Coal State Senator Makes Positive Noises About Kerry’s Climate Change Bill
The big battle ahead for the new climate change bill proposed by John Kerry, which is being hailed by environmentalists, lies in the coal states where powerful Senators are already voicing opposition to his measure.
So Kerry and his staff, I’m told, were very excited when positive noises about the bill emanated from the ultimate in coal state Senators: Robert Byrd of West Virginia. This is a big deal and could bode well for climate change.
Kerry’s bill, unveiled with Barbara Boxer, aims to slash greenhouse gas emissions more dramatically than a House version, and would invest Federal money in the search for cleaner ways to burn coal.
Senator Jay Rockefeller, also of West Virginia, has already criticized the proposal for “unrealistic and harmful” goals.
But Senator Byrd put out a statement making surprisingly supportive noises, saying he’s “glad” that Kerry and Boxer incorporated his suggestions and promising to keep working on the bill with them. A Kerry aide says Byrd’s comments came after Kerry lobbied Byrd’s staff extensively in one-on-one meetings.
By the way, I’m hoping to use this blog to closely track a great story: The battle to get a climate change bill — something that could quite literally help save the Earth — through the Senate, past an army of powerful, parochial lawmakers and lobbyists bankrolled by industry groups. Any suggestions on how best to do this — and tips! — would be greatly appreciated.
*****************************************
Update: A cap and trade opponent points out that Byrd has in fact made far harsher statements on cap and trade in the past. That may be, but still, Kerry’s legislation appears to be going farther than previous efforts to deal with his concerns.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
You global warming alarmists are true nutjobs. Anything to grow the government though, right?
Greg, your last paragraph could easily read:
“By the way, I’m hoping to use this blog to closely track a great story: The battle to get a “Health Care Reform Bill”—something that could quite literally help save “40,000 Americans a year”— through the Senate, past an army of powerful, parochial lawmakers and lobbyists bankrolled by industry groups. Any suggestions on how best to do this — and tips! — would be greatly appreciated.”
It’s a new battle, with the same players.
The key is, as Sen Sherrod Brown is pushing, AMERICAN CLEANTECH MANUFACTURING.
Three points on that:
1) The very nature of distributed renewable energy is such that energy creation is DE-CENTRALIZED (the power plant model is a more centralized system). We need to develop REGIONAL manufacturing bases that produce products that harness renewable energy in those regions based on empirical data of renewable energy potentials in those areas.
2) We really need to up the ante on smart grid and energy transmission technology to aid transmission from distributed sites (renewable energy sites spread across the country) to the main grid. This was the #1 problem with T Boone Pickens’ massive wind project in rural Texas. Too much energy was lost in delivering electricity to urban centers for mass consumption, thus making it not economically viable. We need to improve transmission technology for use by a distributed renewable energy network and manufacture the components here in the USA (midwest and pacific nw).
3) Batteries, batteries, batteries. And plug-in hybrid and electric car manufacturing.
We’ll be hearing a lot from Sen Brown in the near future, I hope. He is (or should be) the point man on all this stuff. Cleantech manufacturing in Ohio was a central plank of the platform that got him elected in 2006.
“By the way, I’m hoping to use this blog to closely track a great story: The battle to get a climate change bill — something that could quite literally help save the Earth — through the Senate, past an army of powerful, parochial lawmakers and lobbyists bankrolled by industry groups. Any suggestions on how best to do this — and tips! — would be greatly appreciated.”
Suggestions/tips?
1. Start your whip count as soon as possible.
2. Devote attention to the monies flowing to both sides via OpenSecrets.
3. Devote as much coverage to the science as to the politics.
4. Devote as much coverage to the opposition as to the supporters.
5. Don’t demonize the opposition by, for instance, implying that they want to destroy the earth.
6. Avoid loaded phrasing such as “something that could quite literally help save the Earth” if you expect reasonable engagement with those who disagree.
7. Avoid minute by minute coverage of meaningless polls.
8. Lay out your own personal biases and beliefs clearly first so we know where you stand and if you are going to be open to discussion.
9. Closely track the money spent on advertising.
10. Keep the coverage here and don’t put it into a separate blog.
How about passing some legislation to make it more difficult for companies to out source the manufacturing sector of green technology products, or we will see all our R&D results ending up creating jobs in China. As it stands now, the tax code rewards those who ship jobs overseas, Thanks goes to the The Republicans for having passed that bit of anti-labor legislation.
Greg,
Start by defining “save the earth”.
Focus the discussion on rational cost-benefit analysis of prevention and mitigation efforts.
Don’t forget that a warmer climate, were it to occur, also has benefits – which some analysis suggests might actually outweigh the negatives.
Include a discussion of else we might buy with the huge sums of money being considered (health care, anyone?).
Explain why it should not be national policy to open Yucca Mountain to store nuclear waste, and to facilitate many more nuclear power plants.
Discuss the absolutely critical importance of cheap and reliable energy (maybe “affordable energy” in progressive terms)to the poor and middle class, to economic growth that provides opportunity for all.
Discuss explicitly who is getting the benefit of cap-and trade, and how this maps to political support and donations.
Sorry OT
Michelle Bachman on the floor of the house last night discussing School Based Health Clinics in the legislation being debated in congress:
“The bill goes on to say what’s going to go on — comprehensive primary health services, physicals, treatment of minor acute medical conditions, referrals to follow-up for specialty care — is that abortion? Does that mean that someone’s 13 year-old daughter could walk into a *** clinic, have a pregnancy test done, be taken away to the local Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, have their abortion, be back and go home on the school bus that night? Mom and dad are never the wiser.”
“Section 2511 of the health care bill referred to by Bachmann, makes no mention of abortion and stipulates,”
“(i) “SBHC services will be provides in accordance with Federal, State, and local laws governing– (I) obtaining parental or guardian consent; and (II) patient privacy and student records, including section 264 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and section 444 of the General Education Provision Act;”
And here’s what she had to say about Global Warming:
“The big thing we are working on now is the global warming hoax. It’s all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax.”
This is what we have to fight against so we can have a realistic and productive debate about the Climate Change Bill. Get out in front ASAP and combat such nonsense, because obviously there are, against all rational thought, people who will believe her.
Oh, and as if you didn’t know already, but you CANNOT listen to anything the Republican fearmongers (sbj, Fearhold, Shill C, etc) suggest to cover. They are all red herrings and distractions designed to confuse. Ignore their bullshit. Stick to the issues.
We need incriminating pictures of every coal state Senator with either a live boy or dead girl.
suggestions…tips
Well Greg, you can start with stopping with snarky headlines. positive “noises” ? really ?
Greg,
A couple of other comments.
The more this whole effort is treated like the Children’s Crusade, and the less like a business that people would like to invest their own money in, the more we should think its political BS.
Look for and advocate simplicity. If you are really serious about reducing fossil fuel use, man up and put a Federal $3 or $4 dollar per gallon tax on gasoline and an equivalent tax on other fossil fuels (gas, coal, etc). Simple, effective. Get out of micro-regulation business (cap-n-trade, mileage standards, light bulb standards, refrigerator standards, etc.) – people will figure it out.
What I think you will see instead is a huge and hugely dishonest political effort to cover up the cost. Shine a light on that.
Greg:
…something that could quite literally help save the Earth.
Save the earth….from what?
Please tell us, Greg, at what point in the Earth’s history did the “optimum” climate exist, such that the very existence of the earth was not threatened? The ice-age? The little ice-age? The medeival warm period? 1970? When, exactly?
Liam-
Re: shipping jobs overseas and tax code- I’ve been labeled a “resentful” and “illogical” populist for stating just that. But, that’s just how I roll…
save the earth… from what
spoken like a true, ignorant rethuglican.
If we take no steps to curb emissions, and we guessed wrong, then we will not be able to reverse the damages.
If we develop a clean, renewable energy, domestic economy, and we are wrong about the cause of global warming, we will still have ended up with clean air, clean water, and an end to our dependence on foreign oil, which has being keeping us hostage to Saudi Arabia, Iran etc.
There you have it folks.
The Republicans want to do nothing, and hope that it turns out that climate change is not caused by our use of dirty energy sources.
If they are wrong, then we will be completely screwed.
The Democrats want to apply a prophylactic approach.
They want to reduce the use of dirty polluting energy, and convert to clean, renewable energy sources. If it turns out that climate change is being caused by the type of dirty energy we now use, then we would have been correct to have stopped using it.
On the other hand, if it turns out climate change was not caused by our use of dirty energy, we have not done any harm, and we we will have made a huge gain by no longer being at the mercy of OPEC, and our air and water will be clean, again.
At best, the Republican plan will still have our Air and Water being badly polluted, and will still have us becoming even more dependent on OPEC.
The Democrats Green Revolution will clean our Air and Water, and end our dependence on OPEC.
Is this really a tough choice, folks?
Do you want clean air, and water, and an end to dependence on OPEC?
If you do not, then you and the Republicans deserve each other.
amk:
spoken like a true, ignorant rethuglican.
Spoken like someone who doesn’t have an answer to the question.
Ignore the shill trolls. Focus on positive solutions that grow the economy instead of crippling it while damaging the environment beyond repair.
Another FACT that we ALL need to be aware of is that polluting industries (oil, coal, energy utils) contribute to the premature DEATH of thousands of people annually.
This is just as much a HEALTH issue and QUALITY OF LIFE issue as it is energy or environment.
That is by far the most under-represented (totally un-reported) angle with this issue.
Stupid questions don’t have any answers.
Liam:
There you have it folks.
Actually no. You ignored the minor irritant of costs.
amk:
Stupid questions don’t have any answers.
My experience is that stupid questions generally have obvious answers. It is stupid people which don’t have any answers.
It is stupid people which don’t have any answers.
Good for you. Now you have started to recognize for what you are. May be there is some redemption for you.afatr all.
From Reagan to the present day, the Republicans have never presented a bill to provide universal health care, or a bill to clean the air and water, and end our dependence on OPEC.
OBSTRUCTION IS NOT A SOURCE FOR SOLUTIONS.
REPUBLICANS PRETEND THAT IT IS.
I suppose all of the global warming skeptics here are smarter than 99% of the scientists in the world. Ha! I am forever blown away by what the Republican Party has come to stand for. A big bunch of dummies.
Folks,
We do not even have to fight the Republicans on the Global Warming grounds.
We still need to make the air and water clean, and end our deependence on OPEC. Once we no longer need their oil, then Iran and Saudia Arabia become stone age regions once more, and we will have no need to fight wars, over the oil that we will no longer need..
Again; use the following talking points.
If we take no steps to curb emissions, and we guessed wrong, then we will not be able to reverse the damages.
If we develop a clean, renewable energy, domestic economy, and we are wrong about the cause of global warming, we will still have ended up with clean air, clean water, and an end to our dependence on foreign oil, which has being keeping us hostage to Saudi Arabia, Iran etc.
There you have it folks.
The Republicans want to do nothing, and hope that it turns out that climate change is not caused by our use of dirty energy sources.
If they are wrong, then we will be completely screwed.
The Democrats want to apply a prophylactic approach.
They want to reduce the use of dirty polluting energy, and convert to clean, renewable energy sources. If it turns out that climate change is being caused by the type of dirty energy we now use, then we would have been correct to have stopped using it.
On the other hand, if it turns out climate change was not caused by our use of dirty energy, we have not done any harm, and we we will have made a huge gain by no longer being at the mercy of OPEC, and our air and water will be clean, again.
At best, the Republican plan will still have our Air and Water being badly polluted, and will still have us becoming even more dependent on OPEC.
The Democrats Green Revolution will clean our Air and Water, and end our dependence on OPEC.
Is this really a tough choice, folks?
Do you want clean air, and water, and an end to dependence on OPEC?
If you do not, then you and the Republicans deserve each other.
Since the West is obviously ruining the planet we must control the population of the developed nations. I think someday we’ll be trading carbon credits for abortions. I can hardly wait.
Klem, go back and actually read the Bible sometime.
Here’s a hint as to what you’ll find: Jesus healed the sick, said “love thine enemy” and the word “abortion” doesn’t appear once.
Go to the Energy Department web site and take a look at the Annual Energy Review, released June 2009. Look at this diagram:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/pecss_diagram.html
and this set of charts:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/ep/ep_frame.html
Federal data from the diagram:
71% of petroleum goes to transportation, 23% to industrial demand
91% of coal goes to electric power generation
34% of natural gas goes to industrial, 34% to residential and commercial, and 29% to electric power
100% of nuclear goes to electric power
51% of renewable goes to electric power, 28% to industrial
95% of transportation is powered by oil
42% of industrial is powered by oil, 40% by natural gas
76% of residential and commercial is powered by natural gas
51% of electric power is from coal, 17% from natural gas, 21% from nuclear power, 9% from renewable
A few observations.
Petroleum (37%), natural gas (24%), and coal (23%) together meet 84% of US energy needs today.
Coal provides 3x the power of nuclear energy. Almost all coal goes to electric power. You could roughly remove coal from the mix by building 3X the current number of nuclear power plants. There are 104 nuclear plants in operation, so that would be ~ 312 new nuclear plants. We haven’t built a nuclear plant in over 10 years.
Significantly reducing petroleum usage means providing another power source for cars and trucks, presumably electric. The amount of energy required is roughly equivalent to the amount that comes from coal today. So we could build another 300 or so nuclear power plants, or build about 40X the current wind + solar infrastructure. About 15% of petroleum used for transport goes to jet fuel.
As of 2008, renewable contributes 7% of US power. Of that, 34% of renewable energy came from hydro, 28% from wood, 19% bio-fuels, 7% wind, 1% solar, i.e. wind + solar today are about 8% of 7% of US energy, or less than ½ of 1%. Wind and solar prices are coming down, but they are still significantly more expensive than other sources.
Energy consumption per person has been roughly flat since about 1970. Energy consumption / $ of GDP is about half what it was in 1970. This means many of the “easy and cheap” savings have already been made.
We still have to figure out what to do with all the spent nuclear rods. Can we store them in your basement, and the basements of all those Nuclear Industry Executives. If we can, then we might be able to come to agreement on building more reactors. What ever happened to The Breeder Reactor project, that was supposed to allow us to use up the spent fuel rods?
We still need to wean ourselves off of the OPEC Teat, so the we can stop having to fight wars over oil.
Electric cars will help, but there is a very limited global supply of the key minerals used in the batteries. A lot more public transportation would also help, plus decentralized offices, so that people could work closer to home.
With video conferencing, their is no real reason for so many people having to drive in long traffic jams, just to get to a central downtown building, when they could just as easily work from satellite offices near where the live, and hold video conference sessions over the Web.
We still have to figure out what to do with all the spent nuclear rods.
I think the best approach anyone has come up with is to put them in the facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. There are literally decades of work already done on this approach. Maybe not perfect (what is), but probably better than keeping them in pools at the 100+ reactor sites scattered around the country as we do now.
Reid is not enthusiastic.
I agree it would be desirable to get off OPEC. Its just hard to do,and is going to take quite a while. That doesn’t say we shouldn’t start, though.
You are correct about the limited some of battery materials.
There are a bunch of things we could do. Some of them we should do. There’s just not a lot of magic here.
With regard to spent nuclear rods, I have often wondered if we could not come up with a way to launch them into deep space. After all space is already full of lethal radiation waves, such as the Van Allen belt.
I doubt if launching payloads into space would end up being any more expensive, than storing them ,for at least 100,000 years, on the planet. It is impossible to predict if they might have earth quakes around the storage mountain, thousands of years from now, or if they would end up leaking into water systems etc.
Think about my deep space solution. It would get the rods away from the planet for ever.
Freehold, the grid can handle plug-ins using off-peak electricity production. This was from 2006:
“A new study, conducted by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratories and sponsored by the federal agency, predicts that off-peak electricity production is adequate for keeping 185 million plug-in hybrids on the road. The study stated that there are 220 million vehicles in the U.S. and, if all were converted to plug-in hybrids, the current electrical grid could keep 84 percent of them charged.”
We wouldn’t need to add capacity at all, much less build any nuclear plants.
>>>Energy consumption per person has been roughly flat since about 1970. Energy consumption / $ of GDP is about half what it was in 1970. This means many of the “easy and cheap” savings have already been made.<<<
Not so.
Energy efficiency is the HUGE low-hanging fruit in all this. We could do away with oil imports JUST by ramping up efficiency efforts.
There is a brand new energy efficiency program in the State of California:
"""These broader programs will create energy savings of almost 7,000 gigawatt hours, 1,500 megawatts, and 150 million metric therms of natural gas, the commission says.
This is the equivalent of three 500-megawatt power plants and will avoid three million tons of greenhouse gas emissions, roughly equal to the emissions from nearly 600,000 cars a year."""
The residential retrofit part of the program aims to:
"reduce energy consumption by 20 percent for up to 130,000 California homes by 2012."
So between grid-carried plugin hybrids and energy efficiency there is a LONG LONG way to go before we even approach the topic of renewables.
I’d suggest you follow the coal industry. The epic fight from coal interests is going to be interesting. Look at what they’ve already started:
http://www.sundaygazettemail.com/News/200909070222
You should think about making Don Blankenship of Massey Energy the icon of the opposition. He’s old school, a true coal baron.