Under Fire: Corporate Climate Plan Pleases No One
Being in the middle of the road means you take fire from all sides, apparently. That’s what the U.S. Climate Action Partnership is learning after unveiling its blueprint for government action to curb greenhouse-gas emissions.
Pretty much everybody has something nasty to say about the proposals, the fruit of two years of work at the group which encompasses big companies as well as environmental groups. Many environmentalists attacked the plan for being too weak; plenty of politicians think the group is going too far.
House Republicans tore into proposals presented by the group. Illinois Republican John Shimkus railed against cap-and-trade “shell games” that he says hide the cost of environmental regulations from consumers.
Other Republicans, like Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, ripped into US CAP’s “self-serving” proposals because of the way they’re structured. He zeroed in on the group’s advocacy of free emissions permits and its insistence that companies be allowed to meet emissions-reduction targets by using carbon-offset schemes:
“I’m totally bewildered that in this anti-earmark atmosphere, USCAP would promote what is basically just another request from special interest groups to take money out of taxpayer pockets. The notion that this bill will give significant allowances—with real monetary value—away for free is outrageous. I am also opposed to the inclusion of international and domestic offsets, which will compromise the strength of the market system and call into question the integrity of emission reductions.”
UPDATE: Keith Trent, Duke Energy’s chief policy architect, responds that USCAP’s call for a portion of free allocations is meant to cushion the transition for consumers. Since USCAP’s plan would channel those emission permits through local, regulated entities, “not a penny” of the value of the emissions permits would end up in shareholder hands, he said, and there would be no “windfall” profits for power companies. The National Association of Utility Regulators backs that idea as well.
Still, those two issues, as well as lowball intermediate emissions targets, drew the ire of environmentalists. The Union of Concerned Scientists said the blueprint needs “strengthening.” Environmental group Friends of the Earth focused on the same issues and called the blueprint “deeply flawed.” Environmental coalition 1Sky lambasted the plan’s “loopholes.” Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy, or BICEP, which includes Nike, Starbucks, Levi Strauss, and Sun Microsystems, took aim at the plan’s emissions-reductions targets and dearth of renewable-energy goals.
To be sure, USCAP’s promoters were well aware they were bringing a compromise vision for climate action to Congress. Duke Energy chief executive and USCAP honcho Jim Rogers quoted the Rolling Stones in Thursday testimony before Congress: “You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometime, you might find, you get what you need.”
(01-14) 04:00 PST Washington - — Steven Chu, President-elect Barack Obama’s choice to lead the Energy Department, is known for his scientific prowess as a Nobel laureate physicist and director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. . . . .
He appealed to Democrats on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee with a pledge to forcefully advocate for Obama’s plans to FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE . . .
IN UNDERTAKING TO IMPLEMENT OBAMA’S PLANS TO FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE,
AS HE NOW APPARENTLY PROPOSES TO DO,
MR. CHU, DESPITE HIS SCIENTIFIC CREDENTIALS,
MAY HAVE BITTEN OFF MORE THAN HE CAN CHEW.
Any reduction will have almost zero affect on global warming. If you are a true believer of the global warming due to humans (which is false, but let’s assume here it is true), then you would know that we would need almost a 100% world-wide stop to carbon emissions in order to stop further global warming. Reductions are just not going to cut it, especially when the rest of the world and China, Russia, and India particulary, are growing emissions at ridiculous rates.
.
Cap and trade will only increase the cost of energy for the consumer and will do nothing for global warming.
.
Hope this helps.
.
OMG- What’s with the picture for this story? Is that a mask made of leather? Dude needs more than satisfaction.
“get real”: I don’t think the people who put together this plan were “true believers” in climate change.
There are people who see evidence from our best climate models and data strongly suggesting that we take action now to reduce the future impact of climate change, and then there are people for whom ideology trumps evidence. Which one are you?
What if it had not been found and promoted by independent scientists and then picked up by environmentalists? What if it had FIRST been discovered by scientists working for big industry? Would you still be as skeptical?
I suppose the problem cannot be tackled without admitting to a small flaw in your ideology, and that’s why “true believers” in your ideology will never recognize the reality, regardless of the evidence.
Got Real,
I am not a scientist, but how can you call “data” from “our best climate models” evidence? And to pretend that the climate change culture is ideology free? C’mon.
You think Mick looks bad check out the front page of the Drudge Report today, they have Mr. Global Warming Henry “The Troll” Waxman on the front page. If I was that ugly I’d hate capitalism too!
To got real:
.
You really have no understanding of the issues.
.
The “scientists” that say global warming is man-made, also say that global warming is not reversable for centuries due to all of the man-made CO2 in the atmosphere. Totally ridiculous, but you cannot choose to believe in only part of their “findings” that global warming is man-made.
.
The fact is that if you susbscribe to the notion that global warming is caused by man, then the only cure is an immediate stop to all greenhouse gas emissions by man. Anything else will result in more irreversable global warming. A reduction will do nothing, especially when the rest of the world is INCREASING. What don’t you understand?
Uhh, “Get Real,” have you checked out overall CO2 flows lately. Nature is picking up about half the “toxic” CO2s coming from fossil fuels and Mother Nature is getting really tired cleaning up after us.
What DO you understand?
Climate models and data are both forms of evidence. Rational people who have studied the evidence have come to similar conclusions — even those who are ideologically opposed to this type of government action.
Get Real says that if global warming is caused by man then “the only cure is an immediate stop to all greenhouse gas emissions by man”. This should demonstrate how little “get real” knows about the climate models. Real scientists have been discussing climate models with an eye on global warming for decades. The impact of humans on the carbon cycle is not a simple equation. If we were to include all terms of it, we would have to include… oh wait, I forgot… this isn’t a debate about the science; it’s a debate about policy and economics. The climate science is pretty much done. The questions now are economic ones, but a few crackpots are still stuck in the past and wanting to debate the science without any understanding of it….
There are still crackpots debating whether the world is round. Luckily, we don’t have to argue policy with them too often.
Evidence - noun, that which proves or disproves something, data documenting observed phenomena or objects, records, or tailored projections from unaudited computer models.
Idiomatic use: “There are people who see evidence from our best climate models . . .”
Class dismissed!
Hi, Newspeak. I’m not talking about climate models but rather measurements made by the NOAA CO2 observatory in Hawaii beginning in 1958 and continuing to now. They present CO2 flow measurement data on their web site in a form simple enough for me to think I understand it.
Also, In the last month or so, global temperature observation data taken since 1880 (when repeatable temperature measurements became possible worldwide) to the present was analyzed to see if the elevated temperatures observed since 1990 could be a statistical quirk. Odds against a coincidence came out to be slightly over 10,000 to 1.
I don’t think anyone has it exactly right, nor do they have to. Close enough is good enough.
What part of emergency don’t you understand?
Got Real - You’re real entertaining, that’s for sure. Thanks for helping me read to the end! Try Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park. I think you belong there.
Correlation - noun, a coincidence construed as a cause.
Idiomatic use: “Odds against a coincidence came out to be slightly over 10,000 to 1.”
This debate has degenerated into a “is so/is not” discussion like we had as kids. Instead of focusing on whether man’s activities have a role in climate change, which can’t be proven and on which we’ll never get agreement, let’s focus on what we might do if we can agree that the climate is changing - it almost doesn’t matter if it’s a change that’s part of a short-term or long-term cycle.
Instead, what’s the best way to spend the money? Trillions on carbon controls? How about working with economists (a la Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus ‘04 recommendations) to develop the highest return projects?
Sorry Mr. Holm, it’s not enough to yell “emergency” and shut down the debate - that hasn’t worked very well with the TARP so far. We have a long way to go. Close enough is not good enough when we’re talking about devoting resources that can make a difference in people’s lives now.
Everyone can agree that the climate is changin (it always is changing). The recent trend is going warmer.
.
However, none of this has been proven to be attributable to man.
.
Futher, even if you do believe that global warming is attributable to man, then, according to the research that you believe, there is no way to undo the damage and no way to stop global warming for centuries (and that assumes that we stop ALL emissions right now).
.
Hope this helps.
.
P.S. “got real”: your posts show how ignorant you really are on the subject.
The US now has the right person in Hillary Clinton to put forward the US Climate Change plans to the world,different story with Bush Administration has been reluctant to endorse.