Climate Bill Passes the House

As this article talks about, the climate bill just passed the House - the first time either house has passed a bill which would limit greenhouse gas emissions based on the fact that they contribute to global warming. So... yay!!

BUT it still needs to pass the Senate. Also, the bill has been significantly watered down since the original version. The bill would require utilities to secure 15% of their electricity from renewable sources (wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal) by 2020, but this is down from the original amount of 25% by 2025.

The bill includes a cap-and-trade system, but instead of all the credits being auctioned off to the highest bidder, 85% of the credits would be given away at the beginning of the program. Isn't that nice of the government. Oh, and the refineries will even receive money to help them adapt to the new standards.

So the bill's not great, but it's the best thing we have, so it needs to happen. I disagree with Thomas Friedman on a lot of things, but according to his new op-ed piece, we agree on this. There is never going to be a bill that pleases everyone, especially one that pleases both the environmentalists and the refineries. But this bill is an important first step in the right direction. Just simply regulating greenhouse gases is an important statement that the House is making. There's no turning back now. Basically the U.S. government is finally admitting that greenhouse gases are causing climate change / global warming / whatever we are calling it and that the government has a responsibility to reduce the impact of U.S. industries on the climate.

So I will take what I can get. A weak climate bill is better than no climate bill, and hopefully it will lead to bills that actually make a bigger difference.

Need a New Car?

Honda just came out with a new fuel-cell technology car called the FCX  Clarity.  It is completely fueled by hydrogen, so the only by-product that the car actually produces is water.  On their website, they boast that the car only uses hydrogen, which is produced domestically - either extracted from water or reformed from natural gas, so it will be a boost to the U.S. economy.  However, they are only releasing about 200 over the next 3 years and only in Southern California, so nothing is going to change quickly.  

Obviously it's great to have zero-emission technology on the market, but I'm not convinced that this is the solution we've been looking for.  The first problem is that right now only the rich in California have access to the new technology.  Understandably, they need to test out the new cars and new refueling stations, but even if this new idea catches on like Honda is hoping, the switch to this new technology is going to take a LONG time because it requires building an entirely new infrastructure of refueling stations.  Even more than that, mechanics would need to be trained in this completely new technology.  Even with the economic stimulus package that includes $13 billion for renewable fuels, this new infrastructure cannot be developed quickly enough to make the technology affordable for the average car-buyer.  To some extent, new technology is always going to be exclusively for the wealthy, but for some reason I don't see this type of technology ever trickling down and becoming affordable for everyone.

The EPA Finally Does Something Right

The EPA is finally (probably) going to declare that greenhouse gases are "pollutants" under the Clean Air Act.  This could possibly lead to much-needed regulations on car emissions and other industries that emit large amounts of greenhouse gases.  

I've never been the biggest fan of the EPA because I think it just loves big business too much to make any of the "radical" changes that are needed, but maybe this will be its chance to make me change my mind...

The Chinese and Greenhouse Gases

This post at Global Labor Strategies is a nice summary of the Chinese problem with greenhouse gases.

A few notes:

1. I have wondered in the past whether China would be able to continue developing as a world power because of the massive environmental damage they are sustaining. I still feel this way. We are starting to see the beginnings of these problems as rising fuel prices are leading to food shortages among the world's poor. China is of course burning incredible amounts of coal to fuel their expansion. While they have lots of coal, it is not really sustainable as a long-term solution because of the incredible air pollution and because of world opinion.

But one way China may be able to contain these environmental costs and continue their development is becoming the world's leader in renewable energy. Certainly they have the centralized government structure to make this happen if it truly becomes a national priority. Turning a significant amount of resources to wind and solar energy makes a tremendous amount of sense for the Chinese and I expect they will embrace and improve upon these technologies as their way of maintaining their growth.

2. The author makes a very important point about western hypocrisy toward China. The United States and Europe continually chastise China for their greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, not only does the United States pump more greenhouse gases into the environment, but a huge percentage of those Chinese emissions result from them producing products for the developed world!

I have long been critical of people who talk about a "post-industrial society." This makes no sense at all. The United States, Europe, and Japan are just as reliant upon the Industrial Revolution as they ever have been. But they have exported the costs of the Industrial Revolution to Asia, Africa, and Latin America. So China, Mexico, and Indonesia have to deal with industrial pollution, deforestation, and greenhouse gas emissions. But so long as the developing world is demanding the products the Industrial Revolution provides for the cheap prices only available in the Global South, we are just as responsible for those emissions as the nation of production.

In addition, rising fuel prices are convincing some western nations to renege on environmental agreements. For instance, according to the GLS article, Italy's major electric producer is switching their largest plant from oil to coal and expects to increase their reliance on coal to 33% of its energy needs from the current 14% by 2013. The hypocrisy just got ranker. I have little doubt that Americans will engage in similar actions as our gas prices rise.

Pot, meet kettle.

This isn't to say that the West needs to agree with developing world leaders who use the history of western despoiling of the environment as an excuse for their own. Just yesterday, I chastised Brazil's Lula for saying these things. But at the same time, we can't just ignore our own consumption and criticize the producers.

3. The author closes with a very brief discussion of how climate change is a working-class problem. But it feels tacked on. Labor strategists have not done a good job of showing why environmentalism is a working-class problem. Working-class people have tended to be more resistant to environmentalism for several reasons, including the potential of losing their jobs, as well as cultural differences that have long alienated working-class people. Part of the problem is that these environmental problems seem so huge and unmanageable that it is hard to figure out what anyone is supposed to do, not to mention workers who have relatively little power in American society, who are trying to feed their families, and maybe watch a little TV in the evening.

I don't necessarily have any answers here either. But it is worth saying that environmental problems will affect working-class people faster and with greater effect. We are already seeing this with the global working-class, as poor people are facing higher food prices that they flat out cannot afford. Hunger is becoming a major world issue again because of fuel prices. It seems to me that labor needs leaders who make environmental issues central to their agendas. Organizing for inexpensive mass transit seems like a very intelligent idea for instance because it would provide their constituents cheap transportation so they wouldn't have to drive. Pressing for new technologies in electric vehicles seems like another possible place where labor could make a difference. It's going to take real leadership though because these solutions are several years down the road at the earliest.