Shelley Moore Capito, denial and the climate change bill
Over in Washington, the House of Representatives is getting ready to vote tomorrow on the big Waxman-Markey climate change bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act. House Democratic leaders are busy trying to round up enough votes to get the bill approved.
Here in West Virginia, Democratic Reps. Nick J. Rahall and Alan Mollohan aren’t saying yet how they will vote. UPDATED, 5:15 P.M. MOLLOHAN HAS ANNOUNCED HE WILL VOTE AGAINS THE BILL.
But it’s been pretty clear from the start what our other member of Congress, Republican Shelley Moore Capito, was going to do … and she made it even more clear yesterday:
“This bill amounts to a national energy tax on consumers, a tax on business and a tax that we can’t afford. In a state that gets 98% of its electricity from coal and employs thousands of miners, a bill that penalizes domestic energy isn’t a valid option.
“This bill essentially pits states like West Virginia against states like California and Massachusetts, and that’s not the right approach. West Virginians shouldn’t have to subsidize our friends on the coasts, particularly when other options are available.
“I will continue to argue that the bipartisan plan I recently introduced provides an opportunity to invest in renewable energy technology, invest in conservation and invest in clean coal - all without taxing consumers. We need an all-of-the-above energy strategy that capitalizes on all of our nation’s available resources, not one that picks regional winners and losers.”
What’s more interesting is what Rep. Capito didn’t say …
For example, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis, as reported by Climate Progress and Paul Krugman of The New York Times, the legislation would cost an American Household just 18 cents a day (about $65 a year).
Says Krugman (who has a Nobel Prize in Economics):
The point is that we need to be clear about who are the realists and who are the fantasists here. The realists are actually the climate activists, who understand that if you give people in a market economy the right incentives they will make big changes in their energy use and environmental impact. The fantasists are the burn-baby-burn crowd who hate the idea of using government for good, and therefore insist that doing the right thing is economically impossible.
And, according to an EPA review of the legislation, efficiency provisions of the bill would lower — not increase — electric bills over the next decade:
As a result of energy efficiency measures, consumer spending on utility bills would be roughly 7% lower in 2020 as a result of the legislation.
The overall impact on the average household, including the benefit of many of the energy efficiency provisions in the legislation, would be 22 to 30 cents per day ($80 to $111 per year).
Graphic from Union of Concerned Scientists.
As NASA climate scientist James Hansen made clear during his visit to West Virginia this week, coal it the planet’s biggest source of carbon dioxide, the key greenhouse gas. If nothing is done about coal’s greenhouse emissions … well, there’s no way to deal with the problem without addressing coal. Wrote Hansen:
The science is clear. Burning all fossil fuels will destroy the future of young people and the unborn. And the fossil fuel that we must stop burning is coal. Coal is the critical issue. Coal is the main cause of climate change. It is also the dirtiest fossil fuel — air pollution, arsenic, and mercury from coal have devastating effects on human health and cause birth defects.
Joseph Romm outlines on Climate Progress that he thinks the current bill is going to be pretty tough on the coal industry:
The EPA projects (page 27) that W-M will stop pretty much all of the few remaining new dirty coal plants that EIA had been projecting would be built through 2025 (roughly 20 GW), whereas the overwhelming major of new capacity will be renewable energy.
And the EPA projects (p. 28) W-M will lead to 22 GW of extra coal retirements by 2015 beyond what EIA had been projecting.
In reality, the bill will be much tougher on coal. Using the numbers from the far more credible CBO analysis, and assuming CCS is only a bit player for the next decade, it looks like U.S. coal use would drop by at least 20% by 2020. My own analysis suggests coal use in 2020 would drop by more than 25% compared to 2005 levels — but it is really hard to be more precise than that because the exact number depends most on two very difficult things to project.To really know how much of a hit coal takes, you’d have to know the price of oil in 2020 and the price (and availability) of natural gas in 2020. Historically, these have been two of the most difficult things to project. Obviously, if peak oil takes the oil price above $200 a barrel in 2020, then we’ll see relatively more reduction in oil use than expected. Similarly, if unconventional natural gas proves as abundant as recent production growth — and recent projections — suggest, then we’ll see relatively more reduction in coal use than expected.
Others think the bill, especially in provisions carved out by Virginia Congressman Rick Boucher at the behest of coal, coal-fired utilities and the United Mine Workers, gives too much to coal and won’t do enough to control global warming. The National Mining Association, not surprisingly, opposes the bill.
But, while the UMWA hasn’t announced a final position on the bill, union President Cecil Roberts has had good things to say about the changes made through Boucher’s efforts:
“While we still have concerns about this legislation, it contains many items that Rep. Boucher and others worked hard to attain and which we support, including over $100 billion to advance and deploy carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.
“The bill also includes our recommendation for allowances to be given to utilities to permit the continued burning of coal, which should ensure that coal’s market share will remain constant throughout the period required to develop and deploy CCS technology. With 2 billion in allowances for offsets per year, coal should remain a major part of the nation’s power generating mix. In addition, these allowances will protect consumers from large increases in their power bills.
And the latest edition of the UMWA Journal summarizes the legislation favorably, pointing out language that would:
– Seek a 17 percent reduction from 2005 greenhouse gas levels by 2020, a more modest goal than the 20 percent reduction contained in the original bill, and way below the 25-40 percent below 1990 lvels sought by other countries.
– Budget $10 billion over 10 years to develop CCS in commercial projects.
– Provide 35 percent of emissions allowances free to coal-burning utilities, with a phase-out between 2025 and 2030, a benefit worth $447 billion. Originally, the allowances were to be auctioned off.
– Provide $181 billion in incentive bonuses for developing and adopting CCS technologies.
This afternoon, I tried to get a clear answer on whether the UMWA supports House passage of the bill or not. The best I’ve gotten so far is this from union spokesman Phil Smith:
 We are very appreciative of the fact that our voice has been heard as legislation has been developed. As it stands now, the amount of money dedicated to coal in this bill is remarkable, and the future of coal will be intact. Depending on what happens to this legislation as it makes its way through the legislative process, we may not be able to support it in the end. But a start has been made that recognizes the critical importance of coal to our nation’s energy future.
So, what’s up with our good friend Rep. Capito?
Well, you have to wonder if it all goes back to whether she really believes in science. Remember what she said not so long ago in this Gazette story:
Despite a widespread scientific consensus, the West Virginia Republican said she’s “not convinced” that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide are leading to global warming that will alter the planet’s climate in ways that could be dangerous.
“I’m looking at the studies, and trying to understand it,” Capito said in a phone interview. “But I’m not convinced that the urgencies or the doomsday predictions are factual.”
Capito touts a competing proposal, called the American Conservation and Clean Energy Independence Act, but that bill would not cap carbon dioxide emissions, which is the key thing that needs to happen to get the nation on the road to fixing the climate crisis.
But the good congresswoman from West Virginia’s 2nd district has also greatly misstated climate science in her public statements on the issue, and she’s taken part in GOP efforts to mislead the public about the potential costs of dealing with the problem.
At least Rep. Capito is making it clear how she’s going to vote. But I’m reminded of something the UMWA Journal said in its recent edition about Massey Energy President Don Blankenship’s refusal to take engage on ways to make a climate change bill better:
In Don Blankenship’s world, the coal industry should hunker down behind the Appalachian mountains and do nothing but call names and make enemies. He somehow appears to think that if he can ignore the issues surrounding coal and the future of coal, or if he says enough bad things about the politicians in Washington, then they will go away and leave the coal industry alone.
13 comments
Everything I have read suggests that the coal industry has done quite well in connection with this bill. I hope Rahall and Mollohan have the sense to vote for it.
If they do, they can take credit for saving a lot of West Virginia coal jobs, and keeping WV at the table in the coming years as this incredible transition plays out.
But it seems that Ms. Capito, in adhering to a “denier” position, is already irrelevant. You’d think she would be smarter about this.
Ken,
I note that others have reached different conclusions as to the costs of the proposed legislation.
Here is a link to an editorial from the Wall Street Journal in this regard in case your readers are interested:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html
Thanks, Shane.
For those who don’t know, Shane is general counsel of Massey Energy.
I welcome him warmly to the discussion on Coal Tattoo.
Ken.
“The coal industry, as an industry, didn’t do a thing to get what it got in this bill. Indeed, they are officially opposing it through the NMA. What is in there for coal (and though it’s a lot, there needs to be more) is there because of Rep. Boucher, the UMWA and a very few others.”
Rep Capito’s position doesn’t surprise me in the least. She is towing the line for her party. People wake up, denialists do you no favors.
It is like a doctor tells you that you have cancer and you go into denial and do not get prompt treatment. In the end you are going to die. The same goes with the pollution. Even if you don’t believe in climate change, doesn’t common sense tell you that breathing and drinking pollutants would be harmful to you and your children? Denying that the pollution exists doesn’t mean that pollution is not in the air and water.
Reading Shane’s link it says “When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill’s restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.”
So if this bill is watered down, what would the costs to Americans be if the bill was strict enough to actually have a positive effect on climate change?
Very forthcoming, I didnt know Shane was general counsel for Massey Energy. May you be more forthcoming in the future.
Many of you act as if us skeptics deny climate change and we are foolish for doing so. An above post calls us “Deniers”. Well it seems to me that the Pro-AGW followers have been denying information that refutes AGW for years now. With me it all comes down to the scientific method as this is a scientific matter.
A hypothesis has been formed. It has been tested. Some results say AGW is a fact, some don’t. At this point since AGW is not irrefutable a new hypothesis should be generated but instead the Pro-AGW crowd disregards any information they don’t agree with and hold to the old faulty hypothesis. They are the true “Deniers”. It is foolish to believe 100% of the warming period, which we haven’t been in since 2001, is created by human influence. To do so is to dismiss other GHG’s such as water vapor and any influence the sun may have on our climate. This legislation will cost all Americans and accomplish nothing.
Fianlly, for those of you ignorant enough to call CO2 a pollutant I would suggest that if your plan works and CO2 concentrations decrease then the percent O2 (oxygen) in the atmosphere will increase along with other gasses. To explain, if you have a red chair a green chair and a blue chair each make up 33% of the whole. If you remove the blue chair then each of the components of the whole (the red and green chairs) make up 50%. My point is that O2 levels will increase and at what point does that become pollution and need ro be regulated as such?
Ken,
Our representative has a good grasp of the presnt state of climate science. While there is a growing consensus that human activity has caused rises in global temperatures and is likely to incresingly do so, there is real debate as to the effect of such changes and the what steps are necessary to prevent warming.
More importantly, there is no international agreement to take particular steps. This is a global problem. The developing world’s increase in the emission of greenhouse gases vastly exceeds that of the US. China recently passed the US in ampounts of CO2 emitted. Assuming WM achieves the goals it sets (unlikely), it could be useless without the committment of China, India and the rest of the world to take similar measures. What is sure is that the costs to the US ecconomy and to our state are hugh -so large that the CBO did not even estimate them.
Congresswoman Capito is simply right. For the same reason Kyoto did not get a single vote in the Senate, WM should fail. This effort must be international to work and in the absence of an enforceable treaty binding the major energy producers it is impossible to say with any sort of scientific conviction that WM will do any good. It is sure that it will cost all West Virginians dearly.
Forrest
Forrest,
Thanks for that comment, and for your accurate description of the growing scientific consensus about the warming world and its causes.
I won’t tell Don Blankenship you said that.
But, I think you are a bit off on one other point — the IPCC studies show a growing consensus that the impacts of this warming will be negative … though there is much debate (as you can expect in science) about many details of that — to what extent ice will melt, how much more frequently we’ll get freak storms, how many species will be driven to extinction.
But you are also right that there is a legitimate policy debate over whether the U.S. should take action absent international action. However, there are a number of international agreements that the U.S. has already signed that call for action on global warming.
For example, the U.S. signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which called on all nations to:
…”achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a low enough level to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change
And, to clarify, the Clinton administration never submitted Kyoto to Congress for ratification. The 95-0 vote was on a “sense of the Senate” resolution that the country should not enter into that treaty. Of course, Vice President Gore signed Kyoto anyway, as some sort of symbolic gesture.
Ken.
Ken.
The 1992 treaty you refer to does not call on the nations to lower greenhouse gases but proposes the agreement to protocols in order to do so. Kyoto was such a protocol and was not submitted for ratification because it had no support for the very reason this cap and trade legislation should have no support - it is a unilateral sacrifice which may be wholly ineffective but will surely cost dearly.
The studies you cite do forsee some positive but more negative effects of warming. However, they are guesses and past guesses have been demonstably wrong.
That does no say that the danger is so speculative that reasonable, coordinated international efforts are not wise insurance. This bill however is neither reasonable nor internationional. If the present administration wants to do something to signal a change from past policy on the reasonable grounds that it disagres with it, why does it not issue yet another apology and propose a workable protocol for replacement of Kyoto, which expires soon anyway. Unles this effort somehow persuades the major energy producers who were not bound to take action by Kyoto or who signed and did not comply (most signers), and no one has made a convincing argument it will, it remains unilateral sacrifice with no prospect of real gain.
Congresswoman Capito is right.
Forrest
Forrest, all —
For those who don’t know, Forrest is an attorney here in Charleston who frequently represents employers (and coal companies) in labor matters.
I’m very pleased he’s joined the discussion again on Coal Tattoo, and welcome his point of view — and especially his reasoned and polite manner of discussing issues that I know he feels very strongly about.
I think the use of the word “guesses” is wrong, though. If they are guesses, they are as educated as scientific guesses can be. And, most of the recent science has actually backed up the idea that the negative changes from greenhouse gases are happening faster and to a larger extent than previously projected.
He’s right that the treaty I mentioned didn’t demand or commit to emissions reductions, and simply called on creation of a series of “protocols” aimed at spelling out how that happened.
But, the U.S. did agree to the broad treaty, which basically committed our nation to working to stabilize greenhouse concentrations at a level that would avoid dangerous impacts.
Some smart folks — Forrest is one — believe that the U.S. should do nothing unless and until an international treaty is reached in which other nations (primarily China and India) also agree to binding cuts. Other smart people think that our nation should set an example by doing something first.
Ken.
Your article was going well until you quoted James Hansen. He’s an environmental activist, given to bending the truth to sell his views to a naive public. Only the naive would believe him. You believe him. Why should we believe you?
Our government paid tens of $billions to “prove” the AGW was real. The proof it got was in the form of computer simulations. A computer simulation (as the naive universally know) creates scientific fact in the absence of a real life observation, despite incomplete data inputs and cascading programming assumptions. Now our government’s CBO tells us it will cost us only pennies each month. What a leap of faith that must require of us.
James Hansen isn’t the only administration official willing to stretch the truth to get what he wants.
Leave a Comment