Their message was loud and clear.

If ACES is to pass, they need our help.  In their words, a “hurricane” of activism is needed in the next two weeks.  TWO WEEKS, people.

If you have ever felt like your politicians don’t listen…

If you feel like the world’s problems are too many and too huge…

If you have ever felt like there was nothing you could do to make a difference…

Now is your chance. They asked for your help.  And over the next two weeks, Congress will be listening.  Please make your voices heard.  It only takes five minutes.

We’ve compiled a list of automatically generated letters to Congress.  In most cases, you fill in your contact information, and the source site will send your letter to the correct representative.  You can edit the letters, or just send them as is.

If you know of a letter that is not listed, please post in the comments and we will add it to the list.  Check back regularly to send letters to Congress via our most recent additions!  New letters will be added in the order received, so you can just pick up where you left off.

Use the button at the bottom of the post to share this with everyone you know.  It’s time to be heard.

Don’t put this off.  Don’t navigate away.  Don’t save this for later.

We only have two weeks.

American Clean Energy and Security Act Letters

1Sky Representative Letter

1Sky Letter to Speaker Pelosi

Audubon Action Center Letter to Congress

Endangered Species Coalition Letter to Congress

Environmental Defense Action Fund Letter to Congress

Green For All Letter on Green Jobs

League of Conservation Voters Letter to Congress

National Wildlife Federation Letter to Congress

National Wildlife Federation Care2 Petition

Power Shift 09 Letter to President Obama and Congress

Progressive Secretary.org to Executive and Congress

Save Our Environment.org Letter to Congress

Union of Concerned Scientists Care2 Petition

The Wilderness Society Letter to Congress

None of these letters quite what you wanted to say?  Write your own letter and send it to your Representative.

We did a brief summary of our likes and dislikes of the original draft discussion bill.  That was a long time ago in legislative terms!  But today, no normative statements – just some highlights from the summary of the bill.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act:

• Requires retail electric companies to source a percentage of their load from renewable sources, beginning at 6% in 2012 and gradually rising to 20% in 2020.  A portion of this requirement may be met with efficiency savings.
• Provides incentive programs for smaller renewable projects, such as rooftop solar, which are built into the electricity credit system.
• Includes a bunch of stuff on carbon capture and sequestration – since there is currently not a deployable technology, most of this section is geared towards figuring out how to make CCS deployable.  Investigation of state geological protections, creation of an incentive program for commercially deployable CCS, etc.
• Establishes technology standards for coal power plants built after 2020.
• Provides incentives for large-scale electric transportation programs, development of electric vehicles, development of and integration with smart-grid infrastructure.
• Provides incentives for a variety of energy efficiency projects across various sectors.
• Addresses adaptation measures.
• Outlines tons of funding for research.

As far as the climate change/emissions section, we are looking at a cap and trade system that allows offsets.  Distribution will be by both allocation and auction, with a decreasing % of allowances allocated each year.  Reduction targets are from 2005 levels – 97% by 2012, 80% by 2020, 58% by 2030, and 17% by 2020.

The bill also includes an impressive worker adjustment assistance section, with substantial support for workers displaced as a result of the new energy policy and provisions protecting low-income families. 

All in all, not bad.  It’s long, it’s comprehensive, and I’m sure Congress will have lots to fight about.  But isn’t that what Congress does best?

I must disclaim by saying I did not (and probably will not) read the full text of the bill.  It is over 600 pages long, I am preparing for a cross-country move, and I have a day job.  It’s just not likely to happen.  That being said, here is a brief overview of my thoughts on the bill.

Things We Like:

• Aggressive emissions reductions targets – more aggressive, in fact, than President Obama’s.  20% from 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% by 2050
• Smart grid for electricity.  A smart grid would lay the groundwork for so many important developments, including electric cars and increased utility of residential renewable energy sources.
• Green jobs and worker
• It’s a draft bill!  It’s movement!  We’re thrilled!

Things We Don’t Like:

• This bill leaves many questions unanswered.  How will allowances be distributed?  How will revenue generated from the sale of carbon permits be used?
• Free permits to carbon-intensive industries.  While I understand that steps must be taken to cushion carbon-intensive industries from the cost impact of climate change, I don’t know that this is the way.  However, it will make the bill more politically salable, which is important.
• $10 billion for carbon capture and storage.  Wouldn’t it be better if we just produced renewable energy?  I worry that pouring money into CCS technology might encourage the construction of new coal power plants, especially in developing countries.  I think this is a step in the wrong direction.  Again, politics at work here.
• Performance standards for new coal fired power plants.  Can we please not build any more of these?

Things To Note:

• Offsets – this bill provides for them.  There are limits on how many companies may use as well as a scientific advisory board to monitor offset quality.
• Unlimited banking and limited borrowing allowed.
• All regions of the country would be required to source 25% of energy from renewable sources by 2025.
• The United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) has called the bill a “strong starting point” for dealing with emissions.

The Waxman-Markey bill is only a discussion draft, and clearly there is much to be done in the way of negotiating specific details, especially in the area of allowance distribution.  But it is a good start.  More to follow later on the individual sections of the bill.

The whole point of cap and trade legislation is limiting emissions.  In order to do so, Congress is discussing implementing policy that may generate significant additional expense for U.S. industries, especially carbon-intensive industries or those identified as “trade-sensitive.”  If producers pass the costs on to consumers, cap and trade policy could translate into higher priced goods, which may not be competitive in the global market, as countries with no emissions reduction policy will be able to produce goods more cheaply.

If this occurs, U.S. products will become less competitive in the global market.  This is where the issue of leakage comes into play.  People will stop buying American-made products, instead buying cheaper goods from other countries.  The resulting contraction of U.S. industry will result in loss of American jobs.  The expansion of industry in countries without emissions reduction programs will result in increased emissions in those countries.  Negative economic impact with zero environmental benefits.  Everyone loses.

Complicated stuff.  Any time you get international trade involved, things get complicated.  Just look at Doha.

On March 18^th, members the Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment met to hear from experts on the issue of leakage, and to discuss how U.S. cap and trade policy might be designed to maximize environmental benefit while minimizing negative economic impact.

As might be imagined, this hearing was similar to the last climate change hearing in that it was very technical.  However, this hearing included deep discussion about specific policy options.  The witnesses and committee members discussed types of allocation – auction versus allowances, either free or with a set price.  There was also significant discussion of border equalization measures which, if the U.S. adopts domestic legislation this year, will be an important piece of the negotiations in Copenhagen.

The panel represented the full spectrum of views on this issue.  Some felt it would be best to go to Copenhagen with a domestic climate policy in place, which would give us credibility as an international leader on this issue, as well as provide more carrots and sticks for the negotiations.  A counterargument was raised that any policy incorporating a border tax would only serve to anger the international community, developing countries in particular, and make reaching an agreement in Copenhagen more difficult.  Several witnesses felt that the issue of climate change needs to be addressed at the international level first, and the U.S. should not go into Copenhagen with domestic policy in place.  And one holdout, Dr. Margot Thorning of the American Council for Capital Formation, feels that the cost-benefit analysis of climate change policy does not justify any domestic policy at this point.  Simply put, it is too expensive with too little environmental benefit in the absence of action from China and India.

(An aside – China and India are the primary concerns in a discussion of developing countries and climate change.  Projections show that even if developed countries adopt aggressive emissions reduction policies, if China and India do not follow suit and continue at their current rate of development, total emissions will continue to rise.  Buy-in from China and India is absolutely necessary if we are to solve this issue at a global level.)

While many agreed on the issues at hand, very little consensus emerged regarding the answers.  An international agreement is absolutely necessary.  A cap on carbon, most likely implemented sectorally, is the most effective way to address this issue.  We must avoid a trade war over carbon.

But how?  Are border adjustments one more tool in our arsenal or will they cause insurmountable strife?  Is domestic legislation a virtual prerequisite for the formation of a meaningful international agreement in Copenhagen?  Will Dr. Thorning ever smile?

I believe that last is a no.  As to the rest, we will have to wait and see.

Once again, Congress has failed to differentiate between local and industrial.  I’m talking about the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), designed in the wake of the product safety scares to protect our children from lead, phthalates, and other harmful things that “oops,” accidentally end up in products when we’re not paying attention.

I know that I’m a little late on this one.  After all, this legislation was passed in 2008.  I heard about it then as the bill that was going to kill second-hand and consignment stores.  I am ashamed to say that I grieved briefly, and then resigned myself to eventually scouring Freecycle for second-hand products for my as yet unborn children.  What I didn’t realize was that it was also going to be devastating to thousands of other small businesses around the country.  I didn’t connect the dots.  And, apparently, neither did Congress.  Or they did and decided they just didn’t care.  Or it was going to be too much trouble to fix it.

Like NAIS, CPSIA places the financial burden for complying with federal standards on the producers, defined as manufacturers for CPSIA purposes.  Here is why this regulation is such a problem.  I’ll extract the really bad part:

“Anyone who makes, produces or assembles a product is considered to be a manufacturer.  If what you make is sold or donated, something as simple as adding ribbons to hair clips, knitting hats, or stringing beads into necklaces makes you a manufacturer.”

I spoke with a small business owner this afternoon regarding the impact CPSIA may have on his company in the next year.  He and his wife have developed educational adventure programs for children — the kind of business that truly benefits a community on so many levels.  They use a collection of toys and props that are assembled by their company and sold for additional revenue.  Like many small businesses, they are operating with a very small margin of profit.  Right now, the products they sell account for one third of their total business revenue.  In order to continue selling them, they will have to pay thousands of dollars per item to have their products tested and certified, in spite of the fact that they are not creating original materials, even if the materials they are using have been tested and certified.

Many small farmers across the country meet and exceed the standards for organic farming.  However, most small farmers who meet these standards are not USDA certified as organic.  Why?  Because the certification process is too expensive.  But small farmers who are unable to afford organic certification can operate without this certification.

Unlike these farmers, small business owners and craftspeople classified as manufactures of toys, clothing, and other products for children who cannot afford the testing and certification process under CPSIA will not legally be allowed to sell their products.  CPSIA has the potential to put thousands of small business owners and employees out of work at the end of the year.

Everyone loves safe food.  And I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who thinks lead in toys is a good idea.  But Congress needs to figure out how to distinguish local from industrial, and develop legislation or provide guidance to regulatory bodies accordingly.  I hope to see some movement in that direction on April 1st.

Last Friday, I checked back on the Ways & Means Committee website where, as promised, the subcommittee audio hearing was available to listen to.  Ten hours of constant interruption later, I shut down my computer, hearing untouched.  In accordance with my resolution to procrastinate anything longer than an episode of Babylon 5, I did not listen to the hearing over the weekend.  On Monday afternoon when I arrived at the office, the audio file was gone.

The staff at the subcommittee office were still very polite and prompt at responding to my inquiries.  Nonetheless, the “powers that be” have decided that, according to some rule, the audio is no longer available.

I want to know what the rule is!  I might have been able to get the audio-file with some additional pressure and name-dropping.  But I shouldn’t have to do that – this is our government and our Congress.  This hearing was publicly available (although not when scheduled and then only for one business day).  In several weeks, a full transcript will be made available.  So why exactly are they not allowed to grant access now?

I apologize for my moment of enthusiasm about government accessibility.  Relative to many other governments, ours is open and accessible.  But there is still an awful lot of red tape.

And I learned my lesson.  This week’s hearing is already recorded and awaiting my procrastinatory pleasure.

When I tuned in to listen to the hearing live on Thursday morning, the website gave me a message that the meeting was not in session.  I called the main Ways & Means Committee number (yes, anyone can do that) and was transferred around until I reached the relevant Subcommittee, where I was told that there was no such hearing today.  Discouraged by the misinformation on the website, I decided to see if I could figure out when the hearing was to be rescheduled.  After a few minutes of fruitless searching on the internet, I decided to call back and see if they knew what had happened, if and when the hearing was rescheduled, or if it was moved to another committee.  I called the office I had just spoken with directly and now, five minutes later, the same person answered and confirmed that the hearing was currently in session and that the audio would be posted the site later that day.  Yay!

We are fortunate to live in a country with a government that works this way.  Absolutely anyone can call up a congressional committee office or the local and/or federal office of a member of Congress.  In the several years I have worked in Washington DC, I have had to deal with many unhelpful, unpleasant people.  The fact is that most of them worked in the private sector.  I cannot remember a single interaction with an employee at any of the congressional offices that was not completely professional, polite, and helpful.  Even in this case, my initial call served to alert them to an issue (missing hearing footage!) that was then identified and corrected within minutes.

I think sometimes we have internal barriers with contacting the offices of our elected representatives.  The first several times I did it, I was nervous and went in with the assumption that I would have to struggle to get what I needed.  The fact is that most of employees answering the phones in our congressional members are young, enthusiastic, extremely dedicated people.  They are passionate about politics and about doing their jobs well.  Entry level congressional office jobs are hard work and don’t pay particularly well (or at all, if they are interns).

The government can seem frustrating, intimidating, and a whole host of other adjectives.  But sometimes it’s good to remember that behind “the government,” there are a bunch of people like you and I.

And the audio from the hearing is now posted on the committee website, available for any of us to listen in on some members of the government doing their jobs.

By way of background, carbon offsets allow industries in developed nations under a cap and trade system to meet their cap requirement by funding emissions reductions projects in developing countries.  This system, operating through the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), has been in effect since 2002.

The premise of CDMs specifically, as well as carbon offsets more generally, is that it is often cheaper to pay for carbon reduction projects elsewhere than it is to reduce emissions in already developed countries.  For example, there are many companies in the U.S. which allow consumers to opt into a voluntary carbon market, offsetting their estimated emissions from their home and personal vehicle.  These companies are not directly removing your personal emissions from the atmosphere.  Rather, they are putting your money towards carbon reduction projects such as reforestation and funding for alternative energy.  CDMs are like putting that little green sticker on your car, but for industries that must meet their carbon caps, rather than individual consumers.

Recently, the role of carbon offsets in a cap and trade system has been criticized by environmentalists and politicians alike due to the apparent failure of offsets in the European cap and trade system.  Indeed, in spite of the cap and trade program, scientists have not found a measurable reduction in CO2 emissions, an issue which is in part attributed to ineffectual carbon offsets.  Therefore, the potential role of carbon offsets in designing a U.S. cap and trade system is a key issue of debate for our policymakers.  There is already some debate as to whether the economic cost of fighting climate change is worth it.  The last thing we want to do is to design another expensive system that doesn’t work.

The Subcommittee put together an impressive and well-balanced collection of panelists for this hearing:

John Stephenson, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office
Gary Gero, President, Climate Action Reserve
Emily Figdor, Federal Global Warming Program Director, Environment America
Graeme Martin, Manager of Business Development, Environmental Products, Shell Energy North America
Hon. Stuart Eizenstat, on behalf of the Forest Carbon Dialogue
Michael Wara, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Stanford Law School

Thankfully, unlike the last congressional hearing on climate change covered on this blog, the three panelists agreed that the issue at hand merits the attention of Congress.  I still think it is sad that I had to be excited about that.

If there was an consensus from the hearing yesterday about the role of offsets in future climate change policy (as much as any consensus can be reached in Congress), it was that carbon offsets must be real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable and additional.

Of these, the most difficult criteria to ensure is additional.  In order to be additional, the carbon offset must ensure that emissions reductions are made that would not otherwise have been made in a business as usual (BAU) situation.  So, theoretically, one would need to show that 1) the project would not have happened without the offset funding, 2) the project does actually reduce emissions, and 3) X amount of emissions would have occurred without the project.  That is easier said than done.

Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat made a particularly salient point about additionality.  As he attended the hearing on behalf of the Forest Carbon Dialogue, his testimony was focused on the effects that deforestation has on climate change.  Eizenstat’s response to Representative Fred Upton’s (R – MI) question about additionality was not particularly short, but I thought it was sweet!  Eizenstat pointed out that the incentives to cut down forests in developing countries are so enormous that, at this point, it is a foregone conclusion that they will be cut down.  There is no question that deforestation will continue unless the incentives are shifted in some way.  Carbon offsets could be part of that way.

Ah, they say, but just because the forests in the offset-protected area are not being cut down does not mean that more land is not being deforested in other areas as a result.  According to our panelists, the key to this question (verifiability and permanence on this one too!) is combining our satellite technology with a system of national baselines for forest coverage.  We have the technology in place to monitor deforestation on a global level.  Maybe it could be as useful for fighting climate change as it is for goofing off on Google Earth while we’re at our day jobs!

For the most part, this was a fascinating hearing that offered a fairly comprehensive discussion about the offset issue.  Over the next several months, many congressional committees are conducting hearings on all aspects of climate change policy.  I will be attempting to cover as many of them as possible.  However, our Congress has done a good job of making sure that these hearings are accessible to anyone with an internet connection.  If you are interested in the process of shaping climate change policy in the U.S., you might want to go check out the House and Senate committee websites.

Next week, I plan to have an update on the Ways & Means hearing on climate change and low-income families.

Before I launch into my major complaint, let me say that I applaud the Obama Administration for framing this issue as a priority.  The last eight years have truly been “The Lost Years” for environmental causes, and it is nice to see reflected in our government a bit of the urgency the environmental community feels.

However, I am extraordinarily baffled by something that occurred on Capitol Hill today.

Why did they invite someone who doesn’t believe in climate change to testify in a hearing on climate change??  I thought we had moved beyond that!  It is painfully difficult to have a productive dialogue on this issue when one-third of the time is spent debating whether or not there is an issue.  It is a waste of our representatives’ valuable time, not to mention a waste of time our planet does not have.  Three cheers to Representatives Levin, Neal, Doggett, and Lewis (did I leave anyone out?) for confronting Dr. John Christy, and many thanks to Congressman Kind for emphasizing the importance of global cooperation on this issue.

Some important dates to come for climate change policy:

House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Hearing
The Role of Carbon Offsets in Climate Legislation – March 5, 2009

US Climate Change Bill – May 25, 2009
House Energy and Commerce Committee has promised to deliver a draft package to Speaker Pelosi by Memorial Day.

UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) – December 6-12, 2009
Everything this year leads up to the UN Conference in Copenhagen, where we will hopefully see brought to fruition a new global accord on climate change, which will replace the Kyoto Protocol in 2012.