I think the U.S. Chamber of Commerce doesn’t act in in the best interest of business. They represent what was historically best for business. They represent exactly what’s the polar opposite of the future of business. The chamber is a voice of the energy industry, of the coal industry. As you’ve seen in the last couple of days, Nike gives up its position on the board, Apple resigns — businesses will increasingly abandon the chamber because they are just so wrong on this issue. Not that they’re not wrong on most issues, but they’re more wrong on this issue than they usually are.

Watch it:

Hollender further described membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as a “reputational risk“:

These companies, like Nike and Apple, are taking a leadership position with their own energy efficiency initiatives. They don’t want to see a playing field where companies who abuse and pollute get benefits, and companies that are more efficient don’t. So, part of it is making sure the playing field is leveled. But I also think it’s undeniably important that the consumers of these companies would be embarrassed if they knew that Nike was sitting on the board of the chamber. I mean, I think it’s a reputational risk to be associated with the chamber, given their behavior.

Pausing in the Russell Senate building between meetings with senators from some of the 20 states in which Seventh Generation has manufacturing facilities, Hollender explained why capitalists like himself support the efforts of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to craft legislation with a cap-and-trade and energy efficiency provisions to cut global warming pollution and promote clean energy investment. Responding to critics who claim that advocates of a green economy are “socialists” who want to “kill capitalism,” he said, “the fact that we should be responsible for the effect we have on other people, anyone who tells you that’s anti-capitalist is crazy.”

Hollender concluded that Congress should pass clean energy and climate legislation immediately, because it’s “right for business, right for the economy, right for jobs, and good for the future of the country.”

Doug Elmendorf, CBO

Yesterday, Doug Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, testified before the Senate energy committee about the “comparatively modest” cost of a cap-and-trade system to limit carbon pollution. The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal blared “Congressional Budget Chief Says Climate Bill Would Cost Jobs” and “Cap-and-Trade Would Slow Economy, CBO Chief Says.” Conservatives leapt on the reports to cheer the “end” of “cap-and-tax.”

Of course, Elmendorf’s testimony is nothing new. Elmendorf warned that jobs in the fossil fuel industry would be lost, and that overall GDP growth would be slowed by less than one percent by 2020. No one is arguing that there won’t be a shift from pollution-based industries to clean-energy industries. But doing so will create millions more jobs than are lost, as energy companies invest in American workers instead of foreign oil and mountaintop removal. The effect on GDP is within the margin of error of future estimates of growth. Even pessimistic studies by the National Association of Manufacturers find that U.S. GDP will increase by $9 trillion with limits on carbon pollution.

What upset me, however, was the portion of Elmendorf’s testimony that was not reported. Although he recognized that his estimates do not take into account the economic impacts of climate change, he testified that the changes that scientists call “catastrophic” would be barely noticeable in the U.S. economy:

Most of the economy involves activities that are not likely to be directly affected by changes in climate. Moreover, researchers generally expect the growth in the U.S. economy over the coming century to be concentrated in sectors — such as information technology and medical care — that are relatively insulated from climate effects. Damages are therefore likely to be a smaller share of the future economy than they would be if they occurred today. As a consequence, a relatively pessimistic estimate for the loss in projected real gross domestic product is about 3 percent for warming of about 7° Fahrenheit (F) by 2100. [Dale W. Jorgenson et al., 2004]

Elmendorf goes on to cite Nordhaus & Boyer (2000) to claim “the risk of catastrophic outcomes associated with about 11°F of warming by 2100″ gives a projected “loss equivalent to about 5 percent of U.S. output and, because of substantially larger losses in a number of other countries, a loss of about 10 percent of global output.” (By way of comparison, US GDP collapsed by nearly 50 percent during the Great Depression.)

This is frighteningly nonsensical. The CBO is arguing that the collapse of the national electricity grid, water supply, food system, and physical infrastructure from heat waves, desertification, disease outbreaks, wildfires, floods, and catastrophic storms would barely affect the national economy. In fact, seven to 11° F (4 to 6°C) warming would lead to unimaginable changes in our planet by 2100:

– One to three billion people around the world exposed to “increased water stress” (aka drought)

– More than 40 percent of the world’s species go extinct

– Widespread coral reef mortality

– Terrestrial biosphere becomes a net carbon source

– Productivity of cereal grains decreases in low, mid, and high latitudes

– Sea level rise of 0.6 – 1.3 meters (2 to 4 feet)

– About 35 percent of global coastal wetlands are lost

– Twenty percent of world’s population exposed to increased floods

– About 20 percent of arable land disappears (same amount becomes arable in previously frozen north)

– Arctic warms by 27°F

The effects in the United States would be similarly disastrous:

— heat waves of greater than 90° six months of the year in Texas, Florida, Arizona, southern California

– 5-month heat waves in California interior, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina

– 4-month heat waves in Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee, North Carolina

– 4-month heat waves greater than 100° in Texas, Arizona, southern California

– 3-month heat waves greater than 100° in Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, California interior

– 2 to 3-month heat waves everywhere in US except New England, northern Great Lakes, and the mountains, Pacific NW coast

– 1 to 2 months of greater than 100° everywhere except New York-New England, northern Great Lakes, mountains, Pacific NW coast

– 40 percent less precipitation in the Southwest

– Dust Bowl returns to Midwest

– Smog levels throughout summer above 10 ppb all across country

– Pollen count doubles again to four times pre-industrial levels

– Doubling of large wildfires in the West, as aspen and lodgepole pine disappear completely

– Tripling of coastal damage from storms

– Inundation of 10,000 square miles of U.S. land, including 25 to 80 percent of coastal wetlands

Texas and California, our top agricultural states, are already suffering from unprecedented heat and drought. Under 7 to 11°F warming, they would no longer be able to support agriculture. Corn crops start failing at above 90 degree weather, and soybean fails above 100 degrees. There would be no snow, maple, or cranberry industries in New England. The economists’ argument is that since the U.S. agriculture industry only represents about three percent of GDP, its total devastation would be hardly noticeable.

The above figures are actually misleading, because these are just the effects estimated under 4°C warming, not the even more unimaginable 6°C. Scientists are now warning that our current emissions levels may lead to 4°C warming by the 2070s.

It should also be noted that this kind of catastrophic warming would guarantee the long-term collapse of the Greenland and west Antarctica ice sheets, leading to sea level rise of over 12 meters (39 feet) in about 300 to 1000 years. But hey, I guess economists would argue that would spur growth in the floating-city industries.

We are virtually certain that climate change is occurring, and occurring because of man’s activities. We’re virtually certain the probability distribution curve is all bad. There’s no good things that’s going to come of this. But what’s uncertain is exactly which one of those things are going to occur and in what time frame. In the probability distribution curve is about a 50% probability that about half of all species will become extinct or be subject to extinction over this period of time. What we will never know on an ex ante basis is whether or not man be one of those casualties or not.

We condemn Wall Street for taking risks with our economy — risks that all of you are trying very hard to reverse — but at the same time we’re taking exactly the same kind of risks, with no upside whatsoever, with regard to our climate, failing to practice even the basic risk management techniques in terms of climate change reduction.

Watch it:

In a powerful speech, Leonard called a national system to cap carbon pollution “an investment that by all facts, figures and analysis pays back many times over,” and warned that “history will judge us if we don’t pass comprehensive climate and energy reform now” for “cheating [our children] out of their future.”

Entergy serves “two-and-a-half million customers in the mid-South and the Gulf South portion of the country, some of the poorest people in the country,” Leonard noted. These customers already suffered the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, which global warming likely fueled.

Although Entergy’s website warns that the “ramifications of global climate change, while uncertain, paint a devastating portrait of an unsustainable world” and that what “the United States does now is critical to eliminating or at least reducing the possibility of catastrophic outcomes for future generations,” the corporation is a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is spending millions of dollars to fight the regulation of climate pollution. Entergy plans to remain in the climate-denial organization in an attempt to “convince other members to agree to emissions limits.”

Transcript:

LEONARD: Good morning. We are a broad base of businesses across America. We represent some 37 states. We touch all aspects of the economy. And we have come together this morning unified in one particular request. And that is that we pass comprehensive climate change and energy policy legislation this year. We are prepared as business to invest, to innovate, to transform the energy sector of this country and of the world — the way we source energy, the way we deliver energy, the way we use energy.

We want to get America back in the business of exporting technology instead of dollars. In order to do that, we need comprehensive legislation. We need to know what the rules are going to be with regard to energy and with regard to climate, and particularly with what the price on carbon is going to be in the United States, if we’re to move around the world and export technology to other countries. And we need legislation in order to do that.

I’m the CEO of Entergy. We have nuclear plants around the country. We also serve two-and-a-half million customers in the mid-South and the Gulf South portion of the country, some of the poorest people in the country. People that have been through Katrina, Gustav, Ike, Rita. You name it, they’ve been through it. Nobody should ever have to suffer through a Katrina.

Last night, I was talking to Secretary Salazar. And he asked me, “What happens to New Orleans when sea level rise is not an inch from thermal expansion but meters, due to land ice melt in west Antarctica and Greenland?”

I said, “Well, we have a pretty good idea of what’s going to happen, but we do have some protections, because we’re working on New Orleans. What we haven’t given enough thought to is what happens to everybody else.”

What happens to all the coastal cities. What happens to the East Coast of the US with the slightly tilt of the planet on its axis as we melt those ice caps. There’s no protection for them. And we’re not talking about hurricanes any more, we’re talking about potentially tsunami-type of events like we’ve seen in Asia, like we’ve seen most recently in American Samoa. A completely different set of events than what we’re used to.

Some people say we can’t do this because of the cost.

As business, we all look at in terms of it’s an investment. In this case it’s an investment that by all facts, figures and analysis pays back many times over. It pays back with reduced adaptation costs in the future, reduced repair and damage from these type of events, and growth in the economy through transferring technology around the world and creating jobs at home.

Some people say we can’t do this because there are some things that are uncertain.

But that is in large part precisely the reason that we need to act, because of the uncertainty, not necessarily because of the things that we do know. We do know a lot, as you all know.

We are virtually certain that climate change is occurring, and occurring because of man’s activities.

We’re virtually certain the probability distribution curve is all bad. There’s no good things that’s going to come of this. But what’s uncertain is exactly which one of those things are going to occur and in what time frame. In the probability distribution curve is about a 50% probability that about half of all species will become extinct or be subject to extinction over this period of time. What we will never know on an ex ante basis is whether or not man be one of those casualties or not.

We condemn Wall Street for taking risks with our economy — risks that all of you are trying very hard to reverse — but at the same time we’re taking exactly the same kind of risks, with no upside whatsoever, with regard to our climate, failing to practice even the basic risk management techniques in terms of climate change reduction.

We talk a lot about in this issue about “us” and “we.” Just so all you know this is not about us. It’s about our children. It’s about our children’s children. When our children are born, we know at that moment in time, that there isn’t anything in the world that we wouldn’t do for them. And as they grow, we know for certain that we would give up our lives for our children. For some reason we won’t do this. We’re cheating them out of their future, and we’re doing it with our eyes wide open. And that’s exactly how history will judge us if we don’t pass comprehensive climate and energy reform now.

Thank you.

APPLAUSE

A new analysis of clean energy legislation finds that it will produce likely economic benefits of $1.5 trillion. The finding by the New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity explains that the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) is “cost‐benefit justified under most reasonable assumptions about the likely ’social cost of carbon.’” In “The Other Side of the Coin: The Economic Benefits of Climate Legislation,” the Institute for Policy Integrity finds that the “benefits of H.R. 2454 could likely exceed the costs by as much as nine-to-one”:

Using conservative assumptions, the benefits of H.R. 2454 could likely exceed the costs by as much as nine-to-one, or more. The estimated benefits do not include a significant number of ancillary and un‐quantified benefits, such as the reduction of co‐pollutants (particularly sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide), the prevention of species extinction, and lower maintenance costs for energy infrastructure. Due to those limitations, the benefits estimates should be considered to be very conservative.

The cost-benefit analyses of environmental safeguards generally favor the costs since they are relatively easy to measure. The economic benefits, however, of reduced pollution are much harder to calculate. The price of a scrubber to reduce sulfur and particulate pollution from a coal fired power plant is easy to calculate, but it is much harder to account for the value of a protected stream or restored vista.

Even the federal government often projects costs while ignoring benefits of clean energy proposals. For instance, the Congressional Budget Office’s assessment of the American Clean Energy and Security Act notes that its analysis “does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in GHG emissions and the associated slowing of climate change.”

The “social cost of carbon” is the “the monetary valuation of incremental damage from each ton of greenhouse gas emissions.” The new IPI analysis employs a recent Department of Energy estimate that the “monetary values of the benefits of carbon dioxide emission reductions, otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) [are] …$19 per metric ton of carbon dioxide.” This estimate was developed by an interagency task force, and was employed in a Department of Energy rule for more energy efficient vending machines issued on August 31st.

Using the value of $19 per ton of carbon pollution avoided, the authors determined that the total midrange projection of Waxman-Markey’s benefits is $1.5 trillion total between 2012-2050. Projections estimate that the legislation would require $660 billion in investment during this time, which means that benefits are at least two times greater than costs:

At the SCC values preferred by the Department of Energy, the direct benefits of H.R. 2454 are more than double the costs. Using SCC values that have a more appropriately low discount rate built in (EPA’s 2% figures), direct benefits are nearly eight to nine times greater than costs.

Even these projections are very low because the estimated SCC employed in the analysis excludes the value of a number of important benefits. It excludes the reduction of other harmful pollutants released along with greenhouse gases from coal fired power plants, such as soot and mercury. It does not estimate the cost of fewer tropical diseases or respiratory ailments from smog, or less political unrest in volatile regions.

Special interests that defend the status quo and oppose clean energy programs are quick to trot out their studies predicting economic Armageddon due to enormously inflated costs. Never mind that most of these industry studies are riddled with false assumptions and ideologically driven guess work, and are often proven wrong over time.

Until now, advocates of progress have had few estimates of economic benefits of action. This is a credible estimate of the benefits of action, and it far outweighs the investment cost of building a clean energy economy. The Environmental Protection Agency must take the next step by conducting a more thorough, rigorous analysis of benefits to conclusively demonstrate that Americans will have a net economic benefit from clean energy and global warming legislation.

On Tuesday, after weeks of buzz from a viral media blitz, GM finally answered its own marketing spin, “What is 230?” Apparently, the new Chevrolet Volt – set to hit show room floors in 2010 – will achieve an astounding city fuel economy of 230 miles per gallon.

GM Chief Executive Officer Fritz Henderson exclaimed in a press release on Tuesday that the Volt is sure to be a “game changer.” He went on to note that “based on the results of unofficial development testing of pre-production prototypes, the Volt has achieved 40 miles of electric-only, petroleum-free driving.” This, taken in conjunction with the Department of Transportation’s findings that nearly 8 in 10 Americans drive less than 40 miles per day, means that “many Chevy Volt drivers may be able to be in pure electric mode on a daily basis without having to use any gas” – unlike other hybrids such as the Toyota Prius.

The Volt, however, could cost about $40,000, putting it out of reach of many middle income consumers. GM believes that government incentives and battery warranties can make this new PHEV model an appealing option to climate- and cost-conscious consumers, despite the Volt’s high production costs. Prime among these government measures is a $7,500 consumer rebate in the 2009 stimulus package for purchasing qualifying electric plug-in vehicles such as the Volt. The Volt will become more economically attractive when oil and gasoline prices rise during the worldwide economic recovery. In contrast to their conservative predictions in 2008, the Energy Information Agency now expects oil prices to increase to $110 a barrel by 2015.

Critics say the 230 mpg claim for GM’s new plug-in is misleading – and even if it does live up to the hype, the Volt’s fuel range will pale in comparison to Nissan’s new plug-in model, the Leaf, due out in 2012. In a show of industry competition for most fuel economy supremacy, Nissan’s EV Twitter feed posted this yesterday: “Nissan Leaf = 367 mpg, no tailpipe, and no gas required. Oh yeah, and it’ll be affordable too.”

Japanese auto makers aren’t the only competition GM will have in the PHEV market. China announced last December it’s new plug-in, the F3DM, which will only cost an estimated $21,000 and has a battery range of an estimated 63 miles. Though it is unlikely that this model meets other U.S. safety standards, it is yet another sign that China wants to dominate the development and sale of clean energy technologies.

General Motors hopes the release of the Volt will signal to consumers the company is heeding the call for a new generation of super fuel efficient vehicles. The Center for American Progress hosted auto industry executives and independent engineers back in 2008 at an event to discuss the future of plug-in electric technology where GM Vice President Jonathan J. Lauckner acknowledged that “the automobile industry can no longer exclusively rely on oil as fuel for our vehicles.”

GM and the Volt may notably affect the electric car battery industry as well. Bob Kruse, GM’s executive director of global vehicle engineering, said on Friday that lithium-ion batteries – the kind that powers the Volt – are expected to come down in price and weight as the Volt is brought into mass production: “Getting the energy density up, getting the weight out, getting the cost out, that’s all part of what we are going to be challenged to do,” said Kruse.

Efforts to design the long range batteries of the future got a boost on August 5th when President Obama announced at a speech in Elkhart County, Indiana that the Department of Energy would invest $2.4 billion in advanced battery research. The funding is from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and is expected to save or create tens of thousands of jobs in Indiana.

In addition, investments in a new smart grid will also be pivotal to the full scale deployment of PHEV’s. Britta Gross, General Motors’ manager of Hydrogen and Electrical Infrastructure Development spoke at length in an interview last November about the partnerships GM has built with utility companies such as Duke and Edison and her confidence that these companies are more than prepared for the wide-scale deployment of the Volt.

This announcement by GM is sure to please the White House, considering then-candidate Obama’s pledge last August to put 1,000,000 plug-in hybrid vehicles on the road by 2015. The Volt and other super efficient cars are an essential element to meet President Obama’s new fuel efficiency standards that the White House believes will “result in savings of 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of vehicles sold in the next five years alone.” Plug-in vehicles like the Volt are essential to cutting our nation’s addiction to foreign oil and reducing global warming pollution. It may just be the “game changer” GM – and America — needs.

Similarly, NAM found the gross domestic product of the United States would increase by $9 trillion by 2030 from current levels. To be more precise, the analysis estimates $9.1 trillion in growth under its low-cost scenario, and $8.9 trillion under its high-cost scenario, versus $9.5 trillion in growth under its baseline scenario.

This analysis, conducted by the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), uses the same economic model as the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), but with “input assumptions provided by ACCF/NAM”:

SAIC is a policy-neutral organization. SAIC executed the NEMS/ACCF-NAM 2 model in this project using SAIC’s and ACCF/NAM’s interpretation of the bill, and input assumptions provided by ACCF/NAM. The modeling was performed independent of EIA. Analysis provided in this report is based on the output from the NEMS/ACCF-NAM 2 model as a result of the ACCF/NAM input assumptions. The input assumptions, opinions and recommendations in this report are those of ACCF and NAM, and do not necessarily represent the views of SAIC.

These “input assumptions” for the deployment of the ACES carbon cap-and-trade market include:

– International offsets are limited to 5%. ACES allows 50% of offset use to come from international offsets.

– Wind energy deployment limited to 5 to 10 GW per year for the next twenty years. In reality, 8.5 GW in new American wind power was deployed in 2008, even without the incentive of a carbon market.

NAM also made unusually pessimistic assumptions for the deployment of biomass electricity generation and the use of banking provisions by polluting corporations. These assumptions lead to a carbon allowance price of $123 to $159 per ton of carbon dioxide in 2030. This price is more than twice as expensive as the estimates of the EIA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Congressional Budget Office.

Essentially, NAM is assuming that American companies will be unable to deploy clean energy and energy efficiency technologies in a timely fashion. It’s odd that the National Association of Manufacturers is so gloomy about its members’ ability to build the clean energy economy. Even so, its analysis finds vibrant economic growth while global warming pollution is kept under control.

– “This bill is still going to wreak havoc with the manufacturing sector in some parts of the country.”

– “The Senate, for example, is not considering cap and trade. The cap and trade provisions are the ones that frankly would damage the manufacturing sector short term and have a lot of other unpredictable consequences on our economy.”

— “When we’re in the midst of a deep recession, we need to make sure we’re not making a dramatic change that could cost us jobs in the short term, because many states simply can’t afford to lose more jobs.”

– “This is the wrong time for cap and trade, this is the wrong time to impose a renewable electricity standard on the Southeast.”

Watch it:

Davis is wrong. In fact, the Senate is continuing to work on cap-and-trade legislation for passage this fall. Furthermore, Davis seems not to understand that states like Alabama need the clean-energy economy to recover from the Bush-Exxon recession.

A Clean-Energy Economy Will Create 29,000 Jobs In Alabama. The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), the EPA found, will “create strong demand for a domestic manufacturing market for these next generation technologies that will enable American workers to serve in a central role in our clean energy transformation” and “play a critical role in the American economic recovery and job growth.” A report from the Center for American Progress and the Political Economy Research Institute “finds that Alabama could see a net increase of about $2.2 billion in investment revenue and 29,000 jobs based on its share of a total of $150 billion in clean-energy investments annually across the country. This is even after assuming a reduction in fossil fuel spending equivalent to the increase in clean-energy investments. [EPA, 4/20/09; PERI, 6/18/09]

Waxman-Markey Directs Billions Of Dollars To Energy-Intensive Manufacturing. The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) includes cost containment provisions, allowances for worker assistance and training, investments in clean energy technologies, a new clean energy deployment agency, and billions of dollars in direct assistance to trade-vulnerable and other industries. [Committee on Energy and Commerce, 6/9/09]

A Renewable Electricity Standard Would Reduce Costs In Alabama. The Energy Information Administration projects that a renewable electricity standard of 25 percent by 2025 — much stronger than the one in the Waxman-Markey legislation — would drive electricity costs down by more than 10 percent in Alabama and throughout the Southeast, as utilities move away from increasingly expensive coal to renewable biomass. [EIA, 4/09]

Alabama Is Especially Susceptible To Global Warming Damages. As a coastal state, Alabama is highly vulnerable to the devastation of hurricanes, which will increase in intensity as the oceans warm and sea levels rise. Rainfall is expected to decrease, increasing the rate of devastating droughts like that of 2007. By the end of the century, Alabama will have deadly heat waves over 90 degrees for more than four months every year. [U.S. Global Change Program, 2009]

Davis claims to support clean energy reform, but he opposes any effort to limit the carbon pollution responsible for global warming. Like the House Republicans, Davis is in denial.

The main argument conservatives and big oil and coal companies use against the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) is that it would cripple American households with a crushing energy tax. To make that claim, they have distorted cost estimates from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and conducted their own biased studies. Today, the Environmental Protection Agency obliterated these phony numbers with the release of its economic analysis of H.R. 2454. The EPA estimated the bill would actually lower household electricity bills:

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.

That’s right — lower bills. In 2007, this would have saved the average residential user $84, or 23 cents per day. EPA’s analysis also found:

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).

We don’t have to just wish we were there — we can have a clean energy economy for the cost of a postcard stamp a day. And the EPA’s analysis does not “take into account the benefits of reducing global warming.”

EPA’s findings are consistent with the independent Congressional Budget Office analysis released on June 19th. CBO determined “that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion—or about $175 per household.” CBO did not evaluate the impact of the energy efficiency measures on consumer spending on utilities.

The bottom line is that independent analyses found that ACES would cut spending on utilities, as well as have minimal overall costs to the average household – somewhere between 22 to 48 cents a day. Hopefully, representatives will pay heed to these government studies and ignore conservatives’ counterfeit estimates when they vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act this Friday.

Understanding the specific features of ARRA and ACESA and how they will work in combination allows us to estimate the level of public and private-sector investments in clean energy. As we will demonstrate, the two programs together could create $150 billion a year in new investment and 1.7 million net new jobs a year—that is, 1.7 million more jobs each year than would be the case without a $150 billion shift in spending from conventional fossil fuels to clean energy investments.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, passed in February, ensures direct government spending on clean energy. In the stimulus, the federal government committed to $24.4 billion in spending on energy efficiency, $23 billion for transportation investments, and $25.3 billion for renewable energy from 2010 to 2014. The Waxman-Markey clean-energy economy legislation, if passed, will contribute to green job growth by promoting new private-sector investments over the ensuing decades. Waxman-Markey contains regulations to promote clean energy, a market-based cap on carbon emissions, and initiatives to help American businesses and families transition to clean energy.

Investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency create more than three times as many jobs as equivalent spending on fossil fuels. A $1 million investment in clean energy creates 16.7 jobs while the same spending on fossil fuels yields only 5.3 jobs:

Most of the 1.7 million green jobs created by the $150 billion investment will be generated by retro-fitting buildings for energy efficiency and creating new clean-energy projects, like wind farms. In their words, investing in clean energy means more work for machinists, truck drivers, builders, roofers, insulators, electricians, engineers, and dispatchers. The addition of these 1.7 million jobs to the US economy this year would have meant a full point drop in national unemployment, from 9.4 to 8.4 percent.

In addition to the national projection of job creation that would result from a $150 billion investment in clean energy, the report estimates the net increase in investment revenue and jobs in all fifty states. For example, global warming denier Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) has claimed Waxman-Markey would “relocate American jobs overseas in pursuit of an unproven environmental agenda.” Today’s report finds that Indianans would see a net increase of $3.1 billion in investment and 38,000 jobs. Had the United States made this clean energy investment in 2008, those 38,000 jobs would have brought Indiana’s level of unemployment down more than a percent, from 5.9 to 4.7 percent.

Republicans have tried everything from calling a cap on global warming pollution a “national energy tax” to name-calling — disparaging green jobs and claiming that the clean energy industry is “as real as the Jolly Green Giant.” Opponents of clean energy reform have now lost yet another avenue of protest with this proof that the green economy legislation currently in Congress will help spur billions in investment and create 1.7 million jobs.

From higher energy costs to lost jobs to higher food prices, cap-and-trade promises to cap our incomes, our livelihoods, and our standard of living, while it trades away American jobs and opportunities. . . . Whether it’s the fuel in the tractor, the fertilizer for the crops or the delivery of food to the grocery store, agriculture uses a great deal of energy throughout production. On average, 65 percent of farmers’ variable input costs are fuel, electricity, fertilizer, and chemicals. Even a small increase in the operating costs for our producers will hurt American agriculture.

Yesterday, the Brookings Institute released the topline results of an economic analysis of cap-and-trade systems, with sectoral impacts. This study models the worst-case economic scenario for cap-and-trade programs, modeling the impact of an inflexible system that does not include offsets, incentives for renewable energy development, or other cost-control measures. Even without the inclusion of an offset program to allow the agriculture sector to benefit from carbon market, their analysis found the impact on agriculture to be minimal:

Chart compiled by the Wonk Room from Brookings Institute data. The “Obama” and “Waxman-Markey” models do not include banking and borrowing of pollution allowances, unlike the actual Waxman-Markey legislation. The “hotelling” models include banking and borrowing, but no models include agricultural offsets.

Not only will the transition to a green economy not hurt America’s farmers, but it will save their livelihoods from the increasing threat of climate disruption, which impact the Brookings study did not model. In reality, the only sectors that face measurable pressure from a cap on carbon pollution are the coal and oil industries, who have enjoyed extreme profits at the expense of the rest of the economy — and yet have failed to make any real investments in clean energy.

We’re really at a reset right now. The opportunities that we have, it seems like America is restructuring its entire economy. So why don’t we restructure it in a way that prepares us for the next generation?

Watch it:

Ellis-Lamkins asked, “Will we be a country that imports its batteries from China and oil from the Middle East, or will we be a country that creates its own energy?” Brokaw related how both Henry Ford and Lee Iacocca missed the boat in the 1970s on energy efficiency and safety for automotives, stuck in the smug complacency of past success. “This is a generational thing,” Donny Deutsch remarked. “Kids today, it’s in their DNA. And that’s what’s going to save us.”

Scarborough concluded:

I can’t state this any more clearly. This is our best chance economically to reengage and once again be leaders. If we take the lead in the green economy, we’ll be economically in good shape.

The biggest challenge is the political one — how to convince lawmakers that standing up for a truly just and green future is both necessary and wise, when the rewards of defending corporate interests against change are so evident. Congress lags behind the American public in recognizing the urgency and scope of the climate threat, and lags behind the American public in recognizing the opportunity and reward of clean energy leadership.

Even as the greatest challenge in passing green economy legislation is energizing the American public and giving confidence to Congress to become champions of clean energy reform, efforts need to be made to improve the underlying text of Waxman-Markey. Here’s one policy recommendation:

Strengthen the Renewable Electricity Standard

Strengthening the renewable electricity standard (Title I) will create hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs and save consumers and industry billions of dollars. The weakened standard in the energy committee compromise is not expected to exceed business-as-usual growth in renewable energy, acting only as a backstop to prevent regress.

BEST: Implement Vice President Al Gore’s “Repower America” recommended renewable electricity standard of 100 percent in ten years, putting American in the lead on global warming pollution reduction and advanced clean energy technology, from concentrated solar power to smart grids.

BETTER: Implement President Obama’s recommended renewable electricity standard of 25 percent by 2025. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimated a 25-by-25 standard would create 297,000 new jobs, generate $263.4 billion in new capital investment, and save $64.3 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills by 2025.

GOOD: Restore the renewable energy standard in the Waxman-Markey discussion draft of 20 percent by 2025 plus five percent efficiency improvements.

Too many people in Washington, whether liberal or conservative, believe that the most significant effect of a cap on carbon pollution is an increase in electricity rates, especially in coal-using states. They don’t see that the status-quo energy policy has given us double-digit increases in electricity rates. They don’t see the record profits of oil and coal companies and the banks that support them even as manufacturing jobs disappear and the rest of the economy subsides. They don’t see the skyrocketing costs of storms, floods, droughts, and disease.

The dramatic change in Washington from last year has made sorely needed national clean energy legislation possible for the first time. But there needs to be even more political transformation inside the Beltway for that legislation to be truly progressive. This is why activists are working to strengthen the hand of the “Green Dog” Democrats and challenge the “Brown Dogs” to reform their act:

– VoteVets, the League of Conservation Voters, and unions are running television ads targeting John Barrow (D-GA), Mike Ross (D-AR) , and Roy Blunt (R-MO) for voting against Waxman-Markey in the energy committee.

– The National Wildlife Federation Action Fund is challenging Ross with print ads in Arkansas for taking the “energy companies’ side… hook… line… and sinker.”

– MoveOn.org is holding Clean Energy Jobs tours across the country, from Providence, RI to Tuscon, AZ, Albany, NY to Albuquerque, NM, and New London, CT to Pittsburgh, PA.

– The “Hot Air Tour” promoting global warming skepticism and attacking environmental regulations.
– “Free Our Energy,” a group promoting increased domestic drilling.
– The “Save My Ballot Tour,” a group that pays Joe the Plumber to travel around the country smearing the Employee Free Choice Act.
– “No Climate Tax,” a group dedicated to the defeat of Clean Energy Economy legislation.
– “No Stimulus,” a group launched to try to stop the passage of the Recovery Act.

Notably, AFP was also instrumental in orchestrating the anti-Obama, anti-tax tea party protests in April.

With nearly 70 Republican operatives and former oil industry spokesmen working behind the scenes of AFP’s various fronts and disclosures that point to ever increasing oil and corporate donations to the group, one must wonder, who is guiding this massive front group factory? The answer is Tim Phillips, the President of AFP who has built a long career of inventing fake grassroots causes. In Phillips’ official biography, there appears to be over a 10 year gap — but that period was when Phillips developed his very first astroturf groups to do everything from smearing his opponents with anti-Semitic attacks to laundering money for criminal lobbyists.

Click More To Read The WonkRoom’s Investigation Of AFP’s Tim Phillips

As a Virginia-based political consultant, Phillips got his first big break managing the campaign of Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA). After serving as Goodlatte’s chief of staff for four years, Phillips joined former Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed in 1997 to create an astroturf lobbying and campaign consulting operation called Century Strategies. The firm promised to mount “grassroots lobbying drives” and explained its strategy as “it matters less who has the best arguments and more who gets heard — and by whom.”

After being recommended by Karl Rove, Century Strategies signed its first major corporate client – Enron. Phillips and Reed were paid $380,000 to mobilize “religious leaders and pro-family groups” to push energy deregulation in Congress and on the state level, a policy shift that led to the energy crisis and economic meltdown of 2001. The Washington Post reported that the pair informed Enron that they had leveraged their relationships with members of Congress and “placed” articles in prominent papers like the New York Times.

Part of Phillip’s role at Century Strategies was to manage the firm’s direct mail subsidiary, Millennium Marketing. In 1998, now disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff hired Phillips’ firm to pressure members of Congress to vote against legislation that would have made the U.S. commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands subject to federal wage and worker safety laws. A federal report “found that Chinese women were subject to forced abortions and that women and children were subject to forced prostitution in the local sex-tourism industry.” Nonetheless, Phillips sent out mailers claiming Chinese workers “are exposed to the teachings of Jesus Christ” while on the islands, and many “are converted to the Christian faith and return to China with Bibles in hand.” The mailers then encouraged the recipients to contact lawmakers and ask them to oppose the Marianas labor reform legislation.

The Marianas stealth lobbying effort was not the only time Phillips worked with Abramoff. Reed and Phillips conspired to generate conservative Christian outrage towards gambling at Indian casinos in a cynical plot to encourage those same tribes to hire Abramoff to lobby on their behalf. In some cases, Phillips’ anti-gambling crusade would simply be part of an effort to kill off competition to Abramoff’s clients. And while Phillips and Reed postured to be motivated by anti-gambling Christian values, the pair helped launder lobbying money from an Abramoff Internet gambling client called eLottery.

Though Phillips and Reed are best known in the campaign consulting world for engineering the dual victories of Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Republican Gov. Sonnie Perdue in Georgia (by associating images of Osama bin Laden with the incumbent Democratic senator), the pair can also be credited with the most below the belt tactics ever seen in modern Republican primaries. The duo “spearheaded” the telemarketing and direct mail efforts for George Bush against John McCain in the 2000 primaries. It is widely believed that Century Strategies executed the mass mailers and robo-calls which accused McCain of fathering an illegitimate child with a black woman, using the image of McCain’s adopted daughter from Bangladesh.

Phillips’ brass knuckled hits on fellow Republicans almost prevented the only Jewish Congressman in the GOP caucus from ever being elected. Phillips set up a 527 called “The Faith and Family Alliance,” a group supposedly designed to support conservative and Christian causes. But like his other front groups, Phillips used the Family Alliance to simply slime his political opponents with an organization that appeared to represent a grassroots community. The Richmond Times Dispatch reported that Phillips was hired by State Sen. Stephen Martin to manage his direct mail campaign against State Del. Eric Cantor in the 2000 Republican primary for the Congressional seat being vacated by Rep. Tom Bliley (R-VA). Phillips used his Family Alliance to blast robo-calls and mass mailers claiming Cantor did not represent “Virginia values” and that his opponent was the “only Christian in the contest.”

Larry Sabato, a political analyst and the director of University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, noted:

A despicable, underground campaign that was unquestionably anti-Semitic nearly beat Cantor in the GOP primary for U.S. House to succeed Tom Bliley in June 2000. Cantor had been heavily favored over state Sen. Steve Martin, but in the end he won by a couple hundred votes. Now the national and state GOP appears grateful for its lone Jewish House member — but the Republican base and some Christian groups almost insured his defeat. I’m amazed that Democrats and even Republicans haven’t raised this matter.

Indeed, after the Phillips’ anti-Semitic attacks, Cantor went from being high in the polls to barely winning the primary by a mere 264 votes. Phillips still holds rallies – under the umbrella of AFP – to boost his old client Sen. Martin.

Phillips managed to escape most of the controversy that eventually embroiled his partners Reed and Abramoff. Working under the slush fund provided by oil baron David Koch – with a salary approaching $300,000 a year and at least a $7 million annual budget – Phillips continues to lead AFP in building front group after front group to advance his radical right wing agenda.

He has got a chance to get the votes. If you are familiar with Texas Hold ‘em poker, he doesn’t have the nuts. It is not a done deal. Nor do I. . . We will see which has the other by the nuts next week.

Watch it:

Even though he began with a poker analogy, “Barton couldn’t help himself” and vulgarly described his intent to obstruct the passage of the Waxman-Markey bill. And he indeed intends to play hardball: Barton and his fellow Republicans have released a list of 450 poison-pill amendments that aim to make the debate over energy reform about the costs of change or attacks on supporters of reform, instead of the risks of inaction.

If we can reach agreement with the coal sector, with the steel, with the auto sector, with the refining sector on our committee, which is very representative of the Congress as a whole, then we believe that’ll be a template for passage in the Senate, as well. Because the agreements we’ll reach will be the very same agreements that those industry leaders … will be able to represent to senators are the basis for passage of legislation that they can support.

Members of Markey’s energy and environment subcommittee with strong ties to those sectors include Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA: $50,942 from steel), Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN: $113,033 from auto), Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT: $177,946 from coal), and Rep. Gene Green (D-TX: $330,613 from oil). The trade publication E&E News has identified 13 members of the 34-member subcommittee as swing votes. These “maybe” officials have received an average of $678,570 in lifetime contributions from those sectors, as opposed to $149,397 for the nine “yes” votes:

Average lifetime contributions from the automotive, steel & chemical, oil & gas, and mining & utility sectors to members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Energy & Environment Subcommittee (Center for Responsive Politics). Position on Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act estimated by E&E News. Chart by the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

The average energy committee member opposed or wavering on the green economy legislation has received six times as much lifetime climate polluter cash as the average supporter:

Carbon-sector contributions to members of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce. Click to enlarge.

The obstructionist politicians working to weaken the ACES Act are ironically threatening the future of the industries who fill their campaign coffers. The nation needs to set strong standards for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and global warming pollution in order to compete in the 21st century economy. “Limiting greenhouse gas emissions will enhance U.S. competitiveness,” Center for American Progress senior fellow Jake Caldwell writes. “A carbon cap-and-trade program will reduce emissions and send a predictable price signal on carbon, which in turn will spur major investment in energy efficient and low-carbon technologies, foster innovation and upgrades, and create jobs and export led growth in clean energy technology.”

When the incomplete draft of the ACES Act was unveiled at the end of March, co-sponsors Markey and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, indicated that they planned to conduct a markup of the bill in Markey’s subcommittee before going to the full committee. After the meeting with Obama, Waxman announced that he could potentially bypass Markey’s subcommittee “and mark up the legislation before the entire 59-member panel.”

E&E News Projected Vote Breakdown For Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act:

Um. I, I just would say that any American who is prepared to endorse a national energy tax that there’s a better solution. Uh, that they should keep their powder dry. And uh, take their case to the American people that they don’t need, particularly during this very difficult time in the economic life of our nation, to raise the energy cost on our businesses and on American families.

Watch it:

Unfortunately for climate deniers like Pence and his fellow members in the GOP American Energy Solutions Group, corporate leaders aren’t heeding his warning, because they know the “national energy tax” scare is just a lie. As Grist noted, “the House heard the leaders of Duke Energy, ConocoPhillips, and DuPont ask for a cap as recently as April 22.” Politico reports that Nike has been telling the U.S. Chamber of Commerce “to take a more progressive stance on the issue of climate change.” And Exelon Corporation, one of America’s largest electric utilities and another US-CAP member, is featured in a new advertisement today from the Environmental Defense Action Fund calling for a carbon cap as a part of comprehensive clean economic policy:

The French government is welcoming the “new atmosphere” that the Obama administration brings to international climate negotiations, but is looking for results. Brice Lalonde, France’s chief climate negotiator, sat down for an interview with reporters in Hotel Willard’s Cafe du Parc, following the Major Economies Forum convened this week in Washington, D.C. Lalonde dismissed corporate pressure to block green economy legislation in the United States as an “arrière-garde” doomed, in time, to irrelevance, saying that the “economic center is moving.” While expressing great optimism for eventual success, Lalonde explained that the international community is looking for Obama to go farther than his campaign pledge for 2020 emissions reductions:

Politically it’s very important for the U.S. to go under 1990 levels by 2020.

Lalonde indicated that the means for achieving that symbolic target doesn’t have to be solely through domestic reductions, but could include international mechanisms. The World Resources Institute estimates that the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy and Security Act may achieve reductions of 20 to 38 percent below 1990 levels, if all complementary policies and offsets to the mandatory reductions are considered. Even before the Copenhagen treaty negotiations this December, he said, “We could go very far on forest issues.” He expressed great optimism that the U.S. Senate could take the lead on legislation to deal with tropical deforestation. “A deforestation agreement could be fantastic. You could have a bipartisan agreement on that.”

The participants at the Major Economies Forum were very aware of the implications of the global recession, and believe that “green recovery plans are the beginning of fighting climate change.” Lalonde described the fiscal and financial debt bubbles, and concluded, “Climate change is also a debt.”

Dismissing the argument that emissions reductions would kill the coal and oil industries, he expressed confidence that corporate resistance to action would fade: “It’s finished.” The hydrocarbon industries would continue to prosper in a clean energy economy, he said, discussing the numerous chemical and industrial uses of coal: “It’s a shame to burn it.” However he recognized that policy makers need the support of the public, and sounded almost resigned when asked about the American public’s low priority for action on global warming. “You had Katrina already,” he replied.

Despite his optimism and respect for the “Dream Team” that the U.S. now has on climate change, Lalonde was sober about the challenges facing small island states that face likely annihilation even with a 50% reduction in total emissions by 2050. “It’s going to be difficult to catch up with the eight years we’ve lost.”

After an estimated 48 cents per gallon increase in 2020, motor fuels are estimated to increase by 19% (74 cents per gallon) relative to baseline levels. Electricity costs are estimated to increase by 27% (3.6 cents per
kWh) relative to baseline level in 2020, rising by 44% (5.8 cents per kWh) in 2025.

In 1989, coal companies and the Edison Electric Institute hired Temple Barker and Sloane, a pro-industry research organization, to conduct an economic analysis of the effects of a cap & trade system on sulphur dioxide (SO2), the main pollutant that causes acid rain.

Their projections proved to be wildly inaccurate. They estimated the acid rain cap & trade program would “cost electric utility ratepayers $5.5 billion annually between enactment and the year 2000, increasing to $7.1 billion per year from 2000-2010.” In fact, electricity prices actually dropped:

Average electric rates dropped from 8.05 cents per kilowatt hour when the Clean Air Act was passed in 1990 (calculated in 2000 dollars) to 7.48 cents per kwh . . . in 1995, to 6.81 cents per kwh . . . in 2000. By 2006, electricity was up slightly to 7.63 cents per kwh (2000 dollars) but still 5 percent less than before the acid rain program began.

What’s more, by 2003, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the acid rain cap & trade program had “the largest quantified human health benefits – over $70 billion annually – of any major federal regulatory program implemented in the last 10 years, with benefits exceeding costs by more than 40:1.” In 2002, The Economist magazine called it “the greatest green success story of the last decade.”

Today, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has hired CRA International, who has Howard W. Pifer III, founding director of the Energy & Environment Group at Temple, Barker & Sloane, as a senior adviser, to analyze the effects of a cap & trade system for carbon dioxide (CO2). Their analysis makes similar dire projections about the price of electricity. The faulty logic is similar. As Dan Weiss of the Center for American Progress explained, these studies “base their cost assumptions on existing technologies and practices, which means that they do not account for the vast potential for innovation once binding reductions and deadlines are set.”

According to Laurie Johnson, chief economist of the Natural Resources Defense Council, their analysis does not consider any efficiency or technological improvements, actually finds the economy would grow 72% by 2030 even with a cap and trade program, and “does not even pretend to model” the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act. Read more of her analysis here.

Anyone who thinks you can pay $3,100 to the federal government and thinks you can get that money back completely in services — like I said — he may go to M-I-T but he is an N-U-T.

Gohmert’s uncontrolled emission is consistent with the behavior of his fellow conservatives, willfully refusing to admit they’ve been caught in a lie. Every time Reilly attempts to explain the error of their ways, starting over a month ago, the GOP and the right-wing machine redouble their efforts. The Republicans for Environmental Protection, a group of conservative conservationists, have offered one possible explanation why so many leading Republicans, from House whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) to Budget Committee ranking minority member Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), keep on lying:

Few except special interests and politicians who do their bidding would argue that limiting emissions that put human health and the environment at risk puts a burdensome “tax” on American families and businesses.

In his two terms, Gohmert has received $22,500 in contributions from the coal sector and $212,313 from Big Oil — enough to pay a mythical $3100 tax for 76 years.

I’m not very interested with having a bunch of folks with a bunch of money get their mitts on trading credits, and have our future and our destiny tied to their interests. I feel very strongly there’s something going on with our climate. We need to be attentive to it, we need to deal with it, but as we do, we have to be smart.

It’s legitimate to have a concern about the regulatory structure of a carbon market, about one-tenth the size of the fossil-fuel commodity markets, and Sen. Dorgan has the expertise to design the legislation. But he seems to be letting a policy detail obscure the real issue — that global warming pollution is completely unregulated, allowing corporate polluters to make astronomical profits while destroying the atmosphere.

This carbon loophole has allowed pollution giants like Exxon Mobil, Koch Industries, Peabody Coal, and Massey Energy to ravage the planet, sicken our children, and rake in obscene profits for decades. Now, as North Dakota reels from its third extreme flood in as many years, scientists are warning that the climate crisis is outstripping their projections.

Yet Dorgan seems to be confusing political “reality” with actual reality, when he summarily dismissed Vice President Al Gore’s “Repower America” call that “the nation should rely solely on renewable fuels by 2020″:

Not going to happen. Not even close. We need to continue to use our most abundant resource, but to be able to do that, we have to be able to unlock the technology … to decarbonize coal, and we’re going to do that.

Again, Dorgan is missing the forest for the trees. Dorgan is strikingly pessimistic that America can free itself of fossil fuel dependence, even though the sun, wind, and human ingenuity are much more “abundant” resources than coal. Yet he willing to guarantee the success of experimental carbon capture and sequestration technology for coal-fired power plants Of course, a $300 million loan to a North Dakota coal plant for CCS development may help it along. If Dorgan truly wants CCS to happen, he should recognize that the most important thing the government can do is to create a market for clean energy by passing strong cap-and-trade legislation as soon as possible. Unfortunately, his voting record reveals he puts GOP filibusters of clean energy legislation above the security and health of the United States.