The Center for Public Integrity finds there are at least five lobbyists on climate change legislation for every member of Congress.
(Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)
According to new investigative reports,
lobbying efforts on climate change
policy are growing dramatically. Lester
Graham reports:
Transcript
According to new investigative reports,
lobbying efforts on climate change
policy are growing dramatically. Lester
Graham reports:
Washington, more than ever before, is crawling with lobbyists.
A journalistic project finds there are at least five lobbyists on climate change legislation for every member of Congress.
Maryanne Lavelle with the Center for Public Integrity heads up the project.
“It’s just astounding. If you just compare to six years ago when Congress first considered a really comprehensive climate bill, there has been a 40o% increase in lobbyists.”
Some are there to ensure greenhouse gases are reduced, some are there to shape climate change legislation to benefit their business interests, others are there to block it.
But the investigative journalists found big industry lobbyists and all the others out-gun lobbyists for environmental and alternative energy groups by an eight-to-one margin.
A lot of compromises and some arm-twisting are persuading moderate Democrats to support limiting global warming emissions.
(Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)
Work on the climate change bill
in the Senate is progressing
despite the controversy surrounding
the bill. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Work on the climate change bill
in the Senate is progressing
despite the controversy surrounding
the bill. Lester Graham reports:
A Republican boycott and bitter wrangling between Democrats and Republicans over provisions in the climate bill in the Senate and, still, supporters say it’s going okay.
A lot of compromises and some arm-twisting are persuading moderate Democrats to support limiting global warming emissions.
Even the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, is now saying Congress will approve legislation this session.
Josh Dorner is with a group backing a climate bill, called Clean Energy Works. Dorner says getting moderate Democrats like Baucus on board moves a climate bill closer to reality.
“That coupled with the bi-partisan agreement amongst other senators, Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman to move forward, I think shows that we’re closer to a bi-partisan agreement on getting a bill done now than we ever have been before.”
“Bi-partisan” meaning only a couple of Republicans joining a lot more Democrats in support of the bill.
The Senate held their first hearing on the climate change bill.
(Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)
The Senate has started debate on
the climate bill. The Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works heard
from cabinet members and others,
but Lester Graham reports it’s not
clear their testimony will matter:
Transcript
The Senate has started debate on
the climate bill. The Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works heard
from cabinet members and others,
but Lester Graham reports it’s not
clear their testimony will matter:
It was the Senate’s the first hearing on the bill, but most of the Senators have already made up their minds.
For Republican Senator James Inhofe, the climate bill is a jobs killer and costs too much.
“We’re talking about somewhere between three and four-hundred billion dollars a year. That’s something the American people can’t tolerate and I don’t believe they will.”
That 300 to 400 billion is revenue from a cap-and-trade plan that would invest in renewable energy such as wind and solar and go to taxpayers to help with higher costs of fossil fuel.
One of the authors of the Senate climate bill, Democrat John Kerry, took issue with Senator Inhofe’s characterization of the bill.
“We need to move forward to deal with climate change and in doing so, Senator Inhofe, we will actually improve every sector of our energy economy.”
And Senator Kerry says that will mean energy independence and millions of new jobs.
The Senate climate bill makes a lot of compromises to win votes. But, it’s not clear they’ll actually sway any of the senators.
In the fall of 2007, the state of Kansas made
the unprecedented decision to deny a power company permits
for a coal plant because of greenhouse
gas emissions.
(Photo courtesy of the Energy Information Administration)
Reducing the greenhouse gases that
cause global warming will mean less
reliance on fossil fuels, such as coal.
Almost two years ago, Kansas became
the first state ever to deny permits
for a coal plant because of greenhouse
gas emissions. Since then, there have
been lawsuits on all sides. Even the
compromise the Governor in Kansas reached
with the coal company in May is now
stalled. Devin Browne reports that
coal just will not go quietly:
Transcript
Reducing the greenhouse gases that
cause global warming will mean less
reliance on fossil fuels, such as coal.
Almost two years ago, Kansas became
the first state ever to deny permits
for a coal plant because of greenhouse
gas emissions. Since then, there have
been lawsuits on all sides. Even the
compromise the Governor in Kansas reached
with the coal company in May is now
stalled. Devin Browne reports that
coal just will not go quietly:
The Sunflower Electric Power Corporation had actually applied and been
approved for a permit to build a new coal plant in 2002. But, for whatever
reason, they let the permit expire. Seemed like no big deal at the time
– they figured they’d get another one whenever they turned in another
application.
Except that they didn’t. In the fall of 2007, the state of Kansas made
the unprecedented decision to deny the power company. Cindy Hertel is with
Sunflower.
“It would be like going for your drivers license, taking the drivers
test, passing it, then being denied your drivers license because you
don’t drive a Prius. Can’t change the rules in the middle of the game.
And that’s what happened.”
Rod Bremby is the Secretary of Health and Environment in Kansas. He says
the state didn’t really change the rules on regulating CO2 because there
aren’t any rules on CO2. And since there’s no federal regulations,
Secretary Bremby instituted a state regulation. He said it would be
irresponsible not to regulate the gases causing climate change.
Stephanie Cole with the Sierra Club called it a watershed moment.
“We were excited, we were stunned – however, it wasn’t long after
that, legislators from Western Kansas started making comments that they
disapproved of Secretary Bremby’s decision and that they were going to
make legislative attempts to overturn the permit denial. So victory was
short-lived.”
Since then, the power company, Sunflower, has hired lobbyists. They’ve
helped legislators draft new bills to allow the coal-burning power plant.
The power company sued both the previous and current governor for civil
rights violations. For two years – nothing.
Then Kansas got a new governor – Mark Parkinson. Almost immediately
after he became governor last May, he cut a deal with Sunflower. Stop the
lawsuits. Build only one unit, not two or three. And, most importantly to
the Governor’s agenda, put in transmission lines to Colorado so that
Kansas can start exporting wind energy out of state.
Kansas is the third windiest state in the country. But it needs
infrastructure to get that wind-power to other states. And, in the
governor’s deal, power companies like Sunflower help build that
infrastructure.
Cole, with the Sierra Club, said the deal was very much a let-down.
“Because it is very troubling to many of us who have been involved in
this so long. It is such a disappointment.”
For a moment the battle seemed to be over. But, it wasn’t.
In July, Sunflower received a letter from the EPA asking them to submit a
new application for a permit. John Knodel is an environmental engineer
with the EPA.
“It’s not appropriate, in our mind, that they take an application that
was for three 700 MW units and simply say, ‘that was bigger, this project
is smaller.’ We say, ‘you have to go through a process and make it
very clear what this new project is all about.’”
Now that the EPA is stepping in, Sunflower & the Sierra Club are back to
square one.
The power company is expected to turn in its new application this fall.
The Sierra Club is expected to fight it. And Sunflower is expected to
fight back.
Cindy Hertel with Sunflower says the power company is just trying to keep
electricity bills low.
Hertel: “This is still in the best interest of our members.”
Browne: “This still makes sense economically?”
Hertel: “It still makes sense. What people need to know is that we are
cost biased, not fuel biased.”
Browne: “And, right now, for Sunflower, that means coal.”
But it might not be coal for very long.
The U.S. House passed a bill last winter that includes a hefty carbon tax
and incentives for renewable energy. A similar bill was recently
introduced in the Senate.
If it passes, Kansas might find its wind energy not only beats coal in
price, but wind-power could become the next big export for the state.
The Group of 20 Summit is being held in Pittsburgh starting on September 24th (Photo source: HoboJones at Wikimedia Commons)
Leaders of the world’s richest
countries are in Pittsburgh for
the G-20 Summit. Thousands of
environmental and economic protesters
are there, too, and the dissenters
aren’t happy with how police are
treating them. Jennifer Szweda Jordan reports:
Transcript
Leaders of the world’s richest
countries are in Pittsburgh for
the G-20 Summit. Thousands of
environmental and economic protesters
are there, too, and the dissenters
aren’t happy with how police are
treating them. Jennifer Szweda Jordan reports:
Protesters claim Pittsburgh police are cracking down on them before the international economic gathering begins.
The 3 Rivers Climate Convergence says the police have illegally search and impounded a bus supplying food for protesters.
Lisa Stolarski of 3 Rivers Climate Convergence, says officers have sought out environmental groups to hassle.
“I feel like the police are cracking down on green voices. I feel that we are being especially mistreated in Pittsburgh.”
While police crackdowns are typical around international summits, protesters say they had hoped that the city’s signage stating “Pittsburgh Welcomes the World,” also applied to them.
For The Environment Report, I’m Jennifer Szweda Jordan.
This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Graph courtesy of NASA and NOAA)
The Environmental Protection Agency
is trying to figure out how it might
regulate greenhouse gases. Lester
Graham reports language in the
Clean Air Act is not helping:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency
is trying to figure out how it might
regulate greenhouse gases. Lester
Graham reports language in the
Clean Air Act is not helping:
The U.S. Supreme Court ordered the EPA to decide whether greenhouse gases are pollutants. The EPA is making the case that they are.
But setting rules to reduce those emissions is problematic.
The Clean Air Act says it you emit 250-tons a year of a pollutant, you need a pollution permit. 250-tons of CO2 a year is not a lot.
Jeff Holmstead worked in the EPA on air pollution issues during the last Bush Administration. Now, he’s a lawyer with the Washington DC firm Bracewell and Giuliani.
“You know, 250-tons of CO2 according to EPA would include most schools, most apartment buildings, any kind of commercial building. It just isn’t possible to develop permits for all of these sources.”
So the EPA plans to raise the amount to 25,000-tons. But, that’s not what the Clean Air Act says.
That’s one reason why the Obama Administration prefers a climate change law passed by Congress.
The famous photo of the Cuyahoga River fire that appeared in Time Magazine. The photo is not of the 1969 blaze, but rather of another fire on the river in 1952. (Photo courtesy of NOAA)
Federal and state governments have cut
back on monitoring some big sources of
pollution, and small sources are rarely
monitored. Lester Graham reports it’s a
problem that’s even tougher when state
budgets are cut:
Transcript
Federal and state governments have cut
back on monitoring some big sources of
pollution, and small sources are rarely
monitored. Lester Graham reports it’s a
problem that’s even tougher when state
budgets are cut:
Industry does not pollute like it did in the 1960s or 70s. Today, regulators monitor most of those big factories.
Tom Lyon is the Director of the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan.
“Big smokestack industries we have a fairly good eye on, but there are a lot of areas that we still don’t have a good handle on.”
Like small businesses which collectively can release a lot of toxins, and farms that use pesticides and fertilizers on millions acres.
Jennifer Sass is a Scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. She says, under the Bush Administration, pollution monitoring of big industry was cut back. Sass says that monitoring needs to be restored and expanded to smaller sources.
“If we quit our monitoring programs, then we don’t really know. It’s a lot like putting our head in the sand.”
But many state agencies say they don’t have the resources to keep track of all those sources of pollution.
Groups are arguing over whether the climate change bill in the Senate will create jobs or kill them. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
America has a big decision coming up. We have
to decide whether we want to keep spending our
money on energy from fossil fuel sources such as
coal and oil. Or, do we want to invest more in
renewable energy such as solar, wind, and bio-fuels?
Lester Graham reports the next stage for the
national debate will be when the Senate considers
a climate change bill late this month:
Transcript
America has a big decision coming up. We have
to decide whether we want to keep spending our
money on energy from fossil fuel sources such as
coal and oil. Or, do we want to invest more in
renewable energy such as solar, wind, and bio-fuels?
Lester Graham reports the next stage for the
national debate will be when the Senate considers
a climate change bill late this month:
The U.S. House has already passed a version of the bill. It includes a carrot and stick plan to cap greenhouse gas emissions and put a price on them. It will mean fossil fuels will become a little more expensive to use. Revenue from the program will be invested in clean energy and energy efficiency projects.
President Obama’s Secretary of Commerce, Gary Locke, says using that money America can reinvent itself and, in the process, create jobs.
“The technological innovations needed to combat climate change, to reverse it, to mitigate it, can spawn one of the most promising areas of economic growth in the 21st century.”
Environmental groups believe that. And labor unions believe it. And some progressive businesses are counting on it. They’ve been joining forces in groups such as the Apollo Alliance, and then there’s the United Steel Workers Union and the Sierra Club’s Blue/Green Alliance.
Leo Gerard is the President of the United Steelworkers.
“We need a climate change bill that is focused on creating jobs and cleaning up the climate. With a lot of conservation, a lot of investments in the newest technologies, what we’ll end up doing is taking a huge amount of carbon out of the atmosphere and creating a lot of good jobs.”
Business groups say all carbon cap-and-trade will do is make coal, gas and oil more expensive.
“This legislation is a job killer.”
Keith McCoy is a Vice-President with the National Association of Manufacturers. He says the government should not penalize businesses that rely on cheaper fossil fuels.
“So, if you’re a company that’s reliant on natural gas or oil or even coal in the manufacturing process, these companies suffer the most.”
Business says drop cap-and-trade. And just use the carrot. The government should just offer incentives for energy efficiency and invest in technologies such as nuclear power and carbon capture and sequestration for coal-burning industries.
So the two sides are rallying the troops.
The unions and environmental groups are urging their members to push for cap-and-trade for the sake of the planet and for the promise of green jobs.
Business groups are launching TV ad campaigns against it. Oil companies are using a front group called Energy Citizens to hold public rallies oppsing cap-and-trade. They raise the spector of high gasoline prices and higher electricity bills and throw in the threat of losing as many as 2.4 million jobs.
Ed Montgomery is President Obama’s Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers. He says a clean energy policy is not going to hurt the US, it’ll save it.
“Something’s gone wrong. Our manufacturing sector isn’t able, and hasn’t been able to compete and continue to create new and effective jobs. And what a clean energy policy opens up for us is a whole avenue forward. It’s a way to create both new jobs, to open up new avenues of competitiveness, the competitiveness that uses the strengths of our workers – who know how to make product.”
But first, the debate will devolve into shouting matches about whether global warming is real and, if it is, whether cap-and-trade will do anything to slow it. There will be distortions on both sides about the end of the economic good of the country, and the climatic end of the world as we know it.
And because of all the complexities, the arguments will leave a thoroughly confused public about whether we should use government policy to shift from reliance on carbon-emitting fossil fuels to banking more on renewable energy.
Environmental groups and labor unions say the climate change bill will create green jobs. Some businesses disagree. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
The Senate sponsors of a climate change
bill say they need more time. Lester Graham
reports Senators Barbara Boxer and John
Kerry asked the Senate leadership to give
them until the end of the month before they
introduce the climate change bill:
Transcript
The Senate sponsors of a climate change
bill say they need more time. Lester Graham
reports Senators Barbara Boxer and John
Kerry asked the Senate leadership to give
them until the end of the month before they
introduce the climate change bill:
The details of the senate bill are still being worked out. The House version included a carbon cap-and-trade scheme to reduce greenhouse gases and raise revenue for clean energy projects.
Environmental groups and labor unions are in favor of cap-and-trade. Jeff Rickert heads up the AFL-CIO’s Center for Green Jobs.
“The climate change bill is a potential stream of revenue to really make the green jobs, the clen-tech industry a reality.”
Business groups say all carbon cap-and-trade will do is make energy more expensive.
“This legislation is a job killer.”
Keith McCoy is a Vice-President with the National Association of Manufacturers.
“So, if you’re a company that’s reliant on natural gas or oil or even coal in the manufacturing process, these companies suffer the most.”
Business suggests the government should just offer incentives for energy efficiency and invest in clean technologies.
The two sides are taking their arguments to the public this month.
The climate change bill is currently in the Senate, awaiting the Senators when they return from August recess.
(Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)
Experts are saying the fate
of the climate change bill
is tied to health care reform.
Mark Brush has more:
Transcript
Experts are saying the fate
of the climate change bill
is tied to health care reform.
Mark Brush has more:
The climate change bill squeaked through the House of Representatives. And now it’s waiting for action in the Senate. But the Senate has full plate right now with health insurance reform.
And some experts are saying the fate of the health care bill will have a big impact on the climate change bill.
Nicky Roy with the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
He says if the Obama Administration manages to do well in the health care debate, that will carry over to the debate on climate change.
“On the other hand, if the health care rallies succeed in fatally wounding the whole healthcare process, I think that’s going to make it tough for energy and climate because it’ll show that that tactic has worked.”
Some lobbying groups are using the same tactics being used in the health care debate. We’re already starting to see some anti-climate change legislation rallies in big energy states of Texas and Colorado.
The Center for Public Integrity finds there are at least five lobbyists on climate change legislation for every member of Congress. (Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)
