(As a neolib backed by the world's largest corporations, there's
absolutely no chance that Obama will deviate from a capital accumulation
trajectory premised on addiction to fossil fuels. No chance. Having said
that, the question that any CJ activist would pose in this context, is,
"What should we demand that will help radicalize the discourse and open
new doors to eco-social change?" For an answer, I'd never turn to the
yuppie-green folk at Grist, since they don't know the meaning of
justice, do they. Nevertheless, why not look at this column by David
Roberts - the /most /market-oriented of the lot - for an idea about
what's considered acceptable inside-the-box thinking about top-down
executive (non-congressional) reform. I learned from this... but are
those of you in the US thinking much more about radical demands such as
halting Keystone XL and other movement-driven strategies? My comment way
below was mainly aimed at the cap&trade hooliganism for which Roberts is
notorious, but there are way more ideas that CJ strategists could
contribute to the Comments section if you're so inclined.)
http://grist.org/politics/from-obamas-speech-four-ambitious-climate-and-energy-proposals/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter
From Obama's speech, four ambitious climate and energy proposals
By David Roberts <http://grist.org/author/david-roberts/>
Last night's State of the Union was considerably better than I expected,
in substance and in tone, mainly because my expectations for these
things are extremely low. It was a policy laundry list, but not just a
list --- Obama had his dander up. By the end, after the chants of "they
deserve a vote," it was downright rousing.
(By the way, that bit on gun safety legislation
<http://blog.reidreport.com/2013/02/this-is-what-people-will-remember-from-obamas-2013-state-of-the-union-address/>?
That's what it looks like when Obama is personally, viscerally invested
an issue.)
The most surprising thing in the speech, at least to us cap-and-trade
obsessives, was this line:
I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution
to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked
on together a few years ago.
Never in a million years did I think Obama would reference
cap-and-trade, much less /endorse/ it. I would have (er, did
<https://twitter.com/drgrist/status/301511374297759744>) bet money
against it. But I'm happy to be wrong. It makes no difference at all in
the grand scheme of things, but it tickles me to no end.
Anyway, on climate and energy, what we heard was an evolution of the
same basic policy Obama has been pushing for years: *reduce fossil fuel
consumption and increase fossil fuel production. *
Whatever you think of that dual policy --- a politically savvy
compromise, an untenable hypocrisy, a little of both --- what we heard
last night was simply a sharper, more ambitious version of it. It will
be Obama's climate and energy legacy, for better or worse.
On the "use less fossil fuels" front, there were three bold and
interesting proposals (which has to be some kind of record for a SOTU):
*1. Use executive power.*
He said:
... if Congress won't act soon to protect future generations, I
will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we
can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our
communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the
transition to more sustainable sources of energy.
This is pretty vague and could mean all sorts of things. But I wrote a
post the other day about all the things Obama could do with executive
authority
<http://grist.org/climate-energy/never-mind-the-state-of-the-union-heres-what-obama-can-actually-do-on-climate/>
and it's a pretty substantial list. If he follows on this in a
meaningful way --- in particular, if he directs EPA to develop ambitious
carbon standards for existing power plants
<http://grist.org/climate-energy/obama-can-tackle-carbon-and-doesnt-need-congress/>
--- he could take a serious bite out of carbon emissions.
And it's the executive stuff he can do on his own. For everything else,
he needs Congress.
*2. Create an Energy Security Trust.*
According to the blueprint
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/sotu_2013_blueprint_embargo.pdf>
[PDF] released by the White House, the Energy Security Trust would be
"funded by revenue from oil and gas development on federal lands and
offshore" and "is focused around one achievable goal: shifting our cars
and trucks off oil." Sweet!
The EST proposal has been floating around since 2007
<http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr3416>. It's a great idea,
but let's face it, it's basically a carbon tax, which makes passage
through this Congress ... challenging.
*3. Double energy productivity by 2030.*
This idea is taken straight from a piece of work I mentioned the other
day
<http://grist.org/climate-energy/never-mind-the-state-of-the-union-heres-what-obama-can-actually-do-on-climate/>:
the Energy 2030
<http://ase.org/news/diverse-commission-unveils-plan-double-us-energy-productivity>
report from the Alliance Commission on National Energy Efficiency
Policy. The White House blueprint explains it in somewhat more detail:
The President is laying out a bold but achievable goal to slash
energy waste through increased efficiency. Modeled after a
successful Administration approach in education reform, which was
designed to promote forward-leaning policy adoption at the state
level, the President's Budget will include Race to the Top awards.
These awards will support state governments that implement effective
policies that increase energy efficiency and help decrease waste.
Not only will increased efficiency save consumers money, the
resulting reforms will drive investments that enhance manufacturing
competitiveness, improve grid resiliency, and cut carbon pollution.
I'm a big fan of this idea, though of course the devil's in the details.
Rather than prescribing how to increase efficiency, it allows states to
experiment and innovate; it rewards them for /performance/, not process
or policy specifics.
If it worked --- if U.S. energy productivity doubled --- the wonks over
at the Rhodium Group estimate
<http://rhg.com/reports/american-energy-productivity> that it would
reduce U.S. carbon emissions by /33 percent/. That's a big f'ing deal,
as Joe Biden would say.
But of course this program requires money, and Congress holds the purse
strings, and Congress is awful.
*Bonus 4. Make the renewable energy Production Tax Credit refundable and
permanent.*
This wasn't in the speech but it's in the blueprint.
One problem with the existing Production Tax Credit is that it's
nonrefundable, which means it can't reduce the tax liability of a clean
energy company below zero. In other words, companies can only take
advantage of it if they're already profitable, with substantial tax
liability. Smaller start-ups, many of which are /not/ yet profitable,
get nothing from it. Making the credit refundable is equivalent to
making it a cash grant, which means any company, even the small, scrappy
ones, can benefit from it. Much less money goes to tax lawyers and
tax-equity investors, which means more goes to innovation and deployment.
According to a report
<http://bipartisanpolicy.org/news/press-releases/2011/03/bpc-study-finds-opportunity-more-efficient-federal-renewable-energy-ince>
from the Bipartisan Policy Center, cash grants are fully twice as
effective as tax credits. And for another great explanation of why
refundable credits are better for both taxpayers and the climate, see
this report
<http://climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Supporting-Renewables-while-Saving-Taxpayers-Money.pdf>
[PDF] from the Climate Policy Initiative.
This is a great idea, but it would have to be accomplished by Congress
during tax reform, and Congress is ... but I repeat myself.
------
Anyway, as I said, most of this is happy talk that will go nowhere in
Congress. The thing to watch is executive actions like EPA standards.
Those are where Obama has some power and discretion; how he uses them
will reveal how serious he really is about protecting future generations.
***
COMMENTS
Patrick Bond
<http://grist.org/politics/from-obamas-speech-four-ambitious-climate-and-energy-proposals/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter#>
. 41 minutes ago
<http://grist.org/politics/from-obamas-speech-four-ambitious-climate-and-energy-proposals/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter#comment-797998035>
Please add another contradiction: Obama endorses cap&trade precisely
when the main market - in Europe - has crashed to record lows, nearly
90% down from peak carbon price; as environmental racism underpins the
brand new California market (according to Communities for a Better
Environment - http://www.crpe-ej.org/crpe/in...
<http://www.crpe-ej.org/crpe/index.php/component/content/article/253%29;> and
as all manner of corruptions continue to emerge in emissions trade and
offset schemes. For an 8 minute explanation of why his promise to
resurrect Waxman/Markey/Kerry/Lieberman legislation is an awful idea,
see http://www.storyofcapandtrade....
<http://www.storyofcapandtrade.org> - and then urgently press Obama turn
away from Congress to stronger executive regulations via the Clean Air
Act and Clean Water Act. And please add 'justice' to climate advocacy,
already. Otherwise, thanks for helpful reporting on all those direct
regulatory alternatives to giving financial markets yet more power to
plunder the planet by privatizing the air!
***
Kevin at ArchitectureWeek
<http://grist.org/politics/from-obamas-speech-four-ambitious-climate-and-energy-proposals/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter#>
. 2 hours ago
<http://grist.org/politics/from-obamas-speech-four-ambitious-climate-and-energy-proposals/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter#comment-797905894>
"Reduce fossil fuel consumption and increase fossil fuel production."
What a great summary of the two-headed climate policy monster. I feel it
is well-intentioned, but founded in fundamental misconceptions of what
the situation requires, which is more like:
"Reduce fossil fuel consumption and reduce fossil fuel production."
Even the establishment International Energy Agency has reported that a
large part of the already-proven fossil fuel reserves have to be left in
the ground, if we are to save the climate at any survivable level.
Just for instance:
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
<http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/30/491970/international-energy-agency-finds-safe-gas-fracking-would-destroy-a-livable-climate/>
Given the GHG pollution timeline, we will either change
business-as-usual during this administration, or it will very likely be
too late.
So how do we help Obama and his team move past "all of the above"on
energy, to an actually functional climate mitigation approach?
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
