House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. (image: wellsy.wordpress.com)

As Reuters reported January 20th, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer stated that the pending cap-and-trade legislation may be split in two, so the more politically viable section supporting alternative energy can be passed while wrangling continues on how—and even whether—to limit carbon emissions.

This idea came in response to Republican Scott Brown’s upset victory in the Massachusetts Senate race. Brown and his defeated opponent, Democrat Martha Coakley, have diametrically opposed views on carbon legislation and cap-and-trade. Whereas Coakley supports the bill and limiting carbon emissions—in fact, it was a lawsuit she brought as Massachusetts’ Attorney General that led to the EPA declaring that greenhouse gases pose a public health hazard—Brown has stated that he stands squarely against limits on greenhouse gases. Coakley’s loss to Brown deprives Senate Democrats of a filibuster-proof majority, darkening prospects for passing highly contentious, divisive legislation.

The degree to which limiting greenhouse gas emissions is deeply unpopular, owing to its potential to reduce jobs while raising energy costs for most Americans, can be seen in the fact that some Senate Democrats have joined Republicans in opposing EPA regulation of greenhouse gases.

While not everyone is giddily optimistic about alternative energy, the prospect of supporting it engenders nothing like the opposition that limiting or taxing carbon does. After all, supporting alternative energy development can be positioned as a jobs creation measure. Since alternative energy draws much less fire than cap and trade, as Hoyer put it, “[w]e ought not to let one be the victim of the other . . .I think we can move ahead on energy independence” through encouraging the development of new energy sources.

Democratic retrenchment on cap and trade is just part of a general reevaluation, in the face of the loss of a critical Senate seat (and more broadly, the signal that loss sends about the political mood of the electorate), of legislative priorities. For example, the Obama administration and its Congressional allies’ top priority, health care legislation, is likewise being examined for what may be viably passed post-Brown.

While it’s early to make a prediction about someone who has yet to formally take office, it appears that Brown is going to cast a long shadow in 2010 that will almost certainly extend to greenhouse gas reduction and energy reform legislation.

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). (image: images.morris.com)

Politico.com reported on Thursday that Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) are collaborating with Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) in her efforts to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Lincoln, who hails from a Republican-leaning manufacturing state, said that, “Heavy-handed EPA regulation, as well as the current cap and trade bills in Congress, will cost us jobs, and put us at an even greater competitive disadvantage” relative to China, India, and other countries.

Murkowski planned to formally introduce on Thursday a “resolution of disapproval,” a rarely used legislative tool that allows Congress to overturn agency rules. Although this time she has gathered some support from Democrats, the resolution is not the first time that Murkowski has tried to deny the EPA jurisdiction over greenhouse gas emissions.

In September, a New York Times article reported that Murkowski was attempting to include an amendment to the Interior Department, EPA, and Forestry Service’s spending bill that would severely limit the Obama administration’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases. Her proposed amendment would “prohibit the EPA from regulating heat-trapping emissions from stationary sources like power plants and industrial facilities for one year.”

To become law, however, the resolution of disapproval introduced this week must be passed by the House and signed by President Obama, who is unlikely to overturn a rule that empowers his administration. Said Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), “My guess is that it probably wouldn’t meet with favor when it hits the White House, if it ever passes the House and Senate.”

Congressional Democrats, the White House, and sponsors of climate change legislation have all said that they prefer to regulate emissions via legislation, as opposed to the use of agency action. It also remains to be seen if Murkowski’s amendment to the spending bill will get the 60 votes necessary to pass in the Senate.

Cattle, a significant source of methane, could be affected by EPA regulation. (image: BugMan50 via flickr.com)

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) December announcement that it intends to regulate emissions greenhouse gases has received its first official challenge from special interests. Perhaps surprising to some, the challenge has not come from the usual or more predicable suspects such as big oil, gas, or refining industries. Rather, the first salvo in what could prove to be numerous battles was launched by the beef industry. On Friday, Edmunds.com reported that the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association became the first industry to legally challenge the EPA’s authority in regulating greenhouse gases. Filing their suit on December 24, the Beef Association claims that the science of global warming is weak and therefore the federal government has no right to regulate emissions based on such supposedly fragile claims.

The Beef Association’s concern with EPA regulation of greenhouse gases stems from the fact that cattle produce immense amounts of methane, one of the most dangerous of greenhouse gases and one that the EPA will likely attempt to regulate. Some scientists have asserted that, while carbon dioxide emissions have received the most attention by policymakers attempting to mitigate climate change, methane should be given even more attention. Evidently the Beef Association believes that any attempt to regulate methane emissions will seriously damage the beef industry.

However, the beef industry is not the only business concerned with greenhouse gas regulation. Fearing the economic effects EPA regulation would have on his state, Republican Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal has also voiced his criticism of federal greenhouse gas regulation. Stating that regulation would have a “dramatic chilling effect” on the economy in his state, Jindal asserts that greenhouse gas regulation would seriously damage Louisiana’s oil, gas, and refining industries.

The Beef Association and Governor Jindal may receive help from a powerful friend who also opposes the idea of the EPA regulating emissions. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski hopes to pass an amendment that will prevent the EPA from regulating emissions for one year. While it is unsure whether or not Murkowski’s amendment will achieve the 60 votes needed to pass, EPA regulation of greenhouse emissions is not anyone’s first choice. Both the Obama administration and congressional Democrats would prefer that emissions regulation be addressed through legislation rather than the EPA.

Although it remains to be seen how the Beef Association’s suit will play out, it is unlikely that this will be the last legal challenge lobbed at the EPA or the federal government concerning emissions regulation.

Exxon, the largest oil company in the US, has been a vocal critic of the EPA’s plans to regulate carbon emissions. (image: romleys via flickr.com)

The Environmental Protection Agency’s announcement that it will begin regulating greenhouse gases—should the Senate fail to pass climate change legislation—has predictably attracted the ire of American industry. On Monday, HeatingOil.com reported that the EPA declared greenhouse gases to be a threat to public and environmental health.

In less than twenty-four hours spokespeople representing numerous industries and corporations issued their responses. On Tuesday Bloomberg reported that Exxon Mobil considers the Obama administration’s attempt to characterize carbon emissions as a health hazard as the “least efficient and least transparent” way to tackle climate change. Although the company does not endorse the cap and trade proposal currently floating around the Senate, Exxon believes that EPA regulation would be even more pernicious to the economy and oil industry and asserts that the EPA is not able to handle “a regulatory challenge of this type.”

Big oil is not the only industry decrying the EPA’s recent announcement. On Monday the Wall Street Journal reported that various industries have spoken out against EPA carbon regulation. Charles T. Drevna, president of the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, asserted that “American consumers and businesses alike will be dramatically affected” by the costly changes required by EPA regulation. And the Air Transport Association has argued that one country’s attempt to regulate greenhouse emissions is pointless because emissions are not bound by national borders.

Apparently opting for what they feel is the lesser of two evils, some industry executives have asserted that if there is to be regulation, it would be better handled by Congress. David Ratcliffe, chief executive of utility company Southern Co. noted that “a [Congressional] carbon bill would give more clarity to what you need to do and when.” Michael Parr of DuPont agrees, stating that “only Congress can enact the kind of comprehensive program needed to ensure we achieve emissions reductions in the most cost-effective manner.”

Democrats have recently failed in attempts to garner industrial support of cap and trade by including nuclear energy and expanding offshore drilling as bargaining chips. Exxon’s vice president for public and government affairs, Kenneth Cohen, has suggested that the government scrap cap and trade and instead implement a carbon tax, which Cohen says would better spread out the costs of such as system and limit price volatility. Critics say there is more gamesmanship than sincerity in Exxon’s advocacy of a carbon tax, and that Exxon hopes to avoid all regulation by supporting a measure—the carbon tax—that is doomed to fail.

While it seems that numerous industries have concluded that carbon regulation is needed, or is at least inevitable, it is clear that they are concerned over the costs that regulation will entail and favor proposals that clearly identify the new obligations and regulations to be imposed on businesses.

Embracing one of the many globe sculptures on display in Copenhagen. (image: xinhuanet.com)

Talks in Copenhagen struggled to get back on track Wednesday, after outrage continued over the leaked draft climate agreement known as the Danish Text. Day 3 of the conference saw a targeted attack on the west by Sudanese ambassador Lumumba Stanislaus Dia Ping, according to CNN.com.

Dia Ping told a news conference that the Danish Text was aimed at “preserving and advancing developed countries’ economic dominance and supremacy.” He went on to say that the “Empire” is making a ruthless grab for “60 percent of the global atmospheric space for 20 percent of the world’s wealthiest nations.” The declaration was a huge blow to the proceedings, given that the Sudan is one of the poor nations’ leading climate negotiators.

Meanwhile, U.N. leaders and former Vice President Al Gore worked to repair the damage done by the leak, saying that many such texts are prepared in advance of the conference, and serve as the basis of discussion. Gore said the situation was not unusual, and “ought to be kept in perspective.”

Likely in response to the Danish Text controversy, small island nation Tuvalu led a walkout from the summit today, forcing negotiations to stall for several hours. According to The Times of India, Tuvalu is among several island nations most vulnerable to rising sea levels due to climate change. The nation is favoring much stronger regulations than the current proposal calls for, as well as amending the Kyoto Protocol instead of drafting an entirely new agreement. The Kyoto Protocol is beloved by many small nations for the burden it places on rich countries as opposed to developing nations. Tuvalu and other such nations are intent on walking away from Copenhagen with a legally binding agreement.

Away from the negotiating table, Danish police found and seized protest equipment during a raid, the New York Times reported today. Found in a building that city officials provided as free housing for activists, the police confiscated nearly 200 makeshift shields, paint bombs, and material for “the making of leg protections.” The discovery indicated that protesters were ready to use some degree of force in a large-scale march planned for Saturday. While the police were unable to tie the equipment to any specific protester or cause, many of the protesters descending on Copenhagen this week are there to highlight what they see as consistent failures by the worldwide community in addressing climate change.

While there are a wide variety of particular viewpoints represented among the expected 50,000 protesters, many of them have little faith in the process and want to highlight the alternatives. For example, one group of activists plans an attempt to hijack the conference for a day and make it a “People’s Assembly.” It’s unlikely they will be able to break through the high levels of security at the conference, but their message is still heard.

As Day 3 winds down in Denmark, we’re still waiting for some real progress. It will be interesting to see, in addition to declaring the Danish Text no big deal, if developing nations really come to the table with substantial concessions. Here’s hoping we’re in a better position when the big brass comes in to town next week.

(image: krakowpost.com)

It’s day 2 of the Copenhagen Climate Conference and things are really heating up (no pun intended). Negotiations hit a serious roadblock today, after a secret draft agreement, apparently coming from the U.S., U.K., and Denmark, was leaked.

According to the UK Guardian, developing nations are furious as the so-called Danish Text is calling for unequal emissions caps for rich and poor nations.

More specifically, the agreement suggests allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tons of carbon per person, while limiting poor countries to just 1.44 tons per person.

The agreement is a complete about-face from the Kyoto Protocol, which called for rich nations to shoulder much of the burden to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Developing countries have balked at the secret nature of the draft agreement, the unequal policies proposed, and the inherent weakened role of the U.N. suggested by the text.

According to Newsweek’s The Gaggle blog, U.S. delegate Jonathan Pershing downplayed the importance of the Danish text in a press briefing late Tuesday in Copenhagen. “If there was no Danish text, I would be appalled” since “[the delegates'] job is to bring something to the table,” he said. The challenge now is for developing nations to get negotiations back on track, and quick.

Also out of Copenhagen today is unsurprising news from the World Meteorological Organization. According to the New York Times, new analysis from the organization says that the decade of the 2000s is “likely the warmest decade in the modern record, dating back 150 years.” The assessment provides further proof that global warming has not slowed, and that humans are indeed warming the earth.

The WMO announcement was made at a news conference Tuesday, prompted by European reaction to the recent U.S. decision concerning the regulatory power of the Environmental Protection Agency. As HeatingOil.com reported Monday, the EPA officially declared greenhouse gas emissions a threat to public and environmental health, and is now authorized to take regulatory action against greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

The announcement puts the U.S. in a better negotiating position in Copenhagen, especially since it no longer needs to wait on Congress to take action towards the promised 17 percent emissions reduction goal. As a spokesperson for the European Commission said via the New York Times, the EPA finding was “an important signal by the Obama administration that they are serious about tackling climate change and are demonstrating leadership.” The finding “gives new momentum following their announcement of cuts.”

For heating oil consumers, the upshot of all this news hinges on what gets done at this conference. In the long run, stricter regulation of greenhouse gases will force a lowered reliance on foreign oil and dirty energy. And though the transition may mean higher heating oil and other energy prices temporarily, any increase in alternative forms of energy will eventually mean lower heating oil prices across the board. The bottom line? It’s crucial that the rich nations come to the table, hat in hand, and get negotiations going again. As the WMO news illustrates, the problem of global warming isn’t going anywhere. And as the announcement by the EPA shows us, we cannot afford further inaction.

An offshore drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. (image: eightylbs via flickr.com)

The hot topic of climate change has infiltrated debates over whether or not to allow oil companies to expand offshore oil drilling. On Thursday, the Houston Chronicle reported that Shell executives spoke before a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee panel investigating whether or not Congress should attach more environmental safeguards to offshore drilling operations.

Asserting that more restrictions are not necessary as Shell’s environmental safeguards and technological advancements allow the company to drill with little environmental impact, Shell president Marvin Odum went on argue that the government should allow oil companies to expand offshore oil and gas production.

Shell’s request for expanded offshore drilling rights may be affected by the cap and trade legislation that is currently being debated in Washington. On October 21, HeatingOil.com reported that oil and gas companies rejected a compromise offered by Senators John Kerry and Lindsey Graham that would allow for expanded drilling provisions in return for support of a cap and trade system. To further restrict offshore drilling might only increase the energy industry’s opposition to any climate bill.

Oil and gas companies are not the only ones Democrats have been willing to compromise with. On November 17, HeatingOil.com reported that some Senate Democrats are open to increased use of nuclear power in return for Republican support of cap-and-trade. However, much like big oil and gas, increased use of nuclear energy has yet to entice Republicans into accepting cap and trade.

While it is impossible to tell as of now whether oil and gas companies will ever support cap and trade legislation, it is clear that all future discussions concerning energy production will be at least partially framed by environmental impact and climate change.

Chinese President Hu with U.S. President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton (far right) looks on. (image: eastasiaforum.org)

U.S. President Obama and Chinese President Hu released a joint statement on climate change, the Associated Press reported on Wednesday, saying the Copenhagen summit should “include emission reduction targets of developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries.” That statement seems firmly in line with the position of developing countries—including megapolluter China (the world’s number 1 carbon emitter)—that the developed world should be held accountable for reducing carbon emissions by significant amounts, while the developing world should only have loose goals without teeth or bite.

The statement was short on specifics, however, including on carbon reduction targets, developing world goals, or the most divisive issue—exactly how the cost of carbon reduction should be divvied up.

The joint statement may satisfy German Chancellor Merkel, who might not be forced to make good on her threat to boycott Copenhagen unless the U.S. and China make progress before the conference. It also is hoped by the Obama Administration that discussions and agreement—even broad-strokes agreement—with China will help get a climate bill through Congress.

While accepting that a binding treaty will not come out of Copenhagen, Administration officials sought to portray the conference as still significant, with the President saying that the goal is not merely a “political declaration, but rather an accord that covers all of the issues of in the negotiations, and . . . has immediate effect.” Obama wants the conference to result in more than “an agreement to have an agreement,” though it is unclear how an unenforceable accord differs from an agreement to agree at some later date.

The Obama Administration has been a vocal cheerleader in the fight against global warming and, more specifically, of the need for multinational agreement on the issue. To that end, the Administration has said that the U.S. is ready to provide financial assistance to developing countries to help cover the costs of fighting global warming—which means that the U.S. could end up paying for other nations’ carbon dioxide emissions as well as its own.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed the coming climate change conference during a meeting in Singapore. (image: tdbimg.com)

In a carefully worded statement made yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called UN climate talks in Copenhagen a “steppingstone” toward a global climate agreement, according to the New York Times. For those readers familiar with diplomatic euphemisms, Secretary Clinton’s remarks comprise both a declaration of the United State’s continued commitment to climate change legislation, as well as an acknowledgment that next month’s talks, while a step in the right direction, will most likely not result in a final international deal to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Speaking at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Singapore, Clinton described the upcoming talks as “pivotal,” promising that the United States is “prepared to assume our share of responsibility” in addressing climate change. She then outlined the “major issues” facing climate-pact negotiators, which included adaptation, financing, technology cooperation, dissemination of technology, and forest preservation. “We are prepared to support a global climate fund that will support adaptation and mitigation efforts and a matching entity to help developing countries match needs with available resources,” she said, perhaps hoping to assuage developing countries worried that the financial weight of climate regulation will fall too heavily upon them.

Yet Clinton’s remarks were not all so cheery. She implicitly acknowledged tensions between the United States and China concerning the upcoming climate-change talks, which have led many analysts and negotiators to believe that a final deal will not be reached this year. While Clinton refrained from pointing fingers, there can be little doubt whom she had in mind when insisting that all countries participating in the talks do their fair share; for years, the United States has pressured China—the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases—to adopt stringent emissions caps, a proposition that China has repeatedly refused. Whether or not the United States and China can see eye to eye on this matter may make or break the deal.

According to Todd Stern, the State Department’s Special Envoy for Climate Change, “[t]he Chinese absolutely have to cap their emissions in the sense of having them reduced significantly as compared to where their trend line is. China could make a reduction twice as ambitious as the US is doing, and that would still involve their emissions going up somewhere from where they are now.”

Unsurprisingly, China responded to US exhortations in kind. Making his own highly calculated remarks at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said, “Climate change is an enormous challenge faced by all of mankind and requires a cooperative response by all countries. China is willing to make positive efforts with all sides and contribute to the promotion of a fair and reasonable result at the Copenhagen meeting.” However, Yang stated that primary responsibility for climate change still falls on the United States and other developed nations, arguing that although China has surpassed the United States as the world’s top carbon emitter, its per capita emissions—based on its huge population of 1.3 billion people—are much lower than those of the United States.

Yang’s comments are in line with China’s longstanding stance on climate change policy. Huang Renwei, of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, has argued that developed countries—namely the United States—should lead the way in adopting climate regulation. Specifically, Renwei and other scientists have asked that the United States make larger emissions cuts than those already pledged, and that developed countries contribute between .05 and 1 percent of their GDP to help developing countries deal with global warming. Furthermore, the Chinese government has pointed out that instead of capping emissions, it has taken other measures to curb climate change, including improving energy efficiency by 20 percent by 2010 and planting trees over an area the size of California.

The result of all this back-and-forth has been a sort of diplomatic standoff. In the months leading up to the Copenhagen talks, the United States has attempted to diffuse tensions and negotiate privately with China. US President Barack Obama will visit Beijing and Shanghai next week, no doubt hoping to sit down with Chinese officials and discuss climate change policy before meeting again in Copenhagen. During the visit, it’s likely that the two country’s presidents will disclose their bottom lines on policy issues, although, according to Special Envoy Stern, “[w]e are not trying to cut some separate deals. We’ll try to get as much alliance as possible [between China and the United States] to get a deal in Copenhagen.”

The sooner the better. Earlier this week the International Energy Agency warned that delaying a climate-change deal could make it harder to limit global temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius, and might add massive costs to the already staggering $10.5 trillion needed to shift to low-carbon energy by 2030. “We calculate that each year of delay…would add approximately $500 billion to the global incremental investment cost of $10.5 trillion for the period 2010-2030,” the IEA said. “A delay of just a few years would probably render that goal completely out of reach.” Perhaps that will give negotiators some incentive.

Senator Max Baucus and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. (image: moderateinthemiddle.wordpress.com and princeton.edu)

Senate finance committee chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said on Tuesday that he will work to expedite what he termed “meaningful” climate change legislation that can gain enough congressional support to become law, the Wall Street Journal reported. Baucus made his comments during his opening statement at a finance committee hearing. He added that the US must protect home industries by devising a plan to prevent “carbon leakage” should American manufacturing shift to countries that lack effective climate change programs.

Also on Tuesday, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon met with a bipartisan group of senators at the US Capitol, according to Politico. At the meeting with Sens. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), Ban urged the Senate to act on climate change before the UN climate change summit next month in Copenhagen. He acknowledged that the Senate was unlikely to move that quickly, but he urged the Senate to draft principles to establish pollution reduction goals, including targets for greenhouse gas reductions.

Such a framework would send a strong political message and be a sign of commitment to reducing carbon emissions on the part of the US, said Ban. “That will be quite important…for us to get this negotiation started.” Ban said he expects the December summit to result in a political agreement signed by major world leaders, as opposed to a legally binding treaty to reduce global emissions.

Sens. Kerry, Lieberman, Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are working to draft bipartisan climate legislation, and expect to release a framework for such legislation before Copenhagen. Lieberman said that these principles will be sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for review by the Congressional Budget Office and the US Environmental Protection Agency.

The Senate Environment and Public Works committee has actually passed part of the bill authored by Sens. Kerry and Boxer, and at least four other committees may put the legislation on their respective agendas.

The Washington Post reported that, following Tuesday’s meeting with Ban, Lugar said he did not see “any bill on the table that I can support. We really have to start from scratch.” Lugar explained that his constituents are currently more concerned about the state of the economy, and that he did not see the Kerry-Boxer bill as politically viable.

The Obama administration wanted the Senate to pass climate legislation before the Copenhagen meeting begins on Dec. 7. However, the Senate has delayed final action on the climate change bill until next year, and any agreement about establishing a policy—carbon tariffs—has drawn the ire of emerging nations such as China and India, as well as the White House, Europe, and the UN.

Since the Environment and Public Works committee passed a draft of the bill over a Republican boycott last week, it is heading to simultaneous hearings before the Finance committee and the Energy and Natural Resources committee, wrote HeatingOil.com’s Steven Zweig on Tuesday. He cited concerns on the part of senators from both parties about the cost of reducing carbon emissions and the distribution of that cost.