U.S. States & Regions
States and regions across the country are adopting climate policies, including the development of regional greenhouse gas reduction markets, the creation of state and local climate action and adaptation plans, and increasing renewable energy generation. Read More
For many Americans, U.S. oil dependence has become a concern for reasons ranging from climate change and environmental protection to national security and the economic impact of higher gas prices. But there are other important impacts of our oil dependence, including how foreign oil contributes to the U.S. trade deficit and how rising oil prices decrease American jobs – both particularly salient issues on the current U.S. political agenda.
A recent article from Daily Finance shines light on the 2010 trade deficit, more than half of which is from petroleum-related products. In 2010, the U.S. petroleum-related trade deficit was $256.9B, which represents a 29.6 percent jump from the 2009 petroleum trade deficit. This rise is largely due to increased prices, as the consumption of petroleum-related products in the United States grew by only 1.9 percent from 2009 to 2010 while the price per barrel of oil grew 31.1 percent to $74.66. An issue currently receiving a lot of attention in Washington, the $61B worth of cuts to the national budget sought by the U.S. House of Representatives, is equal to only one fourth of the country’s 2010 petroleum-related trade deficit.
Numbers that large can be hard to put into perspective, so let’s look at how this affects the average American. The graph below shows the U.S. petroleum-related trade deficit per capita (left axis), which is closely related to oil prices (right axis). In 2010 the petroleum-related trade deficit per capita was $832 and has ranged from $600 to $1200 in the past several years. This translates into each American household sending roughly $2,155 out of the U.S. economy in 2010 to pay for oil.
Rising oil prices not only increase the trade deficit, they decrease the number of jobs in America. As energy prices rise, businesses and consumers must spend more on energy and thus have less to spend elsewhere. In his presentation at our recent conference on state and federal roles in climate policy, Mark Doms, Chief Economist at the Department of Commerce, explained that when the price of oil goes up by just $10 per barrel, it translates into a loss of tens of thousands of jobs per month, or up to a quarter of a million U.S. jobs per year. Instead of losing jobs in order to maintain our use of oil, we should focus on creating jobs by investing in domestically produced alternative fuels and vehicles.
In June 2008, oil prices spiked to $145 per barrel, and Americans paid for it at the pump as gas prices reached $4 per gallon. We could be headed into a similar situation, as oil prices rose above $105 per barrel earlier this month and are expected to continue to rise in 2011 and 2012. Because we rely on oil, a resource that is concentrated in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries or OPEC, we face oil prices that are much higher than a competitive market would yield. This makes U.S. gasoline susceptible to price shocks, and American consumers pay more at the pump than they would in a competitive market.
Here we have highlighted two other important reasons why Americans should care about rising oil prices: they increase the U.S. trade deficit and can decrease domestic jobs. As oil prices continue to rise, these negative economic trends will also worsen. In order to mitigate the impacts of rising oil prices, we need to work towards a clean energy economy and promote the use of domestic alternative fuels and energy efficiency. This would decrease our oil dependence, making the United States less susceptible to rising oil prices while also creating more jobs here at home.
Monica Ralston is is the Innovative Solutions intern
To see the economic costs of extreme weather you don’t have to look all the way to Russia where last summer’s heat wave caused extensive wildfires and crop losses roiled world markets for wheat. Nor do you have to look as far as Europe where in the summer of 2003, a 1-in-500 year heat wave caused at least 35,000 premature deaths. No, extreme weather events have recently occurred within the United States. In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, extensive flooding in the region in 2008 caused damage estimates of $8-10 billion. In Nashville, Tennessee, in May 2010, a 1-in-1000 year storm caused floods resulting in more than $3 billion in damage.
Whether you think these are just isolated incidents or are part of the emerging pattern of climate change, there is one thing we can all agree on. These events result in significant economic loss and to the extent we can build greater resilience into our economy to minimize losses from extreme weather, we will all be better off.
Q&A with Eileen Claussen
Originally published by Australian Centre for Leadership for Women as part of an expert panel on climate change, Empowering Women to Lead the Way in Climate Change Action
What are the main drivers for you in believing in climate change and taking action?
The issue of climate change is not about belief but science. The scientific community has reached a strong consensus regarding the science of global climate change. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe the warming of the earth is unequivocal. This warming is largely the result of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities, including industrial processes, fossil fuel combustion, and changes in land use, such as deforestation. Enough is known about the science and environmental impacts of climate change for us to take actions now to address its consequences. In the words of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences 2010 report to Congress: “It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.”
Can you explain how the cap and trade emissions trading program operates and why do you advocate this program over the emissions tax option?
A cap-and-trade system is one of a variety of policy tools that exists to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change. I believe it is the best tool because it offers environmental certainty (a cap) and economic flexibility (ability to reduce emissions in places where it’s most cost-effective). Once established, a well-designed cap-and-trade market is relatively easy to implement, can achieve emissions reductions goals in a cost-effective manner, and drives low-greenhouse gas innovation.
The key difference between a tax and the cap-and-trade approach comes down to the issue of certainty and environmental benefit. A tax provides cost certainty; the cost is fixed because of the tax. Cap and trade, on the other hand, provides environmental certainty because of the cap. With a carbon tax, many emitters will reduce their emissions rather than pay the tax.
In more detail … In a cap-and-trade program, the government determines which facilities or emissions are covered by the program and sets an overall emission target, or “cap,” for covered entities (firms held responsible for emissions). This cap is the sum of all allowed emissions from all included facilities. Once the cap has been set and covered entities specified, tradable emissions allowances (rights to emit) are distributed (either auctioned or freely allocated, or some combination of these). Each allowance authorizes the release of a specified amount of greenhouse gas emissions, generally one ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). The total number of allowances is equivalent to the overall emissions cap (e.g., if a cap of one million tons of emissions is set, one million one-ton allowances will be issued). Allowance trading occurs because firms face different costs for reducing emissions. For some emitters, implementing new, low-emitting technologies may be relatively inexpensive. Those firms will either buy fewer allowances or sell their surplus allowances to firms that face higher emission control costs.
I understand that the Pew Center has produced 85 peer-reviewed reports on climate change in an effort to demystify the subject for members of Congress and interested companies. Can you point out what has been the focus of this effort in relation to what exactly the Center has aimed to demystify and how do you regard the outcomes of this effort in leading the Pew Center on Climate Change?
As a non-profit, non-partisan and independent organization, the PewCenteron Global Change does its best to provide credible information, straight answers, and innovative solutions to addressing climate change. One of the Center’s goals is to demystify a wide range of topics that are critical to the issue of climate change, from the science and impacts, to the economics, to policies, and solutions. Our goal is to provide the best information - in an understandable way - so that policy makers and stakeholders can make informed decisions.
More than any other area, I believe our greatest impact has and continues to be engaging the business community on climate and clean energy policy and solutions. When the PewCenterbegan in 1998, only a handful of brave firms were willing to address the issue. Now our Business Environmental Leadership Council (BELC), which started with 13 companies in 1998, includes 46 mostly Fortune 500 corporations committed to advancing effective and mandatory climate action. In stark contrast to 13 years ago, all of these firms have a good understanding of the issue and have been active in the policy debate.
While a great deal of work remains to be done, I firmly believe the U.S. climate debate is much further along because of the vocal leadership of many progressive businesses. These business leaders understand the significant opportunity for economic growth in a clean energy future. But unleashing the investments necessary to capitalize on these opportunities requires the certainty that can only come with government policy. And that is an effort we continue to work toward with forward-thinking members of the business community.
What do you see as some of the best practice solutions which US businesses have put in place to tackle climate change problems?
Energy efficiency is one key area where businesses are taking action that delivers tangible environmental benefits and saves substantial amounts of money in the process. A comprehensive PewCenterstudy released in April 2010 found that leading companies that give greater attention to energy efficiency have realized billions of dollars in savings and millions of tons of avoided greenhouse gas emissions. The report, From Shop Floor to Top Floor: Best Business Practices in Energy Efficiency, documents leading-edge energy efficiency strategies, describes best practices, and provides guidance and resources for other businesses seeking to reduce energy use in their internal operations, supply chains, and products and services. We are now involved in an assessment of how companies do clean energy innovation, and hope that this analysis and the report we will issue will also be of great value to those in the business sector.
Through our employee-engagement program – Make An Impact– we also know there is a large appetite among employees to learn about constructive solutions to reduce energy use that saves money and helps the climate. By arming their employees with tools to address our climate-energy challenges, companies find great benefits in employee morale and performance.
With recent studies showing that the media in the U.S. continues to indicate that climate change science is contentious or does not have any consensus, how do you in your role deal with this environmental skepticism?
The attacks on climate science – mostly dishonest claims driven by ideology and profit – have proven highly effective at misleading the public and souring its support for climate action. Other factors like the down economy make advancing climate policy an uphill battle, but the well-orchestrated, well-funded campaign to discredit climate science is an influential barrier to progress.
To help overcome this obstacle, the PewCentereducates diverse audiences, including business leaders, policy makers, and the public about the strong, clear science behind climate change. Scientists may disagree on some details, like individual weather events, but they have an astonishing level of consensus on the basics: The planet is warming and human activities are primarily responsible for the warming that has occurred since the mid-20th century.
While we believe the science is indisputable, we know that others do not. So it’s critical to frame the issue in different ways for different audiences while advancing the ultimate goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Talking in terms of energy security or economic opportunities in clean energy are two examples that resonate with people who are not swayed by the science. As President Obama has said: There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
Discussing climate action in terms managing risk is another way to reach audiences that question climate science. This approach is often used by national security experts, and it forces people to consider the level of risk they are willing to live with and steps they can take to minimize that risk. Risk management is a formal version of choices that families regularly make when buying insurance, deciding where to live, or investing in retirement accounts. It’s an approach that offers a way forward on the complicated and highly politicized issue of climate change. And our knowledge of climate impacts, while not perfect, is much stronger than evidence security experts rely on to make decisions regarding highly sensitive topics such as nuclear proliferation or the actions of rogue states.
How can communication about the risks and opportunities of climate change be improved to effect change and action?
To generate greater support for action, the public needs a clearer understanding of the impacts likely to become more common in a warming world. The reality is that talk of global average temperatures does not reach people; we need to make the impacts more tangible. I believe this starts with telling compelling stories about impacts occurring in people’s own backyards. From garden club members to city planners, people are being forced to address climate impacts. Their stories, and the connection to changes in our climate, need to be more clearly communicated to broader audiences.
The PewCenteralso uses extreme weather events as a teaching tool to educate the public about our vulnerabilities to climate change. The fact is that we need to take action now, or we are simply loading the dice for more extreme weather events in the future. We will see more events such as the unprecedented seasonal flooding in Australia, the 2010 Russian heat wave and flooding in Pakistan. We will see more extreme winter snow storms that blanketed the U.S. Midwest and Northeast this year. It is imperative that we start to take action now to reduce emissions and adapt to unavoidable climate change.
These impacts translate into the costs of inaction. While opponents of climate policy attack the costs of regulation as a reason for inaction – and surely there are costs – the overwhelming analysis shows that the benefits of action far outweigh the costs. This message needs to be more clearly communicated so the public better understands the benefits of climate action, or conversely, the costs we face by not reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
There have been many reasons put forward as to the failure of the Obama Administration's Climate Change legislation being passed in the Senate in 2010. To what do you attribute this failure?
Passing comprehensive climate and energy legislation through the U.S. Congress was a huge lift under the best of conditions. It required the White House to lay out a legislative roadmap and push its agenda through Congress. The President also needed to use the bully pulpit to help make the case for climate action to voters. Unfortunately, this did not happen.
The poor economy was a major reason that impacted the climate and energy debate in Congress last year. Unemployment was at an all-time high, and Americans were more concerned about creating jobs than anything else. Another issue was the health care debate. Passing that legislation used up a great deal of political capital, and it took time away from addressing other issues, including climate and energy. Climate change also became too politically contentious and there was not the bipartisan support necessary to pass the legislation.
What do you see as being significant about the Cancun climate change achievements?
The agreement reached in Cancún in December fills in many key missing elements of the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, including a stronger system of support for developing countries and a stronger transparency regime to better assess whether countries are keeping their promises. The Cancún Agreements also mark the first time that all of the world’s major economies have made explicit mitigation pledges under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Of course, the ultimate goal of the continuing international talks must be a comprehensive binding climate treaty. That’s the goal of the journey we started on this issue way back in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio. But in Cancún we saw countries agreeing on incremental steps that will deliver stronger action in the near term and, we hope, will keep the world on course toward someday agreeing to binding commitments.
Kicking off the new year, we released an update of its Climate Change 101 series. Climate Change 101: Understanding and Responding to Global Climate Change is made up of brief reports on climate science and impacts; adaptation measures; technological and business solutions; and international, U.S Federal, State, and local action. Last released in January of 2009, the updated reports highlight the significance of the global negotiations, climate-related national security risks, local efforts to address climate change, the most recent predictions on global temperature changes, and more.
March 3, 2011
Contact: Rebecca Matulka, 703-516-4146
WEBSITE, SERIES DELIVER CREDIBLE INFORMATION TO ADVANCE CLIMATE ACTION
Pew Center Updates Website and Climate Change 101 Series
WASHINGTON, DC – Public opinion continues to be divided on climate change and its causes, and as a result, public access to credible, digestible information about climate change is more critical than ever. To help advance a constructive dialogue that leads to climate action, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change refreshed its website and updated its landmark Climate Change 101 report series.
“Now more than ever, the public needs straight answers about climate change,” said Eileen Claussen, President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. “The Pew Center is continuing its work to demystify the issue, and our updated website and report series present straightforward and useful climate change information.”
With a fresh new design and easy-to-navigate organization, the Pew Center’s website provides access to the center’s first-rate analyses and publications of key climate issues. One new website feature is the publications library, which allows users to search for and order free copies of Pew Center reports. The website puts the Center’s Climate Compass blog front and center, and presents timely ideas and insights from science and policy experts on topics critical to the climate debate.
The fast-reading Climate Change 101: Understanding and Responding to Global Climate Change includes nine brief reports and helps inform the climate dialogue by providing a reliable and understandable introduction to global climate change. The updated reports highlight the significance of the global negotiations, climate-related national security risks, local efforts to address climate change, the most recent predictions on global temperature changes, and more.
For more information about global climate change and the activities of the Pew Center, visit www.c2es.org.
# # #
The Pew Center on Global Climate Change was established in May 1998 as a non-profit, non-partisan, and independent organization dedicated to providing credible information, straight answers, and innovative solutions in the effort to address global climate change. The Pew Center is led by Eileen Claussen, the former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.
Opening Keynote by Eileen Claussen, President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change
State-Federal Workshop on Climate and Energy Policy: Where Do We Go From Here?
Hosted by the Pew Center and the Georgetown Climate Center
February 24, 2011
I want to welcome all of you to our 2011 workshop on state and federal climate and energy policy. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change is delighted to be working with the Georgetown Climate Center – and two of our favorite alumni in Vicki Arroyo and Kate Zyla – to present what we hope will be a very engaging and informative program over the next two days.
You know we established the Pew Center in 1998 as a nonpartisan, independent organization to provide credible information and help spur innovative solutions to climate change. For those of us who have been working on this issue for so many years now – and I am certainly not the only one in the room about whom this is true – right now could be a very discouraging time indeed. President Obama did not even utter the words “climate change” in his State of the Union address in January. In contrast, in his 2010 address he was effusive in praising the U.S. House of Representatives for passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill.
We have traveled a difficult road on this issue over the past year … a road jammed by partisan fighting over health care and the legislation on financial reform … and a road torn up by the poor state of the U.S. economy. It’s been hard to move forward in these conditions. Then in November, congressional elections brought a whole new group of climate change deniers and doubters to the halls of Congress.
Any time you have someone winning election to the Senate thanks in part to an ad where he uses a rifle to shoot a hole through cap-and-trade legislation, well … I guess you could be forgiven for feeling a little bit down and out.
But I am not here to give you a woe-is-me address. Well – not an entirely woeful address. And the reason why I won’t do that, and the reason why none of us should accept the argument that it’s impossible at the moment to move anywhere on this issue, is because the stakes are simply too high.
Before I get into the meat of my remarks though I know the Academy Awards will be broadcast in a few days and I was looking at the list of films that are nominated this year, and I noticed that a lot of these films have something in common. A lot of them tell stories about people overcoming seemingly insurmountable odds to succeed. And I thought they actually hold lessons for those of us working on climate change and energy issues.
- For example, there is The King’s Speech … the story of King George the Sixth overcoming a debilitating stammer so he can unite his people to enter World War II. The moral for the climate fight: It takes hard work and determination to communicate in ways that mobilize people. And for those of you who have seen the movie, there is also this: when you’re feeling really down, unleashing a string of profanities can be excellent therapy.
- Another Oscar contender is the film The Fighter, about boxer Mickey Ward and his half brother, Dickie … and Mickey’s unlikely road to the world boxing title with Dickie’s help. The lesson: don’t ever count yourself out. And, if you’re a parent, please think twice before giving your children rhyming names.
- Of course, there is also True Grit … about a young girl’s venture into hostile Indian Territory to find the man who killed her father. The lesson for those of us pushing for climate action: stay the course, and follow your journey to its end. And, if by any chance you’re staffing up for this work, don’t overlook the gruff, hard-drinking, one-eyed man in the cowboy hat who dropped his resume off the other day. He might be able to help you out.
So maybe there is something in the culture right now. Maybe we need these stories about people taking on big things, overcoming big challenges in their lives. And maybe those of us working on the climate change issue should take note. We may feel unlucky from time to time, but we cannot let it get in the way of our work to help shape solutions to the climate challenge facing this country and the world. The simple fact is that the evidence of climate change continues to pile up in front of us. We ignore it at our peril.
2010 tied 2005 as the warmest year on record. Nine of the 10 warmest years have happened since 2001. Last year, Russia faced the worst heat wave and droughts in its documented history. Unprecedented flooding in Pakistan left 2 million people homeless and millions more requiring emergency aid. There was also unprecedented seasonal flooding in Australia. And nearly all of the Northern Hemisphere was dealing with a massive heat wave last summer.
Each of these events, every one of them, is consistent with what scientists say we should expect in a warming world.
Even the record cold and snowfalls that much of the United States has been dealing with this winter can be seen as a glimpse of what we’re in for as atmospheric greenhouse gases increase and the climate becomes more unstable. It simply defies common sense to ignore the link between man-made climate change and these numerous extreme weather events. I am not saying climate change caused these particular storms and bitter cold, but this is exactly the kind of thing scientists say we should expect more of in the years to come. Add to that the declining sea ice in the Arctic, receding and disappearing glaciers, and the many other signs of irreversible change, and it’s hard not to feel that we are loading the dice. I have three young grandchildren, another is on the way. And it is hard not to wonder about the world they will grow up in.
What kind of world will it be? To what extent will their generation have to pay for the things we didn’t do today?
This is what’s at stake. And this is why we need to persist in our work on these issues. Over the next two days, we will be talking about many important topics, from transportation and land use to adaptation to what it will take to build a clean-energy economy here in the United States and around the world. We will also be talking about the varying yet complementary roles of the state and federal governments in addressing these issues.
I want to use my remarks here this morning to share what I believe is a realistic outlook of the challenges we face and draw your attention to a few small signs of hope. Because while the politics can look bleak, there are a few indications that action on this issue might still be possible in the months and years ahead.
The first positive sign I want to point out is the commitment of this White House to clean energy as a priority for the United States. In his State of the Union address, the President set a goal for the nation: to get 80 percent of our electricity from clean energy sources by 2035. He may not have used the words “climate change” in making this proposal, but the implication for the climate is clear.
The White House knows full well that public support for renewables and other alternative energy sources remains strong. A recent Gallup poll found that more than 80 percent of voters favor clean energy legislation … although voter support does drop, sometimes below 50 percent, when people are asked to consider the costs of shifting to cleaner sources of energy, however manageable those costs might be.
Adopting a clean energy standard would obviously be a big deal and a significant step forward. But is it politically possible? My guess is no – not right now. Not to say that there isn’t real interest in a CES – but realistically, the chances of such an initiative passing the Senate are very small – and probably zero for getting through the House. Still – it’s useful to set a goal – and start the conversation.
This takes me back to the lesson from The King’s Speech that I mentioned: It takes hard work and determination to communicate in ways that mobilize people. Even in the face of considerable opposition, those of us who believe in the need for action on this issue must continue our efforts to connect with the public. We must continue to make our case. And we must continue to connect our cause to other related causes for which there is considerable public support.
This is why we should all be pleased that the White House has placed clean energy issues front and center as it continues to develop its “Win the Future” innovation agenda for the nation. As the Obama administration very rightly points out, China leads the world right now in clean energy investment, and we have a lot of work to do just to keep up, let alone overtake China as the world’s clean energy leader.
And the White House’s commitment on these issues is not all talk; it’s not all about photo opps and messaging. One unmistakable sign that the Obama administration wants to see real action on climate and energy issues comes from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Remember the message from The Fighter? Don’t count yourself out. Well, EPA is making an effort to stay in the fight despite some very long odds, and some very tough opponents in the opposite corner of the ring.
Even as he talked about reducing “unnecessary” government regulations in his State of the Union address, the President made a point of saying that he – quote – “will not hesitate to create or enforce common-sense safeguards to protect the American people.” This was an obvious shot across the bow to those members of Congress who have stated their interest in depriving EPA of the ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
Let’s be clear here. The Supreme Court in 2007 decided that greenhouse gases meet the definition of pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The Court left it to EPA to decide if emissions of these gases presented a risk to public health and welfare. And EPA decided they did, based on overwhelming scientific evidence underlying the risks of climate change. It’s not just the Obama EPA that feels this way. We recently learned that the previous EPA Administrator under President George W. Bush came to exactly the same conclusion … and other senior Bush administration officials agreed.
In fact, EPA’s recent actions on this issue aren’t all that different than the step-by-step plan spelled out by the agency under President Bush, a plan that was described at the time by the Administration as “prudent and cautious yet forward thinking.” Today’s actions are largely the same, and yet they’ve come under attack by a vocal contingent in Congress.
What regulatory road is EPA headed down? The initial rules requiring mandatory reporting of emissions, substantially improved fuel economy for cars and vans, and best available control technology for large new and modified sources are a good start. Later this year, EPA is expected to propose additional stationary source controls, with a focus on the electric power and oil refinery sectors. And even in these cases, EPA’s actions are extraordinarily modest.
And so they may be pulling some punches, but the fact remains that EPA is staying in the fight. Of course, opponents of these and other reasonable EPA actions will continue to raise a ruckus, and there have already been loud cries in Congress to take away the agency’s regulatory authority and cut its funding. Indeed, the budget bill passed by the House of Representatives last week would repeal EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources, although it leaves regulations of automobiles intact.
The House budget also proposes major cuts in climate-related programs at EPA and other agencies. EPA funding was reduced 30% overall, including the Global Change program, with even larger cuts to the greenhouse gas reporting program. NOAA’s Climate Service program was zeroed out as well. Among the many Energy Department programs with reduced funding, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy face a 40 percent cut. And for a high-profile hit, funding for the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, recently held by Carol Browner, was eliminated. Looking internationally, nearly all funding for U.S. commitments under the UNFCCC process was slated for elimination, including funding for the IPCC and the U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change.
It’s not a pretty picture, and I cannot honestly tell you how it will be resolved. Certainly there will be cuts, certainly there will be policy riders to appropriations bills, and certainly there will be attempts to legislate away EPA authorities directly. But those seeking these changes will not have an easy ride, and I would guess that many of these attempts will fail.
So – sticking with the ‘fighter’ theme – on the budget front, we’re probably only in round 2 or 3 of a 12 round match.
More positive signs come from the world of business.
As all of you know, the White House right now is making a very deliberate effort to build business support for its policies. The President’s recent address to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was just one part of this effort. It came, you will recall, shortly after he appointed Jeffrey Immelt of GE to head the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. GE and its CEO have been leaders in the American business community on the issue of building a clean-energy economy, so the Immelt appointment makes sense. And it’s a reminder to the American public that there is considerable support among U.S. business leaders for reasonable action to promote clean energy industries and jobs, reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil – and, incidentally, reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases, too.
There remains great interest in the business community in clear and certain U.S. energy policy. “Certainty.” You hear the word again and again today in conversations with business leaders. Dow CEO Andrew Liveris was on NPR last month and in simple, eloquent terms he stated that businesses need to know the regulatory rules of the road to have a better idea of what types of investments will pay off down the line. He clearly articulated the need for government to engage proactively with business to create public-private partnerships to spur innovation and create jobs in clean energy and other sectors.
So this idea that all of business is some scary villain standing in the way of action on these issues is inaccurate. In fact, the business world appears to be taking a lesson from the third film I mentioned, True Grit. Many of these companies started on their journey years ago to reduce emissions, increase efficiency, and pursue business opportunities in the clean energy sector. And they aren’t about to be dissuaded from staying on the trail. It may be tough sometimes, and the political winds may be blowing against them at the moment, but they are intent on pursuing this to the end.
Up to now, my remarks have been mostly Washington-centric, and I apologize. That’s what you get for coming to the nation’s capital to talk about climate change. But, of course, all of the action (or inaction) on this issue does not happen in Washington, and so let’s take a look at the picture at the state level. The news from the state capitals on this issue in recent months has been decidedly mixed. While regional climate initiatives continued to push forward in the past year, the November elections brought to the nation’s statehouses a group of new leaders who adopted strong stands against climate action in their campaigns. In the State of Montana, a bill was introduced that would overturn the laws of science and nature and simply declare that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming.
But this is another case where we should remember the story of Mickey The Fighter and not count ourselves out. Because there was an important bright spot in the elections. I am talking about the overwhelming defeat in California of Proposition 23. This measure, as you know, would have suspended a 2006 law intended to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. Shortly after the vote, the California Air Resources Board formally approved the state’s cap-and-trade program, which is designed to reduce California emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. While further legal challenges are pending, California is still in the fight. And there is strong public support for what the state wants to do.
Yes, Californiawill always provide a more hospitable climate for action on this issue. But the fact that the most highly populated U.S. state will soon be implementing a cap-and-trade system and other measures to reduce emission has to be a positive sign. It is a sign that the issue is not going to quietly disappear into the night. Much of the financial support for the “No on Prop 23” campaign came from the venture capital and tech industries in California. These companies understand the market opportunities that clean energy and energy efficiency provide, and despite the millions of out-of-state dollars poured into the Prop 23 campaign, they were willing to invest in making those opportunities real.
And, of course, California is not alone among the states in advancing serious measures that reduce emissions. Here at this workshop over the next two days, we will all learn more about what’s happening on this issue in states across the country.
For instance, Maryland has new energy laws to increase renewable energy production and create more incentives to purchase electric vehicles, which are especially well-suited to the state’s compact land use. And Maine has recently adopted laws to expand energy efficiency and boost clean electricity generation with the aim of preserving the Pine Tree State’s scenic landscape for its many vacationers.
As they have since the dialogue began way back in the 1990s, many U.S. states are taking the initiative, advancing solutions, and providing a learning laboratory for the rest of the country so we can see what works in practice. And that is definitely a positive sign.
The final very small positive sign I want to talk about is what’s happening outside the United States. The agreement reached by international negotiators in Cancún in December fills in many key missing elements of the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, including a stronger system of support for developing countries and a stronger transparency regime to better assess whether countries are keeping their promises. The Cancún Agreements also mark the first time that all of the world’s major economies have made explicit mitigation pledges under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Of course, the ultimate goal of the continuing international talks must be a comprehensive binding climate treaty. That’s the goal of the journey we started on this issue way back in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio. But in Cancún we saw countries agreeing on incremental steps that will deliver stronger action in the near term and keep the world on course toward someday (we hope) agreeing to binding commitments.
So to recap, I see four small but positive signs amid what I acknowledge is a very challenging environment. They are: 1) the White House’s continuing commitment to doing something on this issue in the face of very strong political headwinds, in part through common-sense steps at the EPA; 2) support for reasonable action on energy and climate issues among U.S. business leaders; 3) some progress on these issues in California and other states; and 4) continued progress in the international climate talks.
I don’t want to be a Pollyanna here. I understand as well as anyone else that all of these small positive signs I have mentioned are positive only when you compare them to all of the negative things that are happening out there today. We are like all of the leading characters in the movies I have mentioned. In a very difficult fight. On a journey in hostile territory with the odds sometimes appearing overwhelmingly stacked against us. Facing enormous challenges in communicating, getting our message across, getting more people on our side.
I cannot promise a Hollywood ending to this drama we’re in but I can say this: all is not lost. And getting to a place where we are confident about the prospects for action on this issue that we all care about so deeply is going to require each and every one of us to recommit ourselves to this fight. To recommit ourselves to staying the course in our journey. And to recommit ourselves to communicating in more compelling and more coherent ways about what’s at stake here, and about what we can and must do.
Think about transportation. With gas prices rising and oil now exceeding $100 a barrel, it’s hard to argue against realistic solutions that can lessen our oil dependence while reducing greenhouse emissions. The Pew Center just last month released a report that showed it’s possible to get to a cleaner, more secure transportation system that could deliver up to a 65-percent reduction in emissions from the sector between now and 2050.
Solutions are out there. We can meet the challenge of building clean energy industries and creating clean energy jobs. We can reduce U.S. and global emissions of greenhouse gases. But we are going to need true grit to get this done.
Thank you very much, and I hope you enjoy the conference.
This blog post was co-authored by Deron Lovaas of the Natural Resources Defense Council and is also posted on NRDC's blog Switchboard.
If you were a resident of Washington, D.C., in 2000 and still live in the District today, you may have noticed the number of cars in the city has dropped significantly. Between 2000 and 2008, the population of D.C. grew 3 percent (more than 18,000), while the number of registered automobiles dropped almost 8 percent (nearly 19,000 cars and light trucks). A recent Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) report highlighted one of the reasons for this shift in how we get around: more and more people now prefer to live in walkable communities.
February 15, 2011
By Eileen Claussen
This op-ed first appeared in Politico
A vocal contingent in the House is now attacking the current Environmental Protection Agency administrator for the very thing her predecessor in the Bush administration wanted to do.
EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson wrote a letter to President George W. Bush laying out the legal and scientific rationale for regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Johnson explained steps that the EPA would take to begin to do so.
Johnson’s letter surfaced last week at the House Energy and Power subcommittee hearing on proposed legislation to strip EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
Remarkably, it proved that Bush’s EPA administrator had reached the same conclusions and planned almost identical actions to what the current EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, has begun implementing.
What exactly does Johnson tell Bush? He insists that the EPA must respond to the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA with a finding that greenhouse gases represent a risk to public health or welfare. This is EPA’s “endangerment finding,” which would be overturned by legislation now being proposed in the House.
Johnson also noted, “the latest climate change science does not permit a negative finding, nor does it permit a credible finding that we need to wait for more research.”
What is most telling is that Johnson states that a positive endangerment finding was “agreed to at the Cabinet-level meeting.” Apparently senior Bush administration officials agreed that climate change poses a risk to our nation’s public health and welfare.
Johnson describes his plan as “prudent and cautious yet forward thinking,” and says it “creates a framework for responsible, cost-effective and practical actions.” Sound familiar?
Jackson, in her statement at the hearing last week, called EPA’s actions a “reasonable approach,” one that “will reflect careful consideration of costs and will incorporate compliance flexibility.”
Indeed, the step-by-step plan of action spelled out by Johnson could be a checklist for the EPA’s recent actions — largely the same actions being aggressively attacked today by some in Congress.
These actions include the endangerment finding; a joint rule-making with the Transportation Department to require more fuel-efficient cars; rules to modify the agency’s requirements for new sources to reduce the number of facilities that would be covered (EPA’s tailoring rule), and proposals to respond to specific petitions (EPA has acted on ones for the utility and oil refinery sectors).
Given these striking similarities, attacks on current EPA actions — that the agency is “an instrument of job destruction” and would “put the American economy in a straitjacket” — now resonate as particularly empty political rhetoric.
How could the right thing to do in the Bush administration suddenly become the wrong thing to do in the Obama administration?
Eileen Claussen served as assistant secretary of state for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. She is now president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
This white paper is a follow up to the report Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Transportation
About the Authors:
Cynthia Burbank is Vice President of Parson Brinckerhoff (PB). She joined PB in 2007 as National Environment and Planning Practice Leader. She provides strategic and tactical advice to PB’s clients on planning and environmental issues, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), air quality, and global climate change (GCC).This includes advising transportation clients on climate change strategies, analyzing greenhouse gas (GHG)-reduction potential of alternative transportation strategies, reviewing state climate action plans, and developing GHG reduction scenarios for transportation.
Cindy joined PB after a 32-year span with the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) that encompassed key roles in highway, transit, aviation, and national transportation policy and legislation. Cindy served as Associate Administrator for Planning, Environment, and Realty for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). She also served as FHWA’s senior executive with responsibility for FHWA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for transportation, NEPA policy, environmental streamlining, metropolitan transportation planning, statewide transportation planning, and international transportation planning. Prior to joining the FHWA in 1991, Cindy held positions in the Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Transit Administration, the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, and the U.S. Navy. A member of the FHWA Senior Executive Service since 1991, she was designated in October 1998 as one of five core business unit leaders for FHWA.
Nick Nigro is a Solutions Fellow at the Pew Center.
On February 24 and 25, 2011, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and the Georgetown Climate Center hosted a workshop on how state and federal governments can work together to chart a new path forward in climate and energy policy. A series of panels and keynote speakers addressed a wide range of issues, including the outlook for federal regulatory and legislative action, and updates on state and regional climate initiatives, state and federal adaptation efforts, and opportunities in the emerging clean energy economy.
Full-length videos of the speakers and presentations are currently available here.
Click here to watch panel highlights from our State-Federal Workshop
The following materials were made available during the workshop:
- Climate Change 101: Understanding and Responding to Global Climate Change, Pew Center on Global Climate Change
- Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S. Transportation, Pew Center on Global Climate Change
- Politico Opinion: Barack Obama's EPA hit for what George W. Bush's EPA wanted, Eileen Claussen, President, Pew Center on Global Climate Change
- Adapting to Climate Change: A Call for Federal Leadership, Pew Center on Global Climate Change
- Climate Change Adaptation: What Federal Agencies are Doing, Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Speaker and panelist presentations can be viewed by clicking on the presenter's name below.
Thursday, February 24
Welcome: Dean William Treanor, Georgetown Law
Opening Address: Eileen Claussen, President, Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Panel 1: State of Play at EPA and the States
Moderator: Kate Zyla, Director of Research and Policy Analysis, Georgetown Climate Center
- Jared Snyder, Assistant Commissioner, Air Resources, Climate Change and Energy, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
- Doug Scott, Director, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
- Janet McCabe, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation
- Janice Adair, Special Assistant to the Director, Washington Department of Ecology
Panel 2: Federal Outlook
Moderator: Manik Roy, Vice President of Federal Government Outreach, Pew Center on Global Climate Change
- Maryam Brown,Chief Counsel, Republican Staff to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power
- McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
- Bob Simon, Democratic Staff Director, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
- Alexandra Teitz, Senior Environmental Counsel, Democratic Staff to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Keynote Speaker: Bob Perciasepe, Deputy Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Watch Bob Perciasepe's full speech on E&E TV
Panel 3: Opportunities in the Emerging Clean Energy Economy
Moderator: Rep. Jules Bailey, OR
- Mark Doms, Chief Economist, U.S. Department of Commerce
- Cathy Tripodi, Director, Energy, Indiana Economic Development Corporation
- David Littell, Commissioner, Maine Public Utilities Commission
Panel 4: Adaptation
Moderator: Vicki Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center
- Jessica Grannis, Adaptation Attorney, Harrison Institute, Georgetown Law
- Zoë Johnson, Program Manager, Climate Change Policy, Office for a Sustainable Future, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
- Cathleen Kelly, Deputy Associate Director for Climate Change Adaptation, White House Council on Environmental Quality
- Missy Stults, Adaptation Manager, ICLEI
Keynote Speaker: Peter Shumlin, Governor, State of Vermont
Friday, February 25
Keynote Speaker: Roy Kienitz, Under Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation
Panel 5: Transportation and Land Use
Moderator: Professor Peter Byrne, Georgetown Law
- James S. Simpson, Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Transportation
- Teri Newell, Director, Mountain View Corridor Project, Utah Department of Transportation
- Garth Hopkins, Chief, Office of Regional and Interagency Planning, Division of Transportation Planning, California Department of Transportation
- Steven Plotkin, Transportation Energy and Environmental Systems Analyst, Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory
David Crane, President and CEO, NRG Energy, Inc.
Eileen Claussen, President, Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Panel 6: Electricity: Transmission and Electric Vehicles
Moderator: Judi Greenwald, Vice President of Innovative Solutions, Pew Center on Global Climate Change
- John Norris, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Jason Bordoff, Associate Director for Climate Change, White House Council on Environmental Quality
- James Ellis, Senior Manager for Transportation and Infrastructure, Tennessee Valley Authority
- David Boyd, Chair, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
Keynote speaker: Robert Inglis, Former U.S. Representative (R-SC)
Closing: Judi Greenwald, Vice President of Innovative Solutions, Pew Center on Global Climate Change