Well, we know most of this year’s election results. Some of those results are good and some aren’t so good. Here are some initial thoughts I have this morning.
Governor
John Hickenlooper is our next Governor, despite running a fairly lackluster campaign and never really developing an image. My hope is Hick doesn’t take his base for granted in the same way that, unfortunately, Gov. Ritter did. But just as was the case for President Obama, one of the most overlooked aspects of executives is who they put into power around them. I don’t think enough of Obama’s economic advisers have average Americans’ best interests in mind. I don’t have any idea of who Hickenlooper will put into place around him, but those personnel choices will be critical in the kind of governing he will do. I’ll talk more about him as I bring up other races below.
Blue Dogs
Rep. John Salazar was beat by his last opponent, Scott Tipton. Salazar was an alright Dem based on his overall voting pattern, but he did vote against key legislative items (global warming bill being the largest in my mind). More importantly, he chose to publicly rebuke his party. Overall, I’m not going to miss him very much.
Rep. Betsy Markey lost by a wide margin last night. This is a Dem Rep. I will miss, association with the Blue Dog caucus notwithstanding. Contrary to Salazar, she actually voted to do something about global warming and more importantly, she decided to show some real courage by defending her vote. She took the time to explain to her CO-04 constituents why that vote, and others she took, were important to them. The right-wing Denver Post editorial board took her to task for being “too liberal for her district”. I won’t hold my breath waiting for them to take Cory Gardner to task for being “too conservative for his district”. This seat was high on the Republican Teabagger hit list and could be characterized as a lost cause in a right-wing wave election. Hopefully a Democratic wave election hits again soon.
CO-07
Rep. Perlmutter won re-election, which I find interesting. The 7th is a district that is up for grabs and the fact that he held his seat in a wave election speaks volumes about his campaign effort.
TABOR Measures
Thankfully, 60, 61, and 101 lost big time – between 2:1 and 3:1. In context of the other races, this means a lot of Unaffiliateds and Republicans voted against the measures along with Democrats. These measures would have destroyed Colorado’s economy. We at least have a chance to still save most of it, if we’re willing to have honest discussions about the importance of investing in ourselves and our state. Continue Reading →
Many scientists and activists have stated, with good reason, that the 2007 IPCC 4th Assessment Report (4AR) didn’t look deeply enough into the potential costs of doing nothing to change the globe’s GHG emissions. The good news is that in addition to developing a more robust research methodology to dig into the unknowns of the science surrounding climate change, work has also taken place to assign realistic figures of the costs of adapting to climate change. The figures available for the past few years were viewed as having major shortcomings: unrealistic assumptions, not accounting for enough of the effects (which have interdependencies and feedbacks of their own), etc.
A new study was issued earlier this month by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) that worked to address some of those concerns. For reference, I’m going to discuss the Section 8 material. It is not without its own set of caveats and disadvantages: it looks at the IPCC A2 scenario, for instance, even though our actual emissions have already outpaced this mid-range emissions scenario. There’s another equally out-dated caveat that I’ll talk about more below. So, take the results with a grain of salt – realize that these costs continue to be an underestimate of what we’re likely to face!
With that in mind, what are some of the results of this study? Without adaptation, the mean net present value of climate change impacts under the A2 scenario is $1240 Trillion.
I read an article from yesterday that provides a good place to bring a number of climate and energy related items together. Controversial deals behind climate bill presents the unfortunate circumstance of some Democrats’ refusal to back the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) unless agriculture intensive areas were largely exempted from paying for the measures included in the legislation. This concession was won despite the fact that farmers and rural areas get a disproportionate amount of their energy from coal plants – the dirtiest and most polluting energy sources in use today. Among those Democrats are Rep. John Salazar (CO-03) and Rep. Betsy Markey (CO-04).
I make this point while holding a good deal of respect for farmers – the actual folks who are out on their land far earlier in the morning than I’m up and who work until later than I do every day – often just to survive, both physically and economically. But the point of any legislation that says it deals with energy and security needs to address the usage of fossil fuels, among many other purposes. By that, I mean that the legislation needs to reduce our bad habits and encourage good habits. Burning coal needs to stop – the sooner the better. By ensuring that rural citizens won’t have to face any temporary cost increases on the way toward phasing out coal burning, Democrats are passing the costs along, which is pretty irresponsible.
Someone, somewhere will eventually have to pay for reducing greenhouse pollution. Will it be urban citizens today? Will it be rural citizens in the near future? Will it be urban and rural citizens at a future date? The answers to those questions seem very relevant to me – and in my opinion, they’re not being addressed by the corporate media in any regularly meaningful way. It’s good for me as a blogger that some recent articles were written that get at these details, which I will share and try to tie together below.
H.R. 2454 (ACES) is coming up for a vote this afternoon in the House. As a quick action item, I’m providing some numbers for Reps. Markey and Salazar, cited as some of the fence-sitting Dems. Give them a quick call and ask them to vote for H.R. 2454.
Rep. Markey:
p. 202.225.4676
f. 202.225.5870
Rep. Salazar:
p. 202.225.4761
f. 202.226.9669
As currently written (to the best of my knowledge), the bill in the House would set a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17% of 2005 levels by 2020 and 80%+ by 2050. As someone who has followed the science surrounding greenhouse gases and climate change pretty closely for a few years now, I want to be clear that I don’t think the 2020 goal goes far enough. I certainly hope I’m proven wrong as the measures in the bill are enacted and take effect.
Among the many specific details in this legislation, it worries me that the Dept. of Agriculture and not the Environmental Protection Agency will be responsible for deciding how farms will have to curb their emissions. There is nothing in the Dept. of Ag’s mission that indicates that they have experience with or are interested in monitoring or reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That’s not a knock against the agency – it is a straightforward observation. Neither am I saying that the Dept. of Ag won’t seek emissions expertise from other government agencies. However, something that bedevils all government agencies is a tendency to become insular – robust collaboration across agencies with regard to implementing policy isn’t the first characterization of those agencies that comes to mind.
The Democrats were somewhat justifiably concerned about potential rising energy costs. I say “somewhat justifiably” for a few reasons. The easiest is their lack of public concern regarding rising energy prices in the past due to other pieces of legislation or especially corporate greed. Energy prices outpaced inflation and real-wage increases (which were actually zero) this entire decade, most of which had Bush and the Cons running the country into the ground. The same Democrats threatening to go home pouting now (not Salazar or Markey, btw) were nowhere to be seen on the energy price front until last summer when they skyrocketed so high so fast that the corporate media’s obsession with infotainment couldn’t mask them anymore. Their concern doesn’t seem to be morally founded, which is disturbing.
There are trustworthy cost estimates available, more so now than before this Congressional session. The latest, by the Congressional Budget Office, estimates that the annual cost by 2020 would be $22 billion on the entire economy; or $175 per household on average (note that averages tend to be skewed by outliers). Cons, as usual, spent yesterday talking about gross costs as well as citing cost estimates that have been thoroughly debunked by climate and energy activists.
As I’ve written about before, groups like the McKinsey Group have shown in a couple of reports that actions taken to reduce our greenhouse forcing can be revenue neutral. By 2030, McKinsey estimates a 0.6-1.4% cost to the global economy. By 2050, McKinsey estimates a 1% rise or a 5% decrease in costs are possible.
Might there be a short-term cost involved? It looks likely. In contrast, what are the costs incurred by doing nothing? That’s a subject the Cons don’t want to go near – and nobody in the corporate media is making them answer that easy question.
For starters, the link between climate change and extreme weather events is by now evident. Extreme weather events such as intense drought and torrential rains when they do come are only going to become more common and intense if action continues to be delayed. Papers like Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Climate and the Earth Policy Institute’s Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization give us a clear view of the dangers involved with further delay. The bottom line: climate change will challenge societies worldwide more than any other issue in the 21st century. 1C warming translates to a 10% reduction in staple crop yields. With 2C-10C possible warming in select regions, massive crop failures would be the result, especially in the face of populations that continue to rise. How much would a 10%, 20% or more reduction in yield cost farmers? More than that it’s a short road from crop failure to political instability. Falling governments compared to a couple hundred dollars more on an energy bill – the choice seems pretty clear to me.
The problem, of course, is none of this is being communicated to the interested parties. How many farmers know about the downside of doing nothing about climate? Even if they knew, would they still not support action if it meant higher costs?
The Denver Post front-paged an article about the bill this morning, citing Salazar and Markey as potential swing votes as the bill comes up in the House today. It also notes that the Wildlife Action Fund and the League of Conservation Voters are watching Markey’s vote especially close. I have close to the same sentiment as the LCV – I will have a very hard time supporting a Democrat, no matter the district, if they vote against this bill. It’s not a progressive vs. con issue. It’s a moral issue.
Given the reasons to vote for the bill, as I outlined above, it is disheartening to note that political backers of this bill don’t mention the climate change effects a business-as-usual approach would entail. Economic arguments have taken sway, which is perhaps natural considering the sorry state of the economy. Unfortunately, Rep. Markey’s spokesman Ben Marter was quoted in the Post article pooh-poohing the environmental angle:
Markey will “ultimately make a decision in the best interest of her district, the state and the country, not for any one group.”
That sounds really good as a soundbite, Ben. If the Eastern Plains turn into a desert, as is currently predicted under business-as-usual conditions, I don’t think the 4th district will be particularly happy with that outcome. The environmental ramifications dominate the interests of the district. I hope such short-sightedness doesn’t derail or stall the necessary actions we all must take.
Here are Rep. Markey‘s Washington contact numbers. Please take a moment this morning to give her office a quick call and encourage her to vote for H.R. 2454.
p. 202.225.4676
f. 202.225.5870
Here are Rep. Salazar‘s Washington contact numbers. Please take a moment this morning to give his office a quick call and encourage him to vote for H.R. 2454.
Galveston’s recovery from Hurricane Ike last year continues, albeit slowly. Much like other parts of the Gulf Coast that were ravaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, Galveston’s road to recovery will be long. This raises an important question: as ocean temperatures continue to rise the remainder of this century, the incidence of intense hurricanes (> Category 3) is expected to rise. Sea levels will continue to rise, putting additional areas at risk. The combination of these two means that storm surges will be able to penetrate further inland. As additional cities along the Gulf and East coast are hit, will we stop trying to rebuild or will we continue to sink billions of dollars into cities that will be under increasing threat from additional catastrophe?
Rep. Fred Upton and Rep. Todd Akin can spew plenty of b.s. talking points. Neither are willing to deal with the climate and energy crises in an honest way. The energy and climate legislation Congress is considering is far from hazardous waste. Similarly, winter changing to spring is a far cry from the climate conditions that serious scientists are predicting. Once again, changing such a ridiculous opinion will wait until it is too late and Missouri has to deal with climate refugees from the U.S. coast.
55,000 acres could be opened up for auction to oil and gas companies, as assigned by the Bureau of Land Management. Approximately 34,000 acres are on top of the plateau, identified as sensitive areas for wildlife.
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which will offer the leases in an Aug. 14 auction in Denver, has said that efforts by Sen. Ken Salazar and Reps. Mark Udall and John Salazar to modify the management plan for the Roan Plateau wouldn’t stop the agency from offering the leases.
Every community level, from the smallest town to the entire state, Democrat, Undeclared and Republican alike, have all expressed their desire not to allow drilling on top of the Roan. This of course hasn’t stopped the Bush administration and their cronies that have continually ignored the will of the people since they took control of our government.
Rep. Udall said a few months ago that he might introduce federal legislation that would reflect the proposal brought up by Gov. Bill Ritter. It would open up the Roan in phases with some oversight enacted during the entire process. This step might be necessary because the BLM, despite approval of Ritter’s plan by elected officials from both parties, rejected the plan. Sen. Ken Salazar has also said he might introduce similar legislation in the Senate. The BLM has said that news won’t stop the auction. Rep. DeGette introduced the Colorado Wilderness Act in April. It would protect the Roan from this kind of development.
Rep. Udall, Rep. Salazar and Sen. Salazar: this is the time to introduce your legislation and or get on board with Rep. DeGette’s legislation and get it passed. You have two months before the auction starts. The will of the fossil fuel industry is being carried out over the will of the people. This is not acceptable.
Cross-posted at SquareState.net. There are a large number of diaries written about the Roan over there too.
So, Rep. Salazar, which is it? Will you vote to block H.R. 5740, the new GI Bill of Rights, with your Blue Dog caucus? Or will you stand up for the troops whose occupation you have continued to fund?
And can you imagine the outcry that the right-wing machine would initiate if Democrats were threatening to vote against something with “Bill of Rights” in the title? Wake up Dems, this one is a gimme. Push hard on this bill and watch a couple more competitive House seats flip to Democratic control this November. It could also happen with a Senate seat or two.
As currently written (to the best of my knowledge), the bill in the House would set a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17% of 2005 levels by 2020 and 80%+ by 2050. As someone who has followed the science surrounding greenhouse gases and climate change pretty closely for a few years now, I want to be clear that I don’t think the 2020 goal goes far enough. I certainly hope I’m proven wrong as the measures in the bill are enacted and take effect.
