Iowa Global Warming

How Big Oil and Big Coal mounted one of the most aggressive lobbying campaigns in history to block progress on global warming

JEFF GOODELL

This was supposed to be the transformative moment on global warming, the tipping point when America proved to the world that capitalism has a conscience, that we take the fate of the planet seriously. According to the script, Congress would pass a landmark bill committing the U.S. to deep cuts in carbon emissions. President Obama would then arrive in Copenhagen for the international climate summit, armed with the moral and political capital he needed to challenge the rest of the world to do the same. After all, wasn’t this the kind of bold move the Norwegians were anticipating when they awarded Obama the Nobel Peace Prize?

As we now know, it didn’t work out that way. Obama arrived in Copenhagen last month without any legislation committing the U.S. to reduce carbon pollution. Instead of reaching agreement on how to stop cooking the planet, the summit devolved into bickering over who bears the most blame for turning up the heat. The world once again missed an opportunity to avert disaster — and the delay is likely to have deadly consequences. In recent years, we have moved from talking about the possibility of climate change to watching it unfold before our eyes. The Arctic is melting, wildfires are turning into infernos, warm-weather insects are devouring forests, droughts are getting longer and more lethal. And the more we learn about climate change, the more it becomes apparent how enormous the risks are. Just a few years ago, researchers estimated that sea levels would likely rise 17 inches by 2100. Now they believe it could be three feet or more — a cataclysmic shift that would doom many of the world’s cities, including London and New Orleans, and create tens of millions of climate refugees.

Our collective response to the emerging catastrophe verges on suicidal. World leaders have been talking about tackling climate change for nearly 20 years now — yet carbon emissions keep going up and up. “We are in a race against time,” says Rep. Jay Inslee, a Democrat from Washington who has fought for sharp reductions in planet-warming pollution. “Mother Nature isn’t sitting around waiting for us to get our political act together.” In fact, our failure to confront global warming is more than simply political incompetence. Over the past year, the corporations and special interests most responsible for climate change waged an all-out war to prevent Congress from cracking down on carbon pollution in time for Copenhagen. The oil and coal industries deployed an unprecedented army of lobbyists, spent millions on misleading studies and engaged in outright deception to derail climate legislation. “It was the most aggressive and corrupt lobbying campaign I’ve ever seen,” says Paul Begala, a veteran Democratic consultant.

Page 1 of 6  full story here

By Perry Beeman, Des Moines Register

Environmentalists expect to spend most of the legislative session trying to fend off budget-cutters rather than attempting to push through new programs to protect air and water.

Several environmental officials say the environment probably will get even less attention than usual given the budget crisis and an election looming.

Rep. Donovan Olson, a Boone Democrat who leads the House environment committee, said: “We won’t be creating any new programs and we won’t be allocating any new state dollars. So that really limits our action for our next session. We just won’t be doing that much.”

Marian Gelb of the Iowa Environmental Council, a nonprofit coalition of green groups and individuals, and Richard Leopold, director of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, agreed. Leopold described the coming session as “pretty meek and mild.”

Here’s what’s likely to come up:

Climate

By the end of this year, a state task force will submit a firmer set of recommendations for cutting greenhouse gases to fight climate change. There’s also work to look more closely at benefits and costs of various actions.

Little action is expected in this Legislature, except setting the scene for votes in the next one.

But Neil Hamilton, a professor at Drake University who attended the recent Copenhagen climate talks, said Iowans should pursue many climate-related actions because they help the environment in a broader sense.

Some plantings do a good job of sweeping heat-trapping carbon from the air, but also reduce soil erosion.

Renewable energy sources such as wind can help diversify the energy mix, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and, yes, limit carbon dioxide emissions, Hamilton added.

“This really is an economic question” as much as an environmental one, he said.

Livestock

Adam Mason, state policy organizing director for the nonprofit Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, said CCI members will pressure Gov. Chet Culver to make good on his campaign pledge to push for local control of livestock confinements.

“If Culver expects to be around more than one term, we need to see something out of him,” Mason said. “I’m going to hammer away that he campaigned on that.

“This is an issue that resonates, and it’s one that will come up again in November.”

Erin Seidler, Culver’s spokeswoman, said, “The governor is committed to local control for livestock confinement, but unfortunately there hasn’t been consensus in the Iowa Legislature to get it done.”

The local-control legislation has been so controversial among lawmakers that leaders have declined to even have a floor debate. In addition, Democratic leaders in the Legislature at times have been at odds with Culver, a fellow Democrat.

CCI also wants the state to set bigger buffer zones between confinements and homes, for example. And the group wants permit requirements to extend to even smaller livestock operations.

The chances of any of that happening: slim.

“Realistically, it’s probably not going to move this year,” Mason said.

Sen. Donovan Olson, a Boone Democrat, said lawmakers are so divided on the local-control issue that advocates would be better off looking for some way to gain ground in an incremental way, short of the full-fledged yielding of power to local authorities.

Trails and more

The Iowa Environmental Council and other organizations are pushing to prevent cuts to the Resources Enhancement and Protection program, which has been pulling in a record $18 million from gambling receipts the past few years. That still is short of the $20 million authorized by legislation.

The program pays for trails, public land and historic preservation, for example.

“We’re going to work hard to keep REAP funded,” Gelb, of the Iowa Environmental Council, said. “It’s realistic to expect it is going to take a hit. We’ll make an effort to keep that as small as possible.”

Leopold, the DNR director, said he hasn’t heard of specific plans to cut cash for the program. However, with 10 percent cuts spreading across state government, a small cut is possible, he added.

Air quality

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources and the Iowa Environment Council both support legislation, introduced in the last session, that would ban open burning in cities and immediately surrounding areas.

Neither thinks it will pass. The move is designed to protect asthmatics and others from lung damage.

“Realistically, I don’t think they are going to give it time,” Leopold said.

Also in the air: legislation that would limit the idling of diesel trucks.

Long-term financing

Voters will cast ballots in November on a measure that would devote 0.375 percent of any future sales tax increase to natural resources projects.

A $2.5 million public campaign is expected to begin this summer. Lawmakers are expected to consider legislation that would lay out how the estimated $150 million a year would be distributed from a constitutionally protected account.

The money won’t be available unless voters approve the measure, and lawmakers later vote to increase the sales tax.

Story is here

The climate talks in Denmark produced serious talk among top carbon emitters about doing something, but little action that will directly affect Iowa, observers here say.

What happens next could affect everything from Iowa weather to how much the state’s residents pay for electricity.

Iowans who watched the Copenhagen Accord take shape from the ground in Denmark found important symbolism in President Barack Obama’s steps to move the United States into the middle of the discussions. They also point to real meat in an agreement of nations to spend $100 billion a year by 2020 for aid to poor countries and to countries facing the biggest climate-related effects.

But the agreement contained no hard targets for reducing heat-trapping greenhouse gases or specific emissions-reducing measures.

“It’s a beginning,” said Andrew Snow of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, a nonprofit group. “It’s a very positive thing considering ourselves and others were worried they wouldn’t reach a deal at all.”

Read the rest of the story here.

For Ban Ki-moon, bringing about a new U.N. climate treaty by the end of this year is a must.

Ban decided from the moment he became U.N. secretary-general in January 2007 that “climate change should be the most important top-priority issue for the United Nations, for the entire world,” he said in an Associated Press interview this week.

Since then Ban says he has put “all my efforts and energy” into persuading nations to cut a new climate deal in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December, replacing the Kyoto Protocol for reducing greenhouse gases that expires in 2012.

“From day one, I have been trying to visit all the places around the world, wherever and whenever I was able to see the consequences of climate change,” he said. “Now, the United Nations is leading this campaign, in close coordination with the … major players.”

For the rest of the article, click here.

The climate challenge just became a lot more challenging. We know that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are accelerating global warming. But intrepid research has revealed an additional sinister threat: methane. The warming of the Arctic is releasing vast quantities of methane that has been locked away for centuries in formerly frozen soil. Once released, methane traps 25 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide does. So it is more imperative than ever to slash greenhouse gases quickly, to slow the venting of methane.

The single boldest stroke must come from Congress. The House and Senate are debating legislation that would impose either a cap-and-trade system or a tax on carbon emissions. Certain politicians and CEOs are trying to talk Congress out of it. Our representatives should dismiss the detractors and pass legislation, before November. That deadline is crucial: nations will meet in December in Copenhagen to hammer out new international agreements to limit emissions. The U.S., shamefully, has never signed such a protocol, and leaders worldwide have said, plainly, that the Copenhagen talks will fail if the U.S. does not enact legislation to clean up its own backyard.

Read the rest of the article at Scientific American.

At the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate on Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised that that United States is prepared to lead the world in negotiating a new climate change treaty in Copenhagen in December. The conference in Washington was the first of three that will take place, bringing together leaders from countries that are responsible for 75 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Clinton emphasized that there is not doubt that climate change is a serious threat to the environment, economy, health and security. She also assured developing countries that their energy sources would not be limited, but that developed countries like the US would help to make them cleaner. Countries like India were glad to see such a commitment from the US and hope this will lead to better trust between developed and developing countries.

Because the US made little progress in the realm of climate legislation during the past eight years, Clinton emphasized the importance of acting now. “The United States is fully engaged and determined to lead and make up for lost time both at home and abroad. We are back in the game,” she said.

To read more, go here

Climate was part of the discussion at the G-20 Leaders’ Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy in London Wednesday. The first summit, which was held in Washington D.C. in November made little mention of climate issues, but G-20 leaders at the London summit wanted to take the opportunity to outline some concerns that will be addressed at the United Nations Climate Change conference in Copenhagen in December.

Though it only comprised two of the 29 points in the final communiqué, the environment and how it is connected to financial issues was a concern to the G-20 countries represented. Discussion was not specific, but centered on the necessity of an agreement in Copenhagen. President Obama highlighted the need for the US to serve as a leader with regard to climate.

Though there was some criticism of the lack of specificity concerning climate issues, many feel it was a great step forward that climate was discussed at all at a summit centered on the economy. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown stressed the importance of “working together” in Copenhagen “based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.”

Read more here