I want to preface this post by saying I share the optimism presented in many posts on itsgettinghot by the Obama administration’s behavior and decisions in the First 100 Days. There are many tools available to the President to make change immediately, from budget proposals to executive rulemaking, and he and his administrative appointees are rapidly restoring the role of science and technical expertise to the EPA, among other achievements.

However, for the United States to begin bringing our emissions down to get in line with the recommendations of James Hansen and 350, or demonstrate real leadership going into the Copenhagen climate negotiations, our attention needs to be focused on certain members of Congress, and especially the Senate. I bring this up in reference to an article that in its essentials has little to do with climate change, but whose implications are enormous. The article is a reflection on Senate Democrats by Jonathan Chait in the April 15 issue of The New Republic.

Chait’s main point is that Democrats are failing to fall in line in support of Obama’s policy agenda, even more so than Republicans failed to get in line with Bush’s, even at his lowest popularity (which got down to the thirties). During the President’s First 100 Days, House and Senate Dems have been responsible for a reduction of 1 million projected new jobs created by the stimulus, elimination of a budget proposal that would have limited subsidies to farmers grossing over 500,000 per year, limiting tax deductions for the rich, or saving the taxpayers 4 billion annually by ending guaranteed loans in favor of direct loans to pay for college. He points out that difference of opinion among members of the same party, while certainly desirable for policy development and debate, can become a hindrance when major policy goals are sacrificed on the altar of party incoherence and “Senate dysfunction.”

Chait points to Senate customs and procedure as a major sticking point: “The Senate poses a particular obstacle to Democrats. Its structure gives greater voice to residents of low-population states, who tilt more Republican than the country as a whole. If you assume that every senator represents half the population of that state, then the Republican caucus represents less than 38 percent of the public. In electoral terms, we think of that as a tiny, even fringe minority. It’s less than the share of the electorate that voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964. But it supports enough senators to block the majority’s will. There is one tool available to break through the new supermajority requirement. That tool is called “reconciliation.” Reconciliation is an expedited process to vote on a budget, limiting debate to 20 hours and, more importantly, circumventing the filibuster. This means that one budget bill every year can be passed with just 51 votes. As the filibuster has grown routine, reconciliation has become a vital legislative tool. Many Democrats, alas, are far more squeamish than their GOP colleagues about deploying this tool.”

Why is this important?

He goes on to point out that while Republicans stepped up to deploy reconciliation as a tactic with little hesitation, “Eight Democratic senators signed a letter opposing the use of reconciliation to pass a cap-and-trade bill limiting carbon-dioxide emissions. Reconciliation, they wrote, “would circumvent normal Senate practice and would be inconsistent with the administration’s stated goals of bipartisanship, cooperation, and openness.” Several Democrats also oppose using reconciliation to pass health care reform. Democrat Mary Landrieu offered up a somewhat less melodramatic argument when she said that reconciliation “was intended for deficit reduction, and it should not be used for other things.”

In other words, if Senate Democrats were more concerned with passing aggressive legislation than they were about conserving a gentlemanly parliamentary procedure, we might have a cap-and-trade bill on the books. That is not to say that this author thinks that abuse of reconciliation is desirable, but rather that we need to make the case that it’s not worth inaction on emissions reduction, health care, and economic recovery. We need to find the eight Senate Democrats mentioned above and apply some pressure. The Democratic Party line needs to be to fight climate change, and Senate Dems need to fall in line.

Jesse Jenkins broke down critical Senate members and their stance on climate in his Watthead post right after the Powershift 09 conference. I remember speaking myself with students as they came out of lobby meetings with their representatives: Many representatives sent a staff person instead, were unable to make a commitment on film, and while supportive generally, or would not take a firm stand to get our emissions where we need to be, and this bunch included Senators and Representatives from both sides of the aisle. But I still believe that if swift action is to be taken on climate change, the most likely way it will happen is through Democratic ability to outline a series of priorities and unify behind them.

I am so, so encouraged by the policy choices being made by President Obama so far. However, in order to get the legislation passed that we need to begin to really bring down our emissions quickly, he will need Congress to fall in line. Now, the article above talks about party lines, and while this should not be a partisan issue, and I am thrilled whenever a Republican such as Inglis comes out with a video explaining the issue to his colleagues (thank you Focus the Nation!), I think that our fate will ultimately rest with Democratic ability to accept presidential leadership and stop quibbling.

So, not to sound like a broken record, but…call your Senator?

Posted in Climate Policy, global warming, Government, Politics, Power Shift 2009

Guest blogger- Kate Rooth, Greenpeace USA

On President Obama’s 100th day in office, presentations to Congress, EPAand CEQ highlight coal injustices and alternatives.

To celebrate the 100th day of the new presidency, six grassroots delegates from communities disadvantaged by coal mining, processing, and burning testified in front of representatives of Congress, the EPA, and CEQ to tell their personal stories of how coal impacts their daily lives.

The delegates represent tens of thousands of citizens, who, since January 21st have organized over 300 actions in fifty states as part of a project called Power Past Coal. They are demanding a swift, just transition away from coal, beginning with a moratorium on new coal plants, an end to dangerous and destructive mining practices, and a reinvestment in the communities impacted by coal with green jobs and clean energy development.

As Jeff Biggers wrote in his Huffington Post blog on these events, “if Washington, DC doesn’t have time to journey to the coalfield neighborhoods and toxic corridors of coal-fired plants, then the coalfield neighbors and coal-fired plant residents have journeyed to Washington, DC to bring a bit of truth and clarity to the clean energy debate.”

Speaking on behalf of their communities are delegates from Indigenous communities of Michigan, Chicago’s inner city, Wyoming’s strip mining region, Navajo from Black Mesa, those fighting the construction of new plants in the Southeast, and those impacted by mountaintop removal in Appalachia.

“Everyone in my region has some type of health issue that is impacted or caused by coal burning.  You cannot eat the fish in our steams and rivers anymore because of mercury poisoning.  We have some of the highest particulate air pollution near our elementary schools as reported by USA Today.  The rate of lung and heart disease is high and getting higher.” said Mike Cherin, who lives in Rutherford County just 16 miles from Duke Energy’s Cliffside Coal plant which is currently under a major expansion project.

But they are not only educating leaders on the impacts of coal, they are demanding a transition to a clean, just future.  “We are calling on the Obama administration and our nation’s Congress to not to dump any more money into the myth of clean coal, because clean coal doesn’t exist.  All available revenue needs to be invested in renewables, green jobs and job diversity in Appalachia, and other communities that have been impacted by the cycle of coal,” said Lorelei Scarbro of Coal River Mountain Watch in West Virginia.

Instead of the 6,600 acre mountaintop removal site proposed for the mountain behind Lorelei’s  home, her group is proposing a wind farm. “This project would allow us to start re-building our community, and create safe, permanent jobs and clean energy forever.  We need our government to step forward and support the Coal River Wind project”, she said.

Sam Villasenor, of Little Village Environmental Justice Organization, a group that recently organized the Coal Olympics explained the importance of community–led change- “we teach students about conservation and efficiency.  Young people are trained to do energy audits for elderly residents in the community to help them weatherize and insulate the homes of elder residents in their community. We want our community and our nation to start thinking of the alternatives and solutions to our energy issues.”

While these events culminate the 100 days of action to power past coal, the fight has clearly not been won. “In truth, it’s time for top level public servants–like Nancy Sutley, Lisa Jackson and Ken Salazar–who are slowly determining the fate of our nation’s oldest and most diverse mountain range and its abuse by one of the most scandalous human rights and environmental violations, to actually see firsthand the horrific impact of mountaintop removal on our nation’s citizens in Appalachia, and strip mining operations and coal-fired plants in other parts of the country,” said Biggers.

They may have not seen it first-hand today, but many of them have now heard it- and they will continue to until the battle is won, and we are phasing out dirty destructive coal with a clean energy future.

Posted in global warming

Another Charlotte-based corporation is feeling the heat today as labor and environmental activists rallied outside Bank of America’s annual shareholder meeting just a week after hundreds marched against Duke Energy’s new coal plant in Cliffside NC resulting in 43 arrests.

Environmental activists showed up to draw the connections between Bank of America and the build out of new coal fired power plants (including Duke’s Cliffside plant).

Activists from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) rallied as part of an ongoing “Fire Ken Lewis” campaign. Clergy, former Bank of America employees and union leaders called up the shareholders to end Lewis’ tenure as Chairman and CEO of the struggling bank.

Inside the meeting, a shareholder resolution to fire Ken Lewis is being reported by some media as “too close to call” and Bank of America has said they will release a press release with the final results in the next day or so.

Kinda weird? If the shareholders oust Lewis it will be unprecedented for a Fortune 500 company. Usually CEO’s get 99% margins of approval from their shareholders on such resolutions.

Anything less could be devestating.

Posted in global warming

100 days ago, President Barack Obama took the oath of office with an overwhelming mandate from America’s youth. Two out of every three citizens under the age of 30 voted for Obama in the 2008 election. We demanded change and Obama promised it. We demanded green jobs, strong climate policy, a safer and more prosperous future, and we came 12,000 strong to DC to make sure he and his administration heard us.

The demand to get involved building a greener, more sustainable future is there, but the supply of opportunities has not been. Over the last eight years, we’ve missed countless chances to invest in a clean energy economy, in science and engineering, and in green jobs for America’s youth. But things have begun to change. There are at least three major signs of progress to report on this front in just the first 100 days of President Obama’s administration:

1. The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, which will create millions of new jobs and fund programs like the recently launched Youth Conservation Corps that will put 15,000 young people to work “resurrecting the treasures of America”
2. The creation of a Clean Energy Service Corps as part of the Serve America Act that will engage tens of thousands of youth in moving America towards energy independence
3. A new national energy education initiative announced yesterday that will inspire and train young Americans “to tackle the single most important challenge of their generation — the need to develop cheap, abundant, clean energy and accelerate the transition to a low carbon economy.” Among it’s many aims, this  initiative will:

• Invest $777 million in 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers to address the fundamental scientific roadblocks to clean energy and energy security
• Establish a $5 billion “Race To The Top” fund to encourage states to improve the quality and supply of math and science teachers
• Launch RE-ENERGYSE (REgaining our ENERGY Science and Engineering Edge) to empower young men and women to invent and commercialize advanced energy technologies

These are huge accomplishments. The supply is beginning to meet demand, but we still have a long way to go. There remains tremendous untapped desire among young people for green jobs and green opportunities - see a recent LA Times article on the surging demand for clean energy careers or Bob Herbert’s powerful op-ed last June about the 4 million “disconnected youth,” 16 to 24, “who are not in school and basically have no hope of finding work”.

President Obama knows that “energy is this generation’s great project” and as long as there is demand for more jobs researching geothermal technology, installing solar panels, weatherizing homes, and conserving our natural resources, we need to increase the supply of opportunities.

There is no “silver bullet.” As Bill McKibben likes to say, we need “silver buckshot”. We need to marshall all the human potential in this great country to address these challenges. I applaud President Obama on an extremely successful 100 days, but I ask for more. The young people of America are ready and willing to serve. Let’s give them the opportunity.

Posted in green jobs, Politics, Renewable Energy

This morning the Chesapeake Climate Action Network successfully caught the attention of Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe at a rally he hosted at the 17th Street Farmer’s Market in Richmond, Virginia. Richmond Town Councilman Marty Jewel kicked off the morning, and former President Bill Clinton introduced Mr. McAuliffe. The theme of the rally was “New Energy for New Jobs,” and the candidate’s speech centered repowering the commonwealth and creating new jobs for Virginians. CCAN wanted to ask Mr. McAuliffe about his position on a recently proposed coal fired power plant for Surry County, a Hampton Roads community. Well, we got his attention!

The Surry Plant has been a hot topic during the first part of the campaign. The Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (ODEC) proposed to build a new, $6 billion coal-fired power plant right next to the James River in the town of Dendron, in Surry County. The 1,500 megawatt Hampton Roads plant would emit about 14.6 million tons of CO2 a year– a potential total of 876 million tons over the plant’s 60-year lifespan. ODEC asserts that the plant is necessary to meet its customer’s energy needs. Yet, the cooperative could meet its energy needs for the next 25 years through energy efficiency measures alone!

One of McAuliffe’s opponents in the race for the democratic nomination, Brian Moran, spoke out against the plant a few months ago, but McAuliffe has remined silent on the issue of the plant. With signs asking about the plant and calling for a moratorium on MTR we got great spots for the rally, and it was obvious he was reading our posters as he spoke. We were able to talk with Mr. McAuliffe after the event, and when I asked if he would opposed the construction of the plant he responded “I think we should do a study, and if the study shows its a bad idea to build the plant, I will oppose it.”

Well, all Mr. McAuliffe need to do is read the papers: Today Synapse Enery Economics, Inc. released a report about the plant, which states that when factoring in the almost-certain federal CO2 controls, a mixture of efficiency, offshore wind, biomass, and combined-cycle natural gas generation that provides roughly the same power as the proposed Hampton Roads coal-fired power plant would emit five times less CO2, and cost anywhere between 1.7 cents and 4.5 cents per kWh less than the plant. We all know the devestating costs of MTR on ground water resources, the effects the mining and buring of coal has on health, and the carbon emmissions of coal. More than 80 coal power plants have been cancelled, delayed, or rejected in recent years due in significant part to those issues, and uncertainty over construction costs and future carbon controls.

A bad idea? You betcha’.

Posted in global warming