose a cap-and-trade system view carbon emissions (and the energy making process in general) as free.  So, when they see that the government is going to put a price on what was otherwise (and in their minds) completely free, they shout and scream and try to commit political homicide by calling it a tax. 

 

But, the shrill “carbon tax” critics are wrong about a critical assumption in their argument.  Carbon emissions are not free.  They are like commodities in the sense that they have value, and their value derives directly from the fact that their production has costs.  Those emissions are contributing to our increasingly warming planet, which affects health, coastlines, fisheries, wildlife habitat, and communities devastated by fierce weather. 

 

The traditional process of electricity generation emits a great deal of carbon.  The energy companies cannot expect to use a valuable commodity for free.  They don’t expect that they won’t have to pay for the coal they use to produce the electricity.  Why should they expect to not have to pay for the right to emit the carbon that is essential to the traditional production of electricity? 

 

When it comes down to it cap-and-trade is not a tax.  It is merely a method of allowing the free market to put a price on something that has value to the business community.

Voracious Global Warming Denier Bachmann Named to House Republican Panel April 29, 2009

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), whose name will be immediately familiar to anyone who has been tuned into the recent spate of increasingly paranoid and outrageous rantings of the Republican Party, has been named by House Republicans to a panel designed to deal with the nation’s energy policies.  Rep. Bachmann has a few bills in the energy field, as is described in her website statement on the appointment to the Republican energy group. 

 

One reason this is important to note is that it demonstrates the House Republicans’ desire to maintain the “drill baby drill” mantra, although perhaps a bit less vocally.  Three of the four energy bills Bachmann describes in her web announcement would basically fast-track drilling.  One would even take away the government’s power, either judicially or administratively, to review any leases once they were reviewed by the President or a designee.  Another bill would require the government to waive regulations with respect to existing leases if the price of oil exceeds $100 per barrel.  This kind of focus on drilling and fossil fuels is simply a continuation of the current, non-renewable, globally dangerous energy policy that the United States has had for years. 

 

Another reason this is important is because it highlights the House Republicans’ desire to impede efforts to find a solution to global warming.  If the House Republicans were serious about helping to combat global warming, they would not appoint a member of Congress to a working group to help craft energy policies who said this:  “The big thing we are working on now is the global warming hoax.  It’s all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax.” 

 

I think it will be important to remember this when, as the debate over our federal response to global warming increases, we see more and more Republicans and conservatives raise red herrings and try to delay our efforts to green our economy.  

Renewable Requirement in Global Warming Bill Will Not Dramatically Increase Energy Costs April 29, 2009

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) released a report developed in response to a request by Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) evaluating the effect that the 25% renewable requirement, contained in the global warming bill now being considered by Congress, will have on electricity prices.  The report found that there will be about a 2.9% increase in the cost of electricity around 2025, dropping down to about 1% by 2030 and after. 

 

Two of the big objections to the bill (and in fact objections to taking any far-reaching actions to combat global warming now) are that the current economic situation cannot afford such measures and, relatedly, that it will hurt business interests.  (In fact, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IA) said that the cap-and-trade provisions of the bill, which would cap the level of greenhouse gas emissions that polluters can produce and create a market-based system trading scheme for the right to emit greenhouse pollutants, were “an economic declaration of war on the Midwest.”) The EIA report directly undermines those arguments, albeit in the particular context of mandating renewables.  The reality is that we have to act now.  Arguments such as these should be seen for what they are—scare tactics aimed at delaying progress in the effort to combat global warming.  

Barton Misconstrues Carbon Dioxide Levels April 24, 2009

Yesterday I posted about Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), the current ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and his introduction to plate tectonics.  During the Committee’s hearings on a global warming bill, Rep. Barton expressed disbelief when Energy Secretary Steven Chu informed him that there are continental plates on which landmasses travel around the globe. 

 

I checked the congressman’s website, particularly about his positions on global warming and the environment, and learned that Barton has posted some facts taken from the journal Science and other respected sources to downplay the harmful effects of carbon dioxide in global warming.  Rep. Barton’s argument seems to be that carbon dioxide makes up less than one percent of the total composition of the atmosphere, so global warming must not really be a problem.  Thus, again it seems that Barton is attempting to use science without understanding it to prevent progress on combating global warming. 

 

On his website, Barton says:

 

Relevant Facts to Put the Theory of Manmade Global Warming Into Perspective:

 

1) The air we breathe is composed almost entirely (99.88%) of Nitrogen (N2), Oxygen (O2), and Argon (Ar).  Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and other variable gases including water vapor (H2O and clouds), Ozone (O3), and other trace gases make up the remainder. 

 

…

 

3) As a percentage of the total atmosphere, carbon dioxide represents only 0.0386% [ii]. The entire increase in CO2 since before the industrial revolution represents only .0091% of the total atmosphere.  Not very much, is it?  Laid out on a 100 yard football field, this would equal a distance of less than 3/8 of an inch.  It is also important to remember that CO2 is not a pollutant; it is an indispensable part of life.  Your body creates and emits CO2 every time you take a breath.   

 

Rep. Barton is focusing on the small percentage and is arguing essentially that because the number is small what that number represents can’t be important.  By focusing on the number itself, Barton is ignoring the number’s context.  The atmosphere is a complex system that has developed in its current composition.  By altering the amount of one of the components, the delicate system can be thrown out of whack, which is exactly what is happening due to the increase in man-made carbon dioxide levels. 

 

Let’s look at some other areas where the actual number, in and of itself is small, but where adjusting that number can have dramatic effects.  First, think of carbon monoxide.  It naturally occurs in the atmosphere, too, albeit in only trace amounts.  Yet, when carbon monoxide builds up in a home or other confined space, it can actually kill people.  What starts out small and inconsequential becomes very serious when the amounts in the system are changed. 

 

Another example is iron.  The human body consists of about one-tenth of an ounce of iron.  That’s an exceedingly small amount—making up just 0.004 percent of our weight.  Yet, that iron is essential to life.  It’s how our bodies transport oxygen to our cells.  Without it, we wouldn’t be alive.  So, again, what starts out as small and inconsequential becomes very serious when we understand the system and how that system functions. 

 

By posting about the small amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Rep. Barton is attempting to obfuscate the issue of global warming.  I certainly hope people will see through it.  

Oil in Alaska = No Human-Influenced Global Warming? April 23, 2009

 

One member of Congress seems to think so. 

 

During this week’s House Energy and Commerce Committee hearings on a bill to combat global warming, introduced by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA), some Republicans have voiced a refrain often heard from many of the global warming deniers—that the Earth is merely experiencing a period of warming from natural, rather than man-made, causes.  Yesterday, the Committee heard testimony from Energy Secretary Steven Chu, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, among others. 

 

During the questioning period, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), the top Republican and former chairman of the Committee, asked Secretary Chu to answer in the remaining 6 seconds that Barton had available for questioning where oil comes from and how the oil got to Alaska and under the Arctic Ocean.  Secretary Chu responded that oil is a result of millions of years of geology and shifting plates.  Rep. Barton suggested that it is obvious that at one time “it was a lot warmer in Alaska and on the North Pole” because obviously a large pipeline didn’t bring the oil from Texas to Alaska.  After Secretary Chu explained that continental plates have been drifting around during the ages, Rep. Barton asked incredulously, “So it just drifted up there?” 

[Note that Rep. Barton seems to be so proud of this question that he posted it to his YouTube page, as shown above.  Rep. Barton clearly has the wrong impression of who is "puzzled" here.]

 

Rep. Barton was relying as a foundation for his question on the argument that our current warming period is merely a natural occurrence, so we don’t really need to be worried about global warming.  After all, if it was once warm enough in Alaska and near the Arctic Ocean to produce oil, then the world has experienced dramatic fluctuations in temperature in the past, right?  That’s not entirely shocking.  What is absolutely shocking is that someone who seems to know the natural genesis of oil apparently has no knowledge at all of plate tectonics. 

 

While the underlying premise is true—that the Earth experiences periods of natural climatic variation—that doesn’t mean that humans are not also contributing to the current warming of the Earth.  So, even if Alaska had always been right where it is now, that by no means ensures that humans have not contributed to our current warming period. 

 

Barton’s apparent ignorance of plate tectonics leaves me with one question.  How does he explain earthquakes?  

House Committee Begins Hearings on Global Warming Legislation April 22, 2009

On April 21, 2009, the House Committe on Energy and Commerce conducted the first of four days of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (or ACESA), legislation to combat global warming.  The first day is limited to opening statements, but the following three days will be testimony.  And there are a number of high profile witnesses, including former Vice President Al Gore, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.  The entire schedule is listed here.  A video of the first day of the hearings can be found here.   This should certainly be a very interesting set of hearings to watch.

The Power of the Obamas’ Organic Garden April 15, 2009

There has been a lot of talk this past week about the new vegetable “kitchen” garden planted by the Obamas on the White House grounds.  What got people talking is not so much the fact that the Obamas started the garden.  In and of itself the garden is not too important, at least not to anyone other than the Obamas. 

 

What did get people talking was a rather laughable letter sent to the Obamas by the Mid American CropLife Association.  In it, the Association took issue with the label “organic” as applied to the garden.  The Association defended “conventionally” grown food as being “wholesome and flavorful yet more economical,” all the while being sustainable. 

 

But the truth is that many conventional food production practices harm the environment, increase farm consolidation (thereby decreasing small farm ownership and regionality of food source), and rely on artificially low costs with the help of government subsidies. 

 

The Association listed several methods that they argued are sustainable farming practices, all the while attempting to paint industrial food production techniques as being environmentally sustainable.  But this misses the point.  People who advocate the benefits of organic and alternative farming welcome efforts by industrial agriculture to adopt farming methods that decrease negative impacts on the environment.  The truth of the matter is that industrial food production contributes to pollution of water bodies, soil, groundwater systems, and the air.  And the sustained practices that the Association alleges are in use by farmers are being employed on an extremely small amount of farmland in the United States.  For example, the letter asserts that “reduced tillage practices” are being employed on 72 million acres.  Yet, according to the most recent agricultural census data from the U.S. Census Bureau, there are over 992 million acres of farmland in America. 

 

The letter also employs the common image of the ideal small American farm that has been purposely and disingenuously raised by industrial agriculture producers and their defenders for years—the false idea that America’s food supply is produced by small family farmers who work their own land from sun up to sun down.  This is just false, and the industrial food producers know it.  In fact, they rely on this pastoral image pervasive in the collective American conscious to continue to consolidate their ownership of American food production, to secure monetarily beneficial government subsidies, and to fight moves toward greater environmental sustainability.  The truth, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, is that 70% of the American food supply is produced by 6% of the total farms in the nation.  The truth is that small farms—the basis of that idyllic American image—have been sold to large agribusiness corporations and consolidated into behemoth operations. 

 

By arguing that industrial food production is more economical, the Association seems to be trading on the common misperception that organic food must always be more expensive than “regular” food.  This is the “whole paycheck” mentality.  It’s not necessarily the fact that the food is produced organically that causes it to be more expensive in stores.  It’s a combination of marketing organic as an up-scale, yuppy commodity, the ability of grocers to trade on the yuppified idea of organic to increase their prices, and industrial agriculture’s stranglehold on the market and on American food policy. 

 

In the end, the power of the Obamas’ new organic kitchen garden is its statement.  By planting a garden on the White House lawn and calling it organic, consciously or not the Obamas have demonstrated the importance of questioning where our food comes from.  That is an important first step in fundamentally altering our nation’s food policy toward sustainability. 

 

When I first heard about the new garden on the White House grounds, I was pleased, but I didn’t think it would matter too much.  But, the letter from the Mid American CropLife Association changed my mind.  If they are worried enough about the impact of this small garden, then I think that bodes well for the future of sustainable, local, economical food in America.  

Congressional Misunderstanding of Global Warming March 28, 2009

During a recent hearing of the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, some congressmen displayed a frightening lack of understanding of the basics of global warming and its effects. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who was the former chairman of the full committee, had this to say:

 

“I believe that earth’s climate is changing, but I think it’s changing for natural variation reasons. And I think man-kind has been adopting, or adapting, to climate as long as man has walked the earth. When it rains, we find shelter. When it’s hot, we get shade. When it’s cold, we find a warm place to stay. … Adaptation to shifts in temperature is not that difficult.”

 

This statement belies a fundamental misunderstanding, or to give Rep. Barton the benefit of the doubt, a purposefully disingenuous mischaracterization, of the effects of global warming. And, his comment is similar to a popular argument by global warming deniers, which conflates local and global effects of global warming. The underlying assumption of this kind of argument is that the negative effects from global warming are limited to a local level, rather than a systemic, global level. The natural conclusion from this argument is that as it gets hotter, people can turn up the dials on their air conditioners. (This is essentially the reason why many global warming deniers happily jeer when unseasonably cold weather occurs.)

 

But, that’s an oversimplification. The problem with global warming is not that it will merely cause the air to get hotter, resulting in some minor discomfort and increased annoyance. When the planet warms—and we’re only talking about a few degrees over long periods of time—it affects the global climate patterns, which results in dramatic shifts in weather systems. Also, that increased surface temperature negatively affects ecosystems and animal species. And we don’t know what that will mean for humans.

 

Rep. Barton also said something that seems to support taking immediate actions to counter global warming. He said, “Nature doesn’t seem to adjust to people as much as people adjust to nature.” If nature doesn’t adjust well to changes that people make (and here it seems that Rep. Barton is unconsciously implying that humans are in fact contributing to global warming), but people can adjust, then that’s all the more reason to take actions to stem the negative effects of global warming.

SF Skyline Could Go Dark March 24, 2009

There’s a new push for legislation that would require skyscrapers in downtown San Francisco to turn out their non-emergency lights at night.  Newly elected Supervisor David Chiu will be introducing the legislation today as a way to help save energy.  I haven’t seen the legislation yet, but I think this is a great idea.  Not only will it help save electricity, but it will help to darken the night sky around San Francisco.  As I’ve posted about before, I believe bringing back the dark night sky will help us to experience a reconnection with nature and new-found awe and wonder with the universe.  

In related news, don’t forget that Saturday, March 28, 2009 is Earth Hour.  At 8:30 P.M. in your time zone, turn out your lights for one hour and gaze at the stars.

Most Americans Favor Nuclear Power March 24, 2009

With President Obama in the White House and Democrats in control of Congress, we can look happily forward to a new drive toward development of alternative sources of energy.  But, just as in every other area of public policy, there will be fights over what to develop, how much money to allocate, where to locate plants and transmission lines, and negative environmental consequences.  I anticipate the biggest fight to occur over development and construction of new nuclear power plants.  As I posted about last week, the government is experiencing a flurry of requests to construct new nuclear facilities.  As the government determines what course to take, it will be interesting to see how the environmental community responds.  Again, I predict a pretty big fight.  And, according to a recent Gallup poll, it seems as though there will be a big fight among the general public, as well.  

According to the Gallup poll, 59% of Americans somewhat or strongly favor nuclear power.  This is apparently the highest level of good graces that nuclear power has attained in the United States.  I imagine it has something to do with the fact that there has been no catastrophe for quite a long time.  Yet, our memories remain strong.  The Gallup poll also found that 42% of Americans are wary of the safety of nuclear plants.  This is not a huge margin and I expect that there will be much more talk about both the benefits and disadvantages of nuclear power.