Whipping the Climate Change Bill

“Hopefully final passage will look better than the rule which passed 217-205 with 217 Democrats voting for it, 30 Dems voting against it and all 175 Republicans present voting against it.”
.
JNS, are you cheerleading or reporting?
.
Also, did the CBO take into consideration the fact that this cap and trade bill will necessarily harm the economy by making things more expensive to make here in America?

I say hopefully because I want to get out of here at a decent hour today! My worst case scenario is along the Medicare Part D lines: where they call the vote at 4pm but it doesn’t happen till midnight and the vote stays open for three hours making so much news I’m forced to pull an allnighter to write the story.
JNS

That reason is not exactly evident from the post. Moreover, the language implies that you want the vote totals to look better (i.e., more GOP Congressmen to vote for it). Finally, perhaps, just perhaps, in some of the Swampland coverage, the effects of “cap and trade” can find some daylight. You know, on the campaign trail, Barack Obama specifically stated that “energy prices would skyrocket”. What that would do, Ms. Newton-Small, is obvious to anyone with half a brain. When you increase the price of an input (and energy is an input to manufacturing things), you increase the price of the output (and this is to say nothing of the regressive effect of cap and trade on ordinary consumers of energy). This will hurt our manufacturing sector and the economy. What it will also do is simply incentivize further outsourcing of manufacturing to countries that don’t tax carbon output.
.
So perhaps, just perhaps, Barack’s quote should be mentioned in a post, or is that too impolite. After all, we don’t want to offend him.

Interesting coverage. So far, here’s what we can infer about the bill:
.
Section I: Cap something at some level.
.
Section 2: Trade something related in some manner to the thing(s) capped pursuant to Section 1.
.
Section 3: There are billions of dollars involved, both incoming and outgoing, for years to come.

We can also enjoy a civics lesson about House procedure, and be reassured that our national reporters can count.

Thanks.

spob: I have updates to better reflect my intent. As for the cost of hte bill, the CBO and factcheck.org would disagree with you…

FlownOver: That is why I linked to all kinds of fun things for you to explore. And I’m pretty clear in my story what the basics are in the bill. And coming this weekend look for our environment writer Bryan Walsh to write a dissection of what the bill will and won’t do — that’s his area of specialty. Congress is mine.
JNS

JNS – The first link (ACES Clean Energy Plan) was definitely a Fun Thing for Me to Explore. I don’t know how honest all of the info is, but . . . it did have cute little diagrams and cartoons.
.
On the other hand, there were some reasonable arguments, and it’s nice to finally see some movement on climate change . . . other than Glenn Beck explaining how CO2 is good for us because we breath it. Maybe Glenn will try ONLY breathing CO2 . . . fingers crossed!

.
OT, from Climate Change (But NOT OT from Congress):
.
Thanks, SZ.
.

These are the members of the HELP Committee to CALL today since they’re having their markup.
.
Tom Harkin (IA): (202) 224-3254
Barbara A. Mikulski (MD): (202) 224-4654
Jeff Bingaman (NM): (202) 224-5521
Patty Murray (WA: (202) 224-2621
Jack Reed (RI): (202) 224-4642
Bernard Sanders (I) (VT): (202) 224-5141
Sherrod Brown (OH): (202) 224-2315
Robert P. Casey, Jr. (PA): (202) 224-6324
Kay Hagan (NC): (202) 224-6342
Jeff Merkley (OR): (202) 224-3753
.
My Senator, Sherrod Brown, was experiencing a high volume of calls and I was referred to the state offices at (888) 896-6446, (option 2), Columbus.
.
ITTDGY: Public Health Care Option! Don’t let the DINOs get you down! (I already knew Sherrod Brown was a strong proponent of the public option.) Oh by the way, I supported Senator Brown in the 2006 election, and I even donated to him, and you have me on your snail mail list, too.
.
Staffer: Thank you for calling, Senator Brown is a strong proponent of the public option.
.
ITTDGY: I know, but I can’t call DiFi (for instance), I don’t live in her state, and I’ve never supported her for anything.
.
Staffer: (laughing) We’ll pass your message onto the Senator. Thanks again for calling, and what’s your zip code?
.
ITTDGY: zipcode.
~

I wouldn’t use this bill for toilet paper. If you are holding out hope that this crappy bill will save us…let’s just say that you might want to unload any beach-front property in Florida while it still has value.

J N-S:

Apologies. I had given up scrolling through your first attachment after the first dozen pages (the sales brochure), before I got to the substance of the bill description (the owner’s manual.) Also, you may have intended to link to your webstory, but I don’t find the link – hence, I don’t find the story or your summary of “what the basics are in the bill.”
.
Finally, Is covering Congress not first and foremost about the output? It’s the job of Congress to make actual laws, and I’d think that the laws themselves would have greater news value than the personalities or the process arcana. The egos and the parliamentary shenanigans affect my life only indirectly, as they affect what does and doesn’t become law. It’s tough for an informed citizenry to express its collective opinion if we get reports of what a bill does only after it’s been adopted by one of the bodies.

FlownOver: Sorry the link to my story didn’t work, I fixed it. As for covering Congress — yes, it is about the output. But keep in mind this bill is an opening offer in a process that is all about the politics. The time when I really focus on what a bill will do is on final passage when this really means something and the negotiations have teeth. Everything else up until the final conference report is practice and kabuki theater. JNS

Th’ process, this time, be about ball-less Democrats an’ bought an’ paid-fer Democrats not ‘avin’ th’ fortitude t’ be doin’ th’ ri’ thing even though they be havin’ th’ majority an’ th’ procedural mechanisms t’ be passin’ pret’ much whatever they be wantin’ to.
.
Why I still be holdin’ out hope regardin’ health care reform be beyond logic – I be drinkin’ Stuart’s kool aid, I be supposin’, an’ hopin’ th’ sugar be real.
.
Arrgh.

.
JNS, doesn’t the kabuki theater affect what eventually gets voted on? It’s too late to change the climate change bill now.
.
That’s why it’s important to let the public know about the real action: when a bill is being marked up, and what happens to it during conference committee.
.
The health care bill is in a critical phase now…if it gets negotiated down before it goes to conference committee, then there’s that much smaller a chance that something worthwhile comes out. Again.
~

ifthethunderdontgetya: I don’t think it’s too late at all to change the global warming bill. Indeed, it will go through massive changes in the Senate: six committees of jurisdiction not to mention floor action and the conference with the House. Too late in the House, maybe, but the final product is far from clear.
JNS

First of all, JNS, what do you mean by “look better”.

Second of all, I still think BO’s “skyrocket” assessment should be part of the coverage. Third of all, if you’re going to make CO2 emissions a commodity with a goal of meaningfully reducing CO2 emissions, it’s the reduction of emissions that is going to cost business money. How anyone thinks that this will not exert (a) upward pressure on the prices of things made by intensive users of energy and (b) lead to more outsourcing of energy-intensive operations is smoking crack.

Let’s see:
.
Sea level rise, 140 meters (440 ft).
.
Higher prices.
.
Sea level rise, 140 meters (440 ft).
.
Higher prices.
.
…

53_3, and you “know” this will happen how?

spob:
1) I mean look better because if they don’t let their freshmen go and get a few GOP votes this won’t pass on final vote. That tally was a bad omen for a very late night.
2) re: skyrocket, see the context in which Obama said that: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/11/mike-pence/pence-claims-obama-said-energy-costs-will-skyrocke/
3) That’s why that GAVE away more than $600 billion worth of creidts — to avoid massive price increases. They could’ve auctioned those off and given the money back but, theoretically, this way avoids the cost hikes at the outset. As for outsourcing, is it just me or doesn’t the rest of the world already regulate carbon under the Kyoto Protocol?
JNS

Fifty,
Seeing as how I live in the Midwest, I’m not so concerned about sea level . . . I’m more concerned that in a few years Illinois’s climate is going to be like Mississippis. If I wanted to sweat 11 months of the year, I’d move south. Plus there’s the whole “farm land disappearing” thing . . . I like food, too.
.
So yeah, I’ll pay more for energy, if it means we’re getting on top of our environmental policy.

Well, “look better” still reads as if you’re cheerleading for a particular result, i.e., passage.
.
With respect to Obama’s statement, if the whole idea it to reduce CO2/GHG emissions, then the issue is the cost required to get from X level of emissions to X minus Y levels of emissions. What a cap and trade does is allow for flexibility of methods for achieving the desired level of reduction. Thus, if one industry can reduce emissions more than the targeted amount, another emitter can buy that credit if it’s cheaper for that emitter to purchase the credit than reduce its own emissions. But if hypothetical least cost for reducing GHG emissions is X, cap and trade is NOT going to reduce costs below X. As for the $600BB in credits, that will simply make the carbon credits more expensive. And if we’re going to have “meaningful” (and I put meaningful in quotes because it is far from clear that reducing GHGs in the US will have any effect on the climate) reductions, there are going to be significant costs, both actual and hidden. How this is not obvious to even the most casual observer is beyond me. And if there are not going to be costs, then the reductions simply aren’t meaningful, and in that case, what are they doing?
.
Additionally, Obama’s statement is germane. The issue is not whether it can be explained away, but whether the explaining away can be taken at face value. One can easily look at Obama’s statement as a truthful moment–shouldn’t your readers be allowed to make that choice. I am a pretty bright guy, and I cannot see how we can reduce GHGs meaningfully without serious costs to the American economy–in my view, Obama just slipped and told the truth. Perhaps he didn’t, and perhaps cap and trade will not impose significant costs, but it seems to me that you are making that judgment. Shouldn’t readers be making it instead.
.
“As for outsourcing, is it just me or doesn’t the rest of the world already regulate carbon under the Kyoto Protocol?”
.
I won’t pick on that too much, other than to say that you’re misinformed. China and India, to name two, have no significant limitations on their carbon emissions.

So, JNS, is outsourcing an issue? And if it is, shouldn’t you be pointing it out?

53_3, and you “know” this will happen how?
.
If climate change didn’t piss me off so much, I would be fascinated by the deniers.
.
Spob, humor me. The theory is pretty straight forward. Please explain which step you have a problem with:
.
1. If you continually burn fossil fuels to generate power, you WILL increase the percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
.
2. If you significantly raise the percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere you WILL raise average global temperatures, starting at the poles.
.
3. If you do raise average global temperatures, particularly at the poles, you WILL melt glaciers and polar ice caps.
.
4. If you do melt polar ice caps and glaciers, the sea levels WILL rise.
.
Again, which of the above steps do you have problems with scientists knowing?

first of all, square1, i totally agree (and have said so before) that all things being equal, CO2, CH4 exert upward pressure on global temps. But that’s not what I was getting at. 53_3 made some specific claims about sea-level rise that presumably this bill if passed will reduce or eliminate. How did he get there? Moreover, what if the Earth were otherwise going to cool absent GHGs? Finally, how do we know that anything we do here in the US is going to make a bit of difference? Other nations may soak up our reductions.
.
And fine, why aren’t we building nuke plants?

As for costs, here’s what the Heritage Foundation has to say:
.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/tst062609a.cfm
.
Does anyone think that cap and trade won’t impose substantial costs?

JNS, here’s what Barack had to say the other day:
.
“At a time of great fiscal challenges, this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air we breathe.”

Who are the “polluters”? Manufacturers, oil companies etc. Ya think that they;re not gonna pass along costs or outsource where possible? Ya think that’s not gonna impact the economy?

For example, in the year 2030, the “reasonable” costs of the carbon program calculated by the Heritage Foundation would be $338bln. While their high cost projection of $88/ton for the cost of carbon doesn’t include offsets or other provisions that would lower the carbon price, the real trick here is estimating that our GDP growth would actually decline by $436bln for that year. This truly remarkable bit of hocus pocus implies that not only do the revenues evaporate into thin air with respect to our energy productivity, but that they are able to convince an additional hundred billion dollars to disappear from the economy with them

.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/astevenson/the_heritage_foundations_clima.html

i ask again: Does anyone think that cap and trade won’t impose substantial costs?

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/a_heritage_of_shame.html
.

The Heritage Foundation has made itself a predictable source for economic nay-saying on climate and energy issues, with a history of missing the mark on the basics of climate and energy economics. This latest analysis is unfortunately no exception. The usual tricks are all here. Any GDP and income growth predicted by their own model, a ubiquitous result of all major climate economic models-including their analysis last year of the Lieberman-Warner Bill, is concealed. There are no costs of inaction. And aside from the cap on emissions, virtually none of the bill is modeled: 1) the allowance value disappears instead of being spent on consumer relief, clean energy, adaptation, and other measures; 2) no cost containment provisions such as banking, the strategic reserve, and offsets are included; and 3) no complementary policies promoting energy efficiency and clean energy are allowed. And so, the usual results are also here: predicted prices are drastically higher than those found in widely-respected and peer-reviewed analyses done by government agencies and universities, forcing extreme differences in results.

once again, Cliff, do you really think that massive reduction in GHGs is not going to impose substantial costs on the American people and economy?

On that basis, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion—or about $175 per household. That figure includes the cost of restructuring the production and use of energy and of payments made to foreign entities under the program, but it does not include the economic benefits and other
benefits of the reduction in GHG emissions and the associated slowing of climate change. CBO could not determine the incidence of certain pieces (including both costs and benefits) that represent, on net, about 8 percent of the total. For the remaining portion of the net cost, households in the lowest income quintile would
see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020, while households in the highest income quintile would see a net cost of $245. Added costs for households in the second lowest quintile would be about $40 that year; in the middle quintile, about $235; and in the fourth quintile, about $340. Overall net costs would average 0.2
percent of households’ after-tax income.

.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10327/06-19-CapAndTradeCosts.pdf

Ok, Cliff, I got a bridge to sell you. If $22BB is all that it takes to reduce GHGs enough to make a difference in GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, then what was all the fuss about? Do you really think that we can force American carbon emitters to chop GHGs by a significant amount for $22BB per year?
.
I don’t do drugs, but man, oh man, would I like to have whatever you’re smoking, snorting, popping or shooting.

It’s a normal state of affairs for debaters to pick out the best possible scenario for their position and contrast it with the worst possible one for their opponents. Relative probabilities, accuracy, etc. generally has no place in this process, and in fact the various choices may vary considerably from specific argument to specific argument, depending on which possible scenario gives the most preferred outcome. If that’s not sufficient, then the next step is often deliberate mis-statement of facts, misinterpretation of evidence and bald-faced lies, both of omission and of commission. I have read enough of the product of the Heritage Foundation over the years to have formed the conclusion that their arguments are built on ideological rather than factual bases, and in most, if not all, cases appear to have begun with the conclusion and worked backwards.
I’m not surprised that spob uses them as support for his argument.

Well, mrtoads, I’ll ask you–do you really think that we can impose substantial reductions in GHG emissions by American polluters without substantial costs to our economy?

spongy –
.
Go f yerself!
.
arrgh!

An’ why be th’ one t’ always have t’ be sayin’ it t’ th’ scabbrous troll? Not tha’ I don’t be enjoyin’ i’, mind ye, bu’ someone else should be steppin’ up a’ times…whar’s me first mate!
.
Arrgh!

And let’s not forget how all this started . . . . Obama said during the campaign trail that regulating GHGs was going to cause energy prices to skyrocket. So now, when the rubber is actually going to meet the road, somehow, someway, the geniuses in Congress have figured out how to take away all the costs? And journalists buy this?
.
That’s why Obama’s comment is germane, and JNS is incorrect to suggest otherwise.

ah, there’s the lubber again–who thinks a “dingy” is a boat. How do you pronounce “quay” or “leeward”, lubber?
.
Hope you remembered to tell our boys in the fleet about your issues–no need to be spreading diseases, scurvy wench.

OAKLAND, Calif. — California’s energy-efficiency policies created nearly 1.5 million jobs from 1977 to 2007, while eliminating fewer than 25,000, according to a study to be released Monday.
.
The study, conducted by David Roland-Holst, an economist at the Center for Energy, Resources and Economic Sustainability at the University of California, Berkeley, found that while the state’s policies lowered employee compensation in the electric power industry by an estimated $1.6 billion over that period, it improved compensation in the state over all by $44.6 billion.
.
Built into that figure were increases of $1.2 billion in the light industrial sector, $11.2 billion in wholesale and retail trade, $7.3 billion in the financial and insurance sectors and $17.8 billion in the service sector.

.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/business/20green.html?_r=1

The Heritage Foundation, a once proud bastion of conservative thought, is now resorting to absurd historical revisionism and mentions of “Nazi Germany” to attack needed progressive policies.

.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/10/28/heritage-new-deal/

Isn’t a dingy a boat? Or is this another “there’s no such thing as Austrian” deal . . .

vw, it’s dinghy . . . .
.
yeah, Cliff, CA’s economy is to be emulated. The bottom line is that you are going to impose costs for reducing CO2 and other GHGs. You know it, and on the campaign trail St. Obama knew it.

The bottom line is that you are going to impose costs for reducing CO2 and other GHGs.
.
So what.

spob . . . you’re dinghy.
.
Sorry, spob, you put it out there. I couldn’t help it. Have a good weekend all!

The bottom line is that you are going to impose costs for reducing CO2 and other GHGs.
.
Parting shot: you’re also going to impose costs by spending a trillion dollars in Iraq. Now which is a more cost-effective way to spend money: retrofitting ageing and polluting companies on our shores with energy efficient and clean materials produced on our shores, or killing Iraqis?
.
Just thought I’d throw that out there . . .

Well, Cliff, you may not care, but if costs are imposed, then they will be passed along to consumers of the products/services of GHG emitters. Moreover, it will make us less competitive with overseas manufacturers without the same costs. Obama, on the campaign trail, noted that energy costs would skyrocket. Maybe the Spanish lesson changed his mind (of course, Spain has been severely hurt by its GHG policies), but are we really to believe that the Sainted One was mistaken then and correct now? That somehow the House has figured out how to make meaningful GHG reduction relatively painless?
.
Forgive me my skepticism.

Well, mrtoads, I’ll ask you–do you really think that we can impose substantial reductions in GHG emissions by American polluters without substantial costs to our economy?
.
Spob, you are asking the wrong question. The right questions are “What will cost more? Substantially reducing GHG emissions or not substantially reducing GHG emissions (with the accompanying climatological changes)?”
.
If an extinction-level asteroid were hurtling towards Earth and someone asked “Do you know what it will cost to deflect/destroy that thing?” we would all scratch our heads at the idiocy of the question. When the alternative is extinction, no price is too high.
.
Amazingly enough, even though we are faced with a civilization-threatening problem, Republicans have no shame about asking similarly absurd questions.
.
Will it cost a lot to contain carbon emissions? Compared to what? Building levees up and down the East and West Coasts? Completely altering our farming system? Relocating millions, if not billions, of people worldwide away from the current coastlines? Repeated Katrinas? Disease epidemics? Compared to all that, no, I doubt curbing carbon emissions will be significantly costly.

vw, apples and oranges.
.
It would be great if we didn;t have to have a military. But we do, and that does have an impact on the economy. Moreover, I’d say that relative freedom for millions of Iraqis does kind of offset the costs.
.
And vw, look to Spain . . . . ha ha ha ha./

Well, Cliff, you may not care, but if costs are imposed, then they will be passed along to consumers of the products/services of GHG emitters.
.

On that basis, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion—or about $175 per household.

Aldasoro explains the actual history of green job creation in Navarre:

– 1994: Unemployment at 12.8%, first wind farm erected.

– 1998: Unemployment at 10%, 100 installed megawatts of wind power.

– 2001: Unemployment at 6.8%, two R&D and worker-training centers are opened.
– 2007: Unemployment of 4.76%, total of 100 new renewable-energy companies created, representing 5% of total GDP.

.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/05/04/heritage-promotes-completely-untrue-attack-on-green-jobs/

square1, that’s certainly a fair observation–of course, it’s far from clear that anything we do is going to have more than a neglible effect on the climate, and it’s far from clear that AGW is going to happen even if we do nothing.
.
But my point is a simple one–information. Yes, if you believe with certainty that AGW really is as dire a problem as you think it is, then questions such as those I raise ARE not just silly, but f’in nuts. But the outcome is far from certain, and it’s far from certain that even if the outcome were certain that we could do anything to change it. Therefore, it’s certainly fair to ask about the costs, and JNS’s dodge on Obama’s campaign truthfulness is pathetic (although not as bad as her “is it just me”?). The bottom line is that Obama himself said that costs were going to skyrocket. Now maybe his mind has changed–but he should explain why–the press shouldn;t cover for him because the CBO puts out some fantasyland numbers.

Cliff, Spain has serious problems as a result of its green jobs fantasy. Deny that if you like, but you clown yourself.

Prove it.

sgwhite may be interested in this:
.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_JENA_SIX?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US
.
They admitted that Barker said nothing to provoke the attack. So, if he didn’t say anything to provoke the attack, why was he attacked? I assume that all the civil rights people will be asking for a federal hate crimes prosecution . . . .

“Why do we allow the US to act like a failed state on climate change?”
~
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jun/26/us-obama-climate-monbiot

http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

But you know what, Cliff, I don’t have to prove it. Obama doesn’t yap about Spain anymore–which certainly shows that it isn;t a rosy picture in my fave European country.

But you know what, Cliff, I don’t have to prove it.
.
And yet here you sit with absolutely no credibility in this forum.
.
Bizarre.

not bizarre, Cliff, read the rest of my post–if Spain were really such a success story, why did BHO drop it like a hot potato.

And Cliff, you can read this:
.

http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

Then you have your numbers and I have mine. I’ll be sticking with mine.

well, Cliff, certainly then, Obama’s dropping of the Spanish example like a hot potato is something that the press should mention,

spongebob, Calzada’s “study” has been widely disputed. Even the Wall Street Journal dismissed it as just another opinion piece from a European libertarian thinkthank than a serious study, writing “the study doesn’t actually identify those jobs allegedly destroyed by renewable-energy spending.”

Moreover, Spain’s secretary of state for climate change, wrote that Calzada’s analysis used a “low reliable and non rigorous methodology” and that the data he used are “totally out of keeping with the current reality of the sector.”

She also wrote:
“In Spain, according to the last data of the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade the [renewable energy] sector employs 73.900 direct workers, while other report by ISTAS-CCOO (labour union institute of work, environment and health) estimates 89000 direct jobs plus 99681 indirect jobs, against de 52200 direct and indirect jobs to the Calzada’s figures (unknown source). According to data of the Ministry of Industy, Tourism and Trade and of the wind power business association, the wind power employed 37730 people instead of the 15000 jobs considered in the Calzada’s paper.”

Better luck next time, spongebob. Use reliable studies to make your point, not easily discredited ones as this “study”.

I’ll add, also, that spongebob, having been thoroughly pwned in the arena of climate science, instead resorted to put words in my mouth a while back.
.
The implication that he alluded to, namely, that just the passage of this bill would affect sealevel are his rhetoric alone and have nothing to do with what I think.
.
My point is that every effort, including this bill, is necessary to avoid the 140m sea level rise.
.
vw:
.
I think you are right about not worrying about any epieric seas encroaching like the Western Interior Seaway did 85 Mya.
.
However, encroachment would occur on most of the world’s currently arable land. What’s not known is how other arable land might come into play with changes is climate and significantly increased worldwide evapotranspiration.
.
Of course, spob is only concerned about what we hand our grandchildren when it concerns GOP issues. Far, far beyond any debt we hand our children would be a nearly irreversible oceanic transgression – with all the attendant problems. Four hundred forty feet is an enormous transgression, and such changes have been known to occur extremely fast, less than 1,000 years in some cases.
.
But, spob is not only inverted on civil rights, he’s a hypocrite when it comes to real issues.