June 11th, 2009 by Jess

The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee several weeks ago, is moving quickly towards a vote on the House floor.  On Wednesday, Chairmen Henry Waxman and  Edward Markey– architects and champions of ACES – spoke with activists on a conference call organized by 1Sky.

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.

ACES, american climate and security act, climate change, congress, letter to congress, Waxman-Markey

May 22nd, 2009 by Jess

Today, in line with Speaker Pelosi’s promise to have climate change legislation ready for discussion by Memorial Day, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed H.R. 2454, previously known as the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, now known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES).

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?

ACES, American Clean Energy and Security Act, cap and trade, climate change bill, congress, Waxman-Markey bill

April 1st, 2009 by Jess

One of the concerns with implementing a cap and trade system is leakage.  This concept of leakage – that both jobs and emissions might shift from countries with emission reduction policies – is an important thing to address in crafting policy that will be both politically saleable and environmentally useful.  The worst case scenario fear is that a policy that places a cost on emitting will harm the economy while doing nothing to protect the environment.

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.

Add new tag, carbon leakage, climate change, congress, emission reduction, energy and commerce, job leakage, subcommittee hearing