The Political Climate: an ongoing commentary on the NH Primary and Climate Change

There is a major climate convening taking place this week that could decide the future of our energy use.  The fate of the climate and hours of blood, sweat, and tears of climate activists will culminate in this round of intense deliberations and negotiations.  Rockingham/Strafford Energy Committee Alliance Workshop will take place tomorrow night in Durham.  Check out the workshop flyer for more details.

Also on the climate agenda, are two international summits in New York and Washington.  Today, UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon is holding one of the largest international summits ever to discuss climate change issues at the UN.  Unfortunately, President Bush will not attend any of the day’s meetings but will attend the dinner this evening.  The UN forum will begin post-Kyoto discussions in anticipation of the formal discussions to take place in Bali this December.

Later in the week President Bush will convene his own summit to address climate change with the fifteen ‘major economies’ of the world.  “It’s our philosophy that each nation has the sovereign capacity to decide for itself what its own portfolio of policies should be,” said James L. Connaughton, Bush’s top environmental aid.  While Bush has begun to take action on climate change in recent months, many environmentalist and world leaders are angry at Bush’s reluctance to commit to binding international emissions caps; Bush remains more in favor of voluntary emissions targets.

Is President Bush responding to the 164 New Hampshire towns that passed the climate change resolution calling for national leadership on climate change?  Until specifics materialize about how voluntary targets will break the status quo, the question remains unanswered.

AARP and Iowa Public Radio invited the six leading Democratic candidates to participate in a debate focused on issues important to senior citizens.  Five of the six participated; Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd.  Absent was Barack Obama who had a previous scheduling conflict.

Hillary Clinton faced the first climate change question one hour into the debate.  Judy Woodruff of Iowa Public Television asked Clinton if she would join Senator Dodd in support of a carbon tax.  Clinton answered no and reaffirmed her support of an economy wide cap and trade system.  Clinton also mentioned removing tax subsidies for oil companies and investing that money to promote renewable fuels like ethanol from Iowa.

Woodruff let Dodd respond.  “You are not going to get away from the use of fossil fuels unless you deal with the price,” Dodd said.  Dodd asserted that the corporate carbon tax would allow more efficient energy technologies the opportunity to compete in price with fossil fuels.  Learn about the differences between a carbon tax and cap and trade on E&ETV’s On Point.

Woodruff quickly shifted the debate away from climate change.  Near the end of his response to a tax cut question, Bill Richardson stated “I was Energy Secretary.  I’ve got to say something about the carbon tax.  A carbon tax, I believe is much weaker than cap and trade.”  Richardson described that the under carbon tax the price increase would be imposed on those who are driving cars and there are no mandated reduction targets as there is under his cap and trade plan.

The debate again shifted from climate change.  Like Richardson, Joe Biden brought up climate change on his own volition in the middle of a question about paid family leave.  Biden worried that Delaware is going to be under water because India and China are fulfilling their burgeoning energy demands by building one new coal power plant per week.  “We have to engage in joint ventures with those countries,” said Biden, “and provide technology that provides jobs and income in order for them to stop polluting.”

These debate moderators need to wake up and realize that the candidates want to talk about climate change.  Hopefully Tim Russert will ask more than two climate change questions during next week’s debate in Hanover.

According to Grist, coal looks to be an inevitable part of the future of energy in America.  Brian Beutler writes that “Two important hearings on Capitol Hill earlier this month strongly indicated that we’re stuck with coal — and a coal industry generously supported by the American taxpayer — for the foreseeable future.”

In his blog, “The Coal Nine Yards,” Beutler discusses how the industry could take shape in the coming years and how energy production from coal could largely impact carbon emissions and climate change. 

Beutler notes that there are two options for coal technology: carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and coal-to-liquid (CTL).  He explains that while CCS technology remains unproven and is estimated to be quite costly, it could potentially decrease carbon emissions substantially.  While CTL technology exists today, it is costly and is proven to increase carbon emissions.  Beutler states that it is “a filthy technology that’s likely to worsen global warming and could turn out to be the biggest boondoggle in the sordid history of energy subsidies.”

Beutler comments that coal’s “enormity makes unseating it unthinkable if not impossible. It may be an unwelcome hegemony, but it looks like we’re stuck with it for now.”  If coal is inevitably part of the future of American energy, our next president must look closely at its impact on climate change when developing a comprehensive plan to reduce carbon emissions.  The last thing we want is to take steps toward increasing carbon emissions and make the crisis worse. 

LCV’s Heat Is On project has a report on what the presidential candidates’ positions are on coal and other global warming related technologies.

The future of our climate seems relatively promising when one looks through the keyhole of the state of New Hampshire.  Scores of local town energy committees have organized as a result the New Hampshire Climate Change Resolution and everyday citizens are adapting ways to lead more efficient lives.  Unfortunately, Tom Friedman reminds us that, “the growth in Doha and Dalian ate all your energy savings for breakfast.”

Friedman’s New York Times op-ed “Doha and Dalian” captures a vision of the two rapidly developing super-cities in Qatar and China that may help to ground our environmental optimism in New Hampshire.  Friedman recognizes that “it is a blessing that their people are growing out of poverty.  And, after all, they’re just following the high-energy growth model pioneered by America,” and reminds us that “we’re still the world’s biggest energy hogs, but we’re now producing carbon copies in places you’ve never heard of.”

Doha and Dalian remind us that climate change can not be solved by New Hampshire’s local energy committees alone.  It is not enough for the next president to merely say that America will not consider emissions caps unless India and China do so as well.  The next president must actively use diplomacy to convince the international community to join a cooperative global effort to combat climate change.