Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)

CONVENTIONAL wisdom suggests that the prospect of Congress passing a comprehensive climate change bill soon is rapidly approaching zero. The divisions in our country on how to deal with climate change are deep. Many Democrats insist on tough new standards for curtailing the carbon emissions that cause global warming. Many Republicans remain concerned about the cost to Americans relative to the environmental benefit and are adamant about breaking our addiction to foreign sources of oil.
However, we refuse to accept the argument that the United States cannot lead the world in addressing global climate change. We are also convinced that we have found both a framework for climate legislation to pass Congress and the blueprint for a clean-energy future that will revitalize our economy, protect current jobs and create new ones, safeguard our national security and reduce pollution.
Our partnership represents a fresh attempt to find consensus that adheres to our core principles and leads to both a climate change solution and energy independence. It begins now, not months from now — with a road to 60 votes in the Senate.
It’s true that we come from different parts of the country and represent different constituencies and that we supported different presidential candidates in 2008. We even have different accents. But we speak with one voice in saying that the best way to make America stronger is to work together to address an urgent crisis facing the world.
This process requires honest give-and-take and genuine bipartisanship. In that spirit, we have come together to put forward proposals that address legitimate concerns among Democrats and Republicans and the other constituencies with stakes in this legislation. We’re looking for a new beginning, informed by the work of our colleagues and legislation that is already before Congress.
First, we agree that climate change is real and threatens our economy and national security. That is why we are advocating aggressive reductions in our emissions of the carbon gases that cause climate change. We will minimize the impact on major emitters through a market-based system that will provide both flexibility and time for big polluters to come into compliance without hindering global competitiveness or driving more jobs overseas.
Second, while we invest in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power, our single largest contributor of emissions-free power. Nuclear power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our emission reduction targets. We need to jettison cumbersome regulations that have stalled the construction of nuclear plants in favor of a streamlined permit system that maintains vigorous safeguards while allowing utilities to secure financing for more plants. We must also do more to encourage serious investment in research and development to find solutions to our nuclear waste problem.
Third, climate change legislation is an opportunity to get serious about breaking our dependence on foreign oil. For too long, we have ignored potential energy sources off our coasts and underground. Even as we increase renewable electricity generation, we must recognize that for the foreseeable future we will continue to burn fossil fuels. To meet our environmental goals, we must do this as cleanly as possible. The United States should aim to become the Saudi Arabia of clean coal. For this reason, we need to provide new financial incentives for companies that develop carbon capture and sequestration technology.
In addition, we are committed to seeking compromise on additional onshore and offshore oil and gas exploration — work that was started by a bipartisan group in the Senate last Congress. Any exploration must be conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner and protect the rights and interests of our coastal states.
Fourth, we cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas. China and India are among the many countries investing heavily in clean-energy technologies that will produce millions of jobs. There is no reason we should surrender our marketplace to countries that do not accept environmental standards. For this reason, we should consider a border tax on items produced in countries that avoid these standards. This is consistent with our obligations under the World Trade Organization and creates strong incentives for other countries to adopt tough environmental protections



Finally, we will develop a mechanism to protect businesses — and ultimately consumers — from increases in energy prices. The central element is the establishment of a floor and a ceiling for the cost of emission allowances. This will also safeguard important industries while they make the investments necessary to join the clean-energy era. We recognize there will be short-term transition costs associated with any climate change legislation, costs that can be eased. But we also believe strongly that the long-term gain will be enormous.

Even climate change skeptics should recognize that reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our energy efficiency strengthens our national security. Both of us served in the military. We know that sending nearly $800 million a day to sometimes-hostile oil-producing countries threatens our security. In the same way, many scientists warn that failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to global instability and poverty that could put our nation at risk.
Failure to act comes with another cost. If Congress does not pass legislation dealing with climate change, the administration will use the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new regulations. Imposed regulations are likely to be tougher and they certainly will not include the job protections and investment incentives we are proposing.
The message to those who have stalled for years is clear: killing a Senate bill is not success; indeed, given the threat of agency regulation, those who have been content to make the legislative process grind to a halt would later come running to Congress in a panic to secure the kinds of incentives and investments we can pass today. Industry needs the certainty that comes with Congressional action.
We are confident that a legitimate bipartisan effort can put America back in the lead again and can empower our negotiators to sit down at the table in Copenhagen in December and insist that the rest of the world join us in producing a new international agreement on global warming. That way, we will pass on to future generations a strong economy, a clean environment and an energy-independent nation.

Melting glaciers bring 1980s pollution revival

Bad hair and shoulder pads are not the only things from the 1980s that we'd rather not see again. Nasty chemicals banned in that decade are also on the list. Unfortunately, melting Alpine glaciers are generating a revival of toxic organic pollutants.

Christian Bogdal and colleagues at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich studied levels of pollution in sediment at the bottom of the Oberaar lake in Bern, Switzerland.

The flow of pollutants into the lake peaked in the 1970s, mainly due to the production of plastics, electronics, pesticides and fragrances. The levels declined during the 1980s and 1990s when people realised that these compounds were toxic and they were banned.

However, they found that banned chemicals, such as pesticides that have been linked with Parkinson's disease, have been pouring into the lake at an increasing rate since the 1990s.

Powerless observers

Bogdal reckons that a glacier feeding the lake has been storing these chemicals for decades, and is releasing them as it melts. This process could be dramatically sped up by global warming, he warns.

The problem isn't limited to Alpine glaciers. Since these chemicals would have been transported great distances via the atmosphere before they were frozen into ice, many other glaciers around the world may be contaminated. Toxic chemicals have previously been found in polar regions - putting arctic wildlife at risk.

There is little we can do about it, however. "Stopping global warming could slow the melting of glaciers, but the chemicals will still be released eventually," says Bogdal.

Many toxic chemicals are still used in plastics and electronic equipment, such as brominated flame retardants. Bogdal warns that these could represent the next generation's problem: "They are deposited on glaciers today and will reappear in our lakes in a few decades."

Journal reference: Environmental Science & Technology

River runs wilder now that dam is gone

The wild and scenic Rogue River has become even wilder with the demolition of a dam that had hindered passage of salmon and steelhead to their spawning grounds for 88 years.

A flotilla of some 80 rafts, driftboats and kayaks celebrated the breaching of the Savage Rapids Dam on Saturday by floating through the remains of the concrete structure in southwest Oregon.

Among them was Jim Martin, rowing his own driftboat. His first job as a young fisheries biologist for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife was monitoring how many salmon and steelhead were killed each year by the irrigation dam"Forty-one years ago I stood on that dam as a young biologist fresh out of school watching the fish die, and thinking how this dam had to come out for the health of this river," said Martin, who rose to be chief of fisheries for the department and now is conservation director of Pure Fishing. "People said, 'Jim, be realistic, it will never happen. And it's happening."

Since the dam was completed in 1921, the logging and mining that once sustained Southern Oregon have faded. Farms that the Grants Pass Irrigation District once served have sprouted homes that tap the water for lawns and gardens. And the salmon and steelhead have struggled, with an estimated 58,000 adult salmon and steelhead blocked from spawning grounds each year.

The battles to restore the waterway started in 1988, when the conservation group WaterWatch, which organized the celebration, Rogue Fly Fishers and the American Fisheries Society filed a protest to stop the irrigation district from drawing more water from the Rogue.

Pumps become the solution
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation took a look and decided the cheapest and best solution to provide water efficiently without harming fish was to remove the dam and replace it with pumps.

The irrigation district initially went along, but later flip-flopped and fought to save the dam. Lawsuits were filed. Battles flared in the state Capitol. The Rogue's coho salmon were declared a threatened species, and more lawsuits were filed.

By 2001, after losing every lawsuit and spending more than $1 million on legal fees, the district agreed to remove the dam. The next year the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board pledged $3 million, and a year later Congress started approving funding that would eventually cover the rest of the $39.3 million cost.

"One reason this project took so long is people had to adjust their notions of what progress was," said John DeVoe of Portland, executive director of WaterWatch. "There was a lot of opposition to removing the dam because it was viewed as a symbol of progress."

Jeff Barnard / AP Former Oregon fisheries chief Jim Martin talks Saturday about his years working to remove the Savage Rapids Dam.

The Rogue, one of the original rivers to get federal wild and scenic protection in 1968, has given up its steelhead to such names as Western writer Zane Grey and movie star Ginger Rogers. This section is miles above the wild section of the Rogue, where people come from around the world to float the whitewater, camp and fish. Here the river is hemmed in on all sides by houses — some with docks no longer reaching the water — Interstate 5 and U.S. Highway 97.

That didn't stop Roger Funk, a carpenter from Talent, from joining the celebration. He recalled sitting on the banks of the river as a child and watching for hours as the salmon moved upstream. But over the years, the numbers of fish steadily dwindled. He joined the flotilla with his 15-year-old son, and a neighbor, nursing student Maddy Morse.

"I have been rafting the Rogue for 35 years," Funk said. "Taking the dam down to have a freeflowing river is exhilarating."

Another old diversion dam, Gold Ray near the city of Gold Hill, is likely to join Savage Rapids soon. The NOAA has offered federal stimulus money to help with the cost. Another small diversion dam at Gold Hill has already come out. And a half-built dam on a major tributary, Elk Creek, has been notched.

"This is the greatest number of significant dam removals in the country," said WaterWatch spokesman Jim McCarthy.

It wasn't always so.

Martin recalls seeing adult spring chinook salmon throwing themselves against the dam because they couldn't find the poorly designed fish ladders, and those that did jumping out of the ladders and dying on the rocks.

The more insidious harm from Savage Rapids and other dams on the river was caused by slowing the river in reservoirs, allowing the sun to raise average temperatures 1 degree, to the point that fish die from warm water many years.

"Those things aren't a big deal when the river is plenty cold," Martin said. "But when the river is starting to get marginally too warm as it is with more development and climate change, those things can be crucial."

Construction crews built a coffer dam and started jackhammering half of the dam to pieces last April, and on Friday removed the piles of rock and gravel holding the river back, allowing the river to flow freely. The rest of the dam is to be removed by December.

The river quickly cut down through the huge accumulation of sand, gravel and rocks that had built up behind the dam, drawing a few boaters who wanted to get through dam ahead of the celebration organized by WaterWatch.

The good feelings were marred by the death of a local man running a jetboat through the remains of the dam on Friday, who hit a rock downstream and flipped. Three others in the boat survived.

India's Floods Reveal Climate Change Specter

Indian farmers had been praying for rain after the weakest monsoon season in 40 years had left their crops stricken by drought. But when the rains finally came, forceful and incessant at six times their normal levels, they left behind the worst floods southern India had seen in more than a century.

Weather officials blamed the heavy rains in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh on a low-pressure system over the Bay of Bengal. So far, over 250 people have died in flooding made worse when officials were forced to open dams for fear they might burst. Some 1,500 relief camps have been set up for the estimated 2.5 million people who were displaced as the raging water destroyed entire villages, washing away roads, bridges, crops and livestock.

Although flooding has recently become commonplace in India - in 2008, over 3 million people were displaced when the Kosi river in Bihar burst its banks - but this year's deluge came as a shock because if followed a protracted drought, and a monsoon season branded a dud by the authorities. To experts who've tracked the effects of climate change, however, the flooding came as no surprise. In its fourth assessment report in 2007, the Inter- Government Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that more extreme droughts, floods, and storms, would become commonplace in the future, and that these intense weather conditions would follow in close succession to each other, often in the same areas.

The volatile weather patterns predicted by the IPCC are already beginning to show in India. The Doni river, a 93-mile stretch of water in north Karnataka has come to be known as "the Yellow River of Bijapur," after China's Hwang Ho. While the Chinese river is infamous for its sudden changes in course, the Indian version, whose water many consider no longer fit for human consumption, is gaining notoriety for its unpredictable nature - flash floods one day, barely a trickle the next. "We need to find a way of storing the excess water and using it through the rest of the year," says A.K. Bajaj, Chairman of India's Central Water Commission.

The IPCC's predictions are grim for a country that still hasn't figured out an effective strategy for water management. In the northwest alone, the water table is falling by about 1.6 inches per year, according to the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) mission. At least half of India's precipitation comes from the annual monsoon rains, and as they become increasingly diminished and unpredictable, the country faces an imminent threat of extreme water shortages. Changing rainfall patterns aren't the only climate- change effect threatening India's water supply: Himalayan glaciers - the source for the many Indian rivers such as the Ganges - are melting at a rapid rate as a result of warmer temperatures. (See TIME's photo-essay "Worst Floods in 50 Years Hit Manila.)

Meager monsoons mean meager crops, and meager income, for Indian farmers. This year alone, the loss to crop yields and property in the two states has totaled almost $7 million. Dr. William Cline, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development (CGD) and the Peterson Institute for International Economics says that of all the potential damage that could occur from climate change, damage to agriculture is likely to be the most devastating. "In the southern parts of India, damage will be substantial and similar to that in other countries also located close to the equator," he says. "In these locations, where temperatures are already at high levels, an increase in temperature will surpass crop tolerance levels."

Already, food shortages have become a major concern for the government, as the retail prices of vegetables shoot up. Damage to the onion crop in the recent floods, for example, saw the vegetable's price double within days.

Even without factoring in climate change, India's got a plate full of problems to deal with. Officials say ineffective management, bureaucracy and disaster planning have all contributed to the worsening of an already bad situation.

Greenpeace: Nobel should motivate Obama on climate change

Receiving the Nobel peace prize should motivate President Obama to get tougher on climate change, the environmental activist group Greenpeace said today.
The Nobel committee specifically cited Obama's committed to fighting global warming as a reason for the award, and the president himself pledged this morning to keep working on the issue.
But Greenpeace says Obama has not yet done nearly enough.
"We hope that the award of the Nobel Peace prize to President Barack Obama will give him the courage of his convictions on climate change," said Gerd Leipold, Greenpeace International Executive Director. "If allowed to go unchecked, climate change will wreak havoc on our societies - spurring mass migration, mass starvation and mass extinction. It will spark conflicts worldwide."
Unlike several other environmental organizations, Greenpeace voiceferously opposed the major climate bill passed by the House this summer, accusing Democrats of watering down the legislation to please corporate interests.
The group is also urging the U.S. to embrace bold action when nations gather in Copenhagen this winter for a climate change summit. Leipold said the U.S. has so far been obstructing international negotiations.
"If President Obama is to be a true Nobel Peace Laureate he must reverse the United States current blocking role in the climate negotiations to secure a fair, ambitious and binding deal for the climate this December," Leipold said.

Art meets science in sculpture park to show climate change

An exhibit opens Saturday at the Seattle Art Museum's Olympic Sculpture Park that will show how a predicted rise in sea levels from climate change might hurt the Seattle waterfront and other cities around the world.
The exhibit came at the request of the museum's environmental steward. It will show how a rise in the sea level of one meter, which some experts say may occur in 2100, would flood gentle slopes at the park. The exhibit marks the current high-tide line in Elliott Bay with a blue rope and uses a red rope to show what a 1-meter rise would do.
The University of Washington says current evidence suggests sea level is rising by about 3 millimeters (1/8 of an inch) each year. And many experts say that rate may increase.
The exhibit is a partnership between the museum and the UW's College of the Environment and Program on Climate Change.

Trip to 2010: Worst-Kept Secrets Will Kill Climate Bill

The news that President Barack Obama had been selected as the Norwegian Nobel committee’s 2009 peace prize winner was met with a near-unanimous non-partisan international response: “Huh?” Even in the President’s own acceptance speech, the chord struck was not so much disagreement as shock.
It is good to see that there are still some surprises in the world, and - in particular - in politics. Still, truly shocking political events - and reactions to them - are rare. Careful observers can see most Hill happenings coming from miles down the road and months ahead of schedule. We know some things will happen already, still our political and media culture waits out the inevitable before allowing events to capture headlines, ride roughshod over public opinion and exert themselves on political discourse.
Borrowing a page from Maureen Dowd’s “imaginings” playbook, this trip to 2010 explains how Washington’s worst-kept secrets will effect the climate change bill by collaring the President and Congressional Dems, and threatening our collective energy future.
FEBRUARY 10, 2010
WASHINGTON, DC
REACTION MIXED AS SENATE CLIMATE BILL GOES TO FLOOR
Critics Assail Compromises While Some Laud Any Action in Time of Political Turmoil
The Senate will likely take up floor debate of its climate bill this week after the proposed legislation was released from committee with considerable compromise put in place to help win votes from reluctant Senators who are facing election-year political pressure and mounting disappointing news about the economy and the war in Afghanistan.
The White House and Congressional Democratic leaders had hoped to have a climate change bill in place before the global climate change conference held in Copenhagen last December. Instead, American negotiators went to the United Nations conference with only the promise of continued domestic effort on greenhouse gas reduction, and observers felt that the Copenhagen conference’s result was all too similar to the Kyoto agreement it was supposed to build upon. While the world left Denmark with a resolution that features very strong aspirational emissions targets, there remains no enforcement mechanism in place, and it is unlikely that the world’s leading emitters will ratify any of the agreement’s most restrictive standards.
The Copenhagen failure took much of the momentum away from domestic climate change legislation, and action on energy and environmental reform has been further hampered as time gets closer to 2010’s mid-term elections and bad news on the economy mounts. Consistent with moribund projections, holiday sales figures were down for a second consecutive year, and the markets took a tumble as cautious investors reacted to retailers’ figures.
The tumble followed earlier market reaction to early January’s fourth quarter earnings announcements, which showed that in spite of stirring signs of economic strength, real recovery is still far from solidified.
The combination of slow sales and low earnings had brought markets back to a point where many observers felt valuation had leveled off from last fall’s slight recovery bubble. But, as final confirmation of double-digit unemployment became reality with last week’s announcement of jobless figures, the market dropped further.
All of the disappointing economic news made it impossible to get a climate change bill to the floor of the Senate without strong trade protections put in place for the domestic industries that are the most energy-intensive.
The protections spurred objections from global trading partners and concerns from observers worldwide that embedding carbon leakage tariff adjustments into the legislation amounts to protectionism and may further stunt economic recovery. Still, Senate negotiators had to include the provisions to win support from Midwestern Democrats who want both to claim progressive credentials by voting for a climate bill, but also needed any such bill to deliver not only protections - but also dollars - for heavy-emitting industries that employ their constituents.
The bill is expected to be debated next week after hearings on the President’s dismissal of General Stanley McChrystal are complete. In late 2009, Obama dismissed McChrystal from his post as commanding general in Afghanistan amid a very public disagreement about troop levels and strategy. The President has faced immense criticism from all sides after dismissing McChrystal. Republicans have criticized him for putting his own “yes man” in charge of executing the plan that McChrystal concocted because he subsequently adopted the recommendation to elevate troop levels. From his left, Obama has faced accusations that escalation is the wrong course and is a repudiation of the “call to action” that he received with his Nobel Peace Prize award last October.
Pundits had expected the Senate climb to be more difficult even than the House’s trials in passing the Waxman-Markey climate bill in early summer last year. Senate rules, election-year pressures and the fact that the House bill relied on heavy support from very populous blue states to win passage all spelled trouble for the Senate bill. Also, Obama’s own clout on the Hill was heavily damaged after last year’s failure to pass a strong health care bill.
Trade protections, heavy dilution of greenhouse has emissions targets, watered-down fuel and building energy efficiency standards, and huge cash handouts to utilities and the oil, gas and coal industries are just some of the elements of the final Senate bill that are drawing fire. As they did for the much-stronger Waxman-Markey bill, leading green groups like Greenpeace are opposing the Senate bill. Others insist that while the bill is imperfect, an incremental approach to energy and environmental legislation may be the best way to proceed.
Whatever the result, it now seems highly unlikely that the House and Senate could possibly agree on a bill in conference committee during this session, and any climate change legislation will likely have to wait until after mid-term elections. Of course, by that time, President Obama will be ramping up his own re-election bid and with hurt feelings among many of the constituencies that supported him in 2008 (gay rights groups and anti-war activists chief among them), Obama may choose to take on some more mainstream initiatives and leave climate change to the side for a while