The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead. And those countries who follow will pay a price. Those nations who lead in creating the new green economy for the world will make money.

Watch it:

Graham’s words recall the testimony of former Center for American Progress Senior Fellow and White House official Van Jones, who told Congress in January, “We can build a green economy Dr. King would be proud of.” Van Jones, the founder of Green for All, left the White House after talk show host Glenn Beck targeted him as an “avowed communist and radical activist.” Beck has warned that efforts to build a green economy are “socialism,” “black nationalism,” and “fascism.”

Sen. Kerry announced that the three senators would work in a “dual track” to the committee process now underway to craft clean energy legislation in concert with the White House, which they hope to present directly to the Senate leadership. The senators conducted the press conference in between meetings with Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, and White House climate advisor Carol Browner.

Graham also discussed how Americans of any party “really feel uncomfortable with the fact that our nation sends a billion dollars a day overseas to buy foreign oil from some countries who don’t like us very much,” saying that part of “this initiative is to create a vision for energy independence and marry it up with a responsible climate control carbon pollution controls and create a new economy.”

Graham emphasized that his vision is to “help this planet” that “is in peril, create millions of new jobs for Americans that need them, and to become energy independent to make us safer,” because he believes that “controlling carbon pollution is good business.” Although he hoped for participation from his fellow Republicans, he said, “If you believe carbon pollution is not a problem, then you wouldn’t want to work with me, because I do.”

Transcript:

GRAHAM: The reason I’ve gotten involved in this issue is I see kind of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity politically to solve two real problems that I think the country and the world faces. One, carbon pollution. I am no scientist, but I’ve traveled throughout the world with Sen. McCain and others and seen the effects of a warming planet. And I do believe all of the cars we have on the roads, and the trucks, and all the energy we use that produces carbon daily is not a good thing for the planet.

But if environmental policy is not good business policy, you’ll never get 60 votes. So my goal is to try to make sure that we fashion environmental policy that will create millions of new jobs for Americans who are desiring to have new jobs. Virginia and New Jersey are going to benefit from what we do. South Carolina, Connecticut, and Massachusetts will benefit.

The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead. And those countries who follow will pay a price. Those nations who lead in creating the new green economy for the world will make money. The business community senses an opportunity they’ve not had before. That’s why they’re at least exploring the possibility of a new pathway forward.

I’ve been told by a lot of business leaders in South Carolina, “Senator Graham, once you price carbon in a reasonable way, this green economy that we’re hoping for really will begin to flourish.”

The other aspect of why I’m involved is energy independence. Remember “Drill here, drill now”? Where did that go? Four dollar a gallon gas is not in our face but it could be soon. I think most Americans — Republicans, independents or Democrats — really feel uncomfortable with the fact that our nation sends a billion dollars a day overseas to buy foreign oil from some countries who don’t like us very much. Part of this initiative is to create a vision for energy independence and marry it up with a responsible climate control carbon pollution controls and create a new economy.

Finally, our country doesn’t have a vision on carbon. We need one. And we need to lead the world rather than follow the world on carbon pollution. Our country doesn’t have the infrastructure in place to build a green economy and never will until we price carbon.

And our country doesn’t have a vision for energy independence. We need one. Our goal is to create that vision that not only will help this planet — that I think is in peril — but create millions of new jobs for Americans that need them, and to become energy independent to make us safer.

. . .

What I’ve got to do is convince people in South Carolina and our colleagues up here as a whole that environmental policy will be good business policy. And if Congress doesn’t act, the EPA will.

Every member of Congress, Republicans included, has to answer to themselves and their constituents. Is carbon pollution a problem? If it is, what are you going to do about it? Some Republicans want a carbon tax. In many ways, that is a fairer system but I don’t think there are the votes for it. If you believe carbon pollution is not a problem, then you wouldn’t want to work with me, because I do. Now, if you … a cap-and-trade bill has to be well-crafted not to put us at competitive disadvantage to China and India.

I am convinced with my colleagues that controlling carbon pollution is good business. If you do it right, people can make money and you’ll have a cleaner planet and the world will follow. So I hope my Republican colleagues will at least listen, come to the table as the Chamber has, see where we’re going, give us input and if at the end of the day, you can’t support it, that’s okay.

But last thought. Doing nothing has a consequence. The EPA will do something. Doing nothing has a consequence to our business opportunity in leading the green economy revolution that’s coming and controlling carbon emissions.

So I think most people are upset with the Congress because we’re not doing anything that matters. And the things that we do do we’re overdoing. So we’re trying to get that sweet spot of a bill that will be good for the environment, good for business and make us energy independent.

So my hope is that participation is seen as a positive, not a negative. If you can’t participate in solving a hard problem, why are you up here?

The burning of coal and oil is killing 20,000 Americans each year, a new Congressional report has found. After the Senate completes its work on health insurance reform, it will have the chance to pass major legislation to further improve our nation’s health, with the Kerry-Boxer Clean Energy Jobs Act. The National Research Council (NRC), an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, recently found that the United States is paying a heavy price in health and lives lost for its dependence on fossil fuels. In the newly released report, “The Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use,” the NRC explores the “externalities” of energy use, costs that are not factored into its market price. Requested by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the report monetizes these unseen energy costs at $120 billion annually by tracing the full cycle of our energy use—extraction, development, deployment, and waste:

Based on the results of external-cost studies published in the 1990s, we focused especially on air pollution. In particular, we evaluated effects related to emissions of particulate matter (PM), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), which form criteria air pollutants. We monetized effects of those pollutants on human health, grain crop and timber yields, building materials, recreation, and visibility of outdoor vistas. Health damages, which include premature mortality and morbidity (such as chronic bronchitis and asthma), constituted the vast majority of monetized damages, with premature mortality being the single largest health-damage category.

Shockingly, the NRC’s estimates for the death toll of a school bus worth of Americans every day are very conservative — a 2004 report by the Clean Air Task Force estimated 24,000 people died prematurely due to coal pollution alone.

Most of the hidden costs of energy use come from coal-fired electricity generation ($62 billion a year) and motor vehicle transportation ($56 billion a year). The NRC did not take into account the cost of global warming pollution, including only the estimates for some of the non-climatic costs imposed by our energy use, specifically those costs related to health, agriculture, and built infrastructure. Although other pernicious side-effects of our dependence on dirty fuels — such as ecosystem disruption, mercury contamination, and national security risks — were examined in the report, they were excluded from the final cost figures.

Comparatively, the report shows that renewable energy such as wind, solar, geothermal power costs us very little in external damages. If we cannot direct our use of energy towards those forms that do not carry hidden burdens, we better hope that Americans have good health insurance.

The analysis by the authors from King Juan Carlos University represents a significant divergence from traditional methodologies used to estimate employment impacts from renewable energy. In fact, the methodology does not reflect an employment impact analysis. Accordingly, the primary conclusion made by the authors – policy support of renewable energy results in net jobs losses – is not supported by their work.

NREL reveals that what Republicans have called a “50-page empirical study” could have been written by ten-year-olds. All the study does is calculate two ratios of Spanish economic figures — renewable subsidies vs. private capital and subsidies vs. average productivity — and then draw extravagant conclusions not only about the Spanish economy, but project them onto the United States. Here are a few of the fundamental limitations, technical errors, and false assumptions drawn from NREL’s takedown of Calzada’s work of pseudo-economics:

The metrics used in the Spanish study are not jobs impact estimates. The primary conclusion of the report is that the Spanish economy has experienced job loss as a result of its RE installations. However, comparing the RE subsidy per job with the Spanish economy’s average capital per job and average productivity per job is not a measure of job loss.

The report lacks transparency and supporting statistics. It is striking that the authors’ calculations with two very different economic metrics generate the same result. The authors claim this increases their confidence in their result. However, because there is no statistical analysis, it does not seem reasonable to draw conclusions regarding confidence in either result. The authors also fail to justify their chosen methodology or cite others who have applied a similar methodology.

The authors assume that a dollar spent by the government is less efficient than a dollar spent by private industry and that it crowds out private investment. Government spending may be more or less efficient than private investment. To the extent that government spending is a correction for market failures (e.g., existing fossil fuel subsidies, environmental externalities), it is less likely to represent an inefficient allocation of resources. Furthermore, there is no justification given for the assumption that government spending (e.g., tax credits or subsidies) would force out private investment. This assumption is fundamental to the conclusion that Spain’s renewable energy policy has resulted in job loss.

Calzada also “fails to account for technology export potential,” “relies on jobs estimates that were developed in 2003 and do not reflect Spain’s RE industries in 2009,” and “relies on jobs as the sole metric to assess the value of renewable energy.” NREL’s Suzanne Tegen, a Ph.D. energy market analyst, and Eric Lantz conclude with a summary of what serious economic analysis of the impact of renewable energy investments has found:

In general, comprehensive analyses show that net employment impacts are sensitive to assumptions regarding future energy prices, strategies for addressing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions, and the capacity to export technology. With increased awareness of potential energy price scenarios, recent research has found that it is only when conventional energy prices are forecast to be very low that net employment impacts from RE investments are negative.

In other words, unless you live in a world where global warming and oil spills don’t exist, and fossil fuels remain cheap forever, government investment in renewable energy creates jobs — just what our nation needs now.

(H/T Pete Altman)

The American Energy Alliance (AEA), a new polluter front group, is touring the nation to smear President Barack Obama’s clean energy reform agenda. Employees riding the “American Energy Express” bus are spreading the conservative lies that the American Clean Energy and Security Act will “cripple our sluggish economy.” AEA is the 501 c(4) offshoot of the Institute for Energy Research, a right-wing oil-industry think tank run by Robert Bradley, a former speechwriter for Kenneth Lay. E&E News reports that AEA’s “Energy Town Hall” bus tour pictures workers in hard hats:

The American Energy Alliance, which is affiliated with the conservative Institute for Energy Research, has begun a four-week bus tour to county fairs, sporting events and public meetings in several coal-reliant states. Representatives of the group will travel in a large blue bus carrying the slogan “Stop the National Energy Tax, Save American Jobs” and a picture of workers in hard hats. They will cross Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia and Virginia. Yesterday, AEA officials participated in a rally with another group, Americans for Prosperity, in Zanesville, Ohio; a day earlier, they visited a county fair in western Pennsylvania.

In fact, by attacking legislation that addresses climate change and our national dependence on fossil fuels, AEA is preventing a clean-energy economic boom. Laughably, AEA claims it has “no ties to any political party“:

AEA has no ties to any political party, and it has no interest in supporting the agenda of any particular political party.

AEA may be telling the truth that it has “no interest in supporting the agenda of any particular political party” — its only interest seems to be blocking progressive reform by spreading lies and distortions. However, AEA is tightly connected to the Republican Party and right-wing oil interests. In fact, all of its employees are former House Republican staffers:

Thomas J. Pyle, AEA President, Is A Oil Lobbyist And DeLay Operative. Before joining the Institute for Energy Research and the American Energy Alliance, Pyle worked as a lobbyist for the right-wing oil giant Koch Industries, first in-house starting in 2001, and then at the Rhoads Group. In 2008 Pyle became a lobbyist for the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. Previously, Pyle served as policy analyst for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), Majority Whip of the U.S. House of Representatives and as staff director for the GOP Congressional Western Caucus. Pyle started as a legislative assistant for radical anti-environmentalists Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) and Rep. George Radanovich (R-CA). [Institute for Energy Research, Center for Public Integrity]

Patrick Creighton, AEA Communications Director, Worked For Bush And Pennsylvania Republicans. Patrick Creighton was the special assistant to Samuel T. Mok, the chief financial officer at the Department of Labor from 2004 to 2006. He then worked as a spokesman for oil and natural gas advocate Rep. John Peterson (R-PA) from 2006 to 2009, worked to elect Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA), then joined Thompson’s office until May 2009. [Institute for Energy Research, Legistorm]

Kevin Kennedy, AEA Federal Affairs Director, Promoted Alaska Drilling Under Don Young. After graduating from Union College in 2004, Kevin Kennedy worked for the Astroturf organization Arctic Power, which advocated drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In 2007, Kennedy became a legislative assistant for the corrupt Rep. Don Young (R-AK) and the House Committee on Natural Resources. He joined the Institute for Energy Research and American Energy Alliance in 2009. [Institute for Energy Research]

Laura Henderson, AEA Spokesperson, Served Shelby, Dole, And Tiberi. Laura Henderson was a former press secretary for offshore drilling advocate Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) from 2005-2009. Previously, she worked for former Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) and Rep. Pat Tiberi (R-OH). [Institute for Energy Research]

Daniel R. Simmons, AEA State Affairs Director, Is A Koch-Funded GOP Staffer. Simmons was the Director of the Natural Resources Task Force at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a right-wing network funded by Koch Industries, the American Petroleum Institute, and other corporate and right-wing organizations. Previously, Simmons was a Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, also funded by Koch. From 2001 to 2005, Simmons served on the staff of Rep. George Nethercutt (R-WA) on the House Natural Resources Committee. Simmons holds a B.A. in Economics from Utah State University and a J.D. from George Mason University School of Law, also supported by Koch Industries. [Institute for Energy Research, Legistorm]

Furthermore, AEA’s EnergyTownHall.org website is run by yet another former GOP House staffer:

GOP.gov Webmaster Nathan Imperiale Runs EnergyTownHall.Org. AEA’s EnergyTownHall.org was designed by NJI Media Group, part of Endeavour Global Strategies. Endeavour’s head, Sean Spicer, is a long-time GOP operative, including communications work for the House Republican Conference and the Bush White House. NJI Media Group’s president, Nathan Imperiale, served as Director of New Media for the House Republican Conference, building its GOP.gov website. [Twitter, 2/13/09; Endeavour Global Strategies]

AEA’s “American Energy Express” joins a field crowded by conservative oil and coal propaganda — the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity’s “Factuality” bus tour, the American Petroleum Institute’s “Energy Citizens” oil rallies, and the Americans For Prosperity “Hot Air” balloon tour.

ACTIVIST: They said, “We won’t let you have an American flag either.” They said they won’t let you have this, and then the guy touched this, the American flag.

ANOTHER ACTIVIST: I got an email from Freedomworks saying, “Come, it’s free, free food,” doodah doodah. And then I get here and they say, “Well, it’s against fire code to let people in the door.” And then, they let all these people in. Granted, one of the people was Drayton McLane. He’s got more money than God, so, I guess…

Watch it:

The activists explained that they were invited by Dick Armey’s Astroturf organization Freedomworks, one of the participating organizations in the new Energy Citizens coalition. While the activists were locked out, employees of the public corporations Chevron, Anadarko Energy, Halliburton, ConocoPhillips, and others were “invited to participate” and bused to the event on company time.

At the company picnic, Houston Astros owner Drayton McLane defended his billionaire lifestyle, saying, “We need to preserve this way of life.” Inheriting much of his wealth, McLane made billions by selling his grocery business to Wal-Mart. In January 2008, McLane received the Woodrow Wilson Award for Public Service for showing a “deep concern for the common good beyond the bottom line.” National Black Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Harry Alford, who recently accused Barbara Boxer of racism, was also a featured speaker.

Unfortunately, as large as this direct lobbying figure is, it represents probably a fraction of the total amount of money the oil and gas industry is pouring into the debate. Some of the money flows straight to candidates and to political action committees. Another huge, largely undisclosed portion goes to what is known as “outside lobbying” efforts — public relations and advertising firms which coordinate a pro-polluter propaganda campaign to influence public opinion. And finally much of the money goes to financing “think-tanks” to produce reports outside the realm of scientific consensus to legitimize skepticism of global warming.

The outside lobbying campaign the industry has embraced this year is the most corrosive because it is based upon deception — and increasingly, hate. Koch Industries, the oil and gas behemoth, bankrolls the astroturf groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks. These groups were instrumental in orchestrating the anti-Obama tea party protests, where thousands gathered to display racist signs directed at the President, absurd calls for an impeachment, and more recently, protesters hanging Democratic leaders in effigy. In addition to the anti-Obama protests, these groups provide a useful front for industries as they hire dozens of field staff to spread misinformation about clean energy and bus people around the country to create the guise of public distrust of global warming. Koch has funneled its money not only to these astroturf efforts, but has been a prolific leader in all the aforementioned strategies that industries pursue (Charles Koch even founded the Cato Institute, a leader of global warming skepticism and has spent nearly $4 million in lobbying this year alone).

Although Koch has traditionally given mostly to Republicans, E&E notes that it is giving increasingly to Democrats. In 2009, Koch gave about 28 percent of its contributions to Democrats, compared to about 15 percent last year:

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT): $5,000 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR): $10,000 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR): $2,000 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]

Rep. Marion Berry (D-AR): $2,500 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]
Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK): $3,000 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]
Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL): $6,500 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]
Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX): $3,500 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]
Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-TX): $4,500 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]
Rep. Gene Green (D-TX): $3,500 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]
Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA): $2,500 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]
Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX): $1,000 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]
Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN): $6,500 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]
Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR): $2,000 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]
Rep. David Scott (D-GA): $1,000 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]
Rep. Henry Teague (D-NM): $1,000 [FEC, accessed 7/29/09]

In accepting dirty energy Koch money, these lawmakers are legitimizing the financiers of the anti-Obama tea party effort.

This one day up and down illustrates a bigger problem: the economic uncertainty created by energy price volatility. We just had a streak of fifty straight days of rising gas prices, which is just one in a long series of energy price spikes that have afflicted the country.

I noted earlier in the month that rising gas prices could threaten billions in worldwide stimulus, effectively snuffing out any economic recovery that’s occurring. And as CAP’s Amanda Logan and Christian Weller point out, the energy price volatility that we’re subjected to prevents all sorts of personal and business investments that could help speed recovery:

– There is an 83.3 percent chance that consumers will spend a smaller share of their disposable income on vehicles after they have just gone through a period of high price volatility. In fact, consumers buy about 1.6 percent fewer cars one year after experiencing a year-long episode of large energy price swings.

– Investment in residential structures — new home purchases and upgrades — dropped by 0.5 percentage points relative to gross domestic product on average after energy prices swung wildly for 12 months.

– There is a 91.7 percent chance that business investment in transportation equipment — such as trucks and tractors — as a share of gross domestic product will decline after extraordinary energy price volatility, largely because businesses will buy 11.0 percent fewer vehicles.

Logan and Weller do point out though, that “not everything declines after high energy price volatility. The profit rate — profits to assets — of the oil and gas industry tends to surge during periods of high energy price volatility.”

Something should really be done to prevent this “roller coaster ride of large energy price swings.” Logan and Weller suggest that a renewable energy standard could help. I’m still in favor of using the gas tax to smooth out the boom and bust cycle of prices, which, as Jason E. Bordoff and Gilbert E. Metcalf at the Brookings Institution write, would “provide a strong, stable price signal to encourage both conservation and alternatives to oil.”

Kyle Isakower, API’s director of policy analysis, called the oil and gas companies’ $58.4 billion investment a “pretty impressive” number when put in context. “Our members’ primary responsibility is to be able to provide the fuels our country needs,” Isakower explained.

Let’s put this investment into context. The claim that the oil and gas industry invested $58.4 billion in clean energy technologies from 2000 to 2008 is overstated — about ten times over. API lumped in spending on renewable technologies with other “alternative” energies to exaggerate their purported commitment to renewable energy. In fact, the oil and gas industry spent only $6.7 billion on “non-hydrocarbon technology” including ethanol, wind, and solar. $21.1 billion of the $58.4 billion, or more than a third, was invested in liquefied natural gas, yet another fossil fuel. Another $30.6 billion went “mostly to energy efficiency.” Their total investment in renewable energy was little more than a tenth of the $58.4 billion “investments to cut greenhouse gases.”

The oil and gas industry has long invested only a small percentage of their profits in renewable and alternative energy ventures. The API-commissioned report from T² and Associates and the Center for Energy Economics at the University of Texas leaves out any accounting of total oil and gas profits, which totaled over $100 billion in 2008 for the top five companies alone. Analysis from the Center for American Progress showed that these top five oil companies — BP, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell — committed just 4 percent of their total profits to low-carbon investments in 2008. Exxon-Mobil, the biggest of the big oil companies, made more than $45 billion in net income in 2008 — and invested less than 1 percent of its profits in renewable energy. In fact, the API report reveals that the entire oil and gas industry is as bad as or worse than Exxon when it comes to under-investing in renewable energy:

Big Oil Invested Less Than One Percent Of 2000-2008 Profits In Renewables. The top five oil companies raked in $656 billion from 2000 to 2008, meaning that the $6.7 billion investment by the entire US oil and gas industry in renewable energy represents just 1 percent of the profits of the top five oil companies alone. [API, CAP]

Other examples of Big Oil’s attempt to inflate their commitment to renewable energy include multi-million dollar investments in advertising and “green-washing” campaigns, despite investing heavily in organizations that question the existence of global warming. In 2007, Exxon-Mobil spent $100 million on advertising, producing ads that focused on global warming, efficiency, and alternative energy. Chevron has created an “I Will” ad campaign in spite of its record of investing only 5 percent of its $23.9 billion in profits in renewable energy in 2008.

Pump prices are following the rise in crude oil, which set an 8-month high Thursday on a falling dollar and brighter economic outlook. Gas prices are not expected to approach last summer’s wallet-busting $4 per gallon, but they could eat into consumer spending just as the recession is showing signs of easing. The nationwide price for a gallon of regular gasoline averaged $2.63 Thursday, up 58 cents since the end of April and $1.01 since pump prices bottomed at about $1.62 at the end of last year.

The real problem here is that “eat into consumer spending” bit, as rising gas prices threaten to stymie some of the spending that the stimulus bill sought to promote. Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, told the Wall Street Journal just how much oil prices are threatening spending worldwide:

Assessing the relief from last year’s record $100 average U.S. oil price, Mr. Birol estimates that an average $40 a barrel oil price in 2009 — below what most analysts expect — would pad consumer wallets in industrialized nations like the U.S. to the tune of almost $600 billion. But an average price of $70 a barrel, roughly the current price level, cuts the stimulus effect down to just $290 billion.

Robert J. Shiller, an economist at Yale, figured that the price hikes “could effectively offset the new $400 to $800 payroll tax cut most employees are receiving this year” due to the Obama administration’s stimulus package.

As Ryan Avent put it, “I don’t really know how else to say this, but oil prices are about to kill our chances at recovery dead. That’s all there is to it.” As possible solutions to use in the limited time before higher prices hit, he advocated trying to talk OPEC into more production, opening up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and providing “immediate funding to transit systems nationwide to increase service.”

In the grander scheme of things, it’s really absurd that the U.S. allows rising oil prices to wallop U.S. consumers every single summer. And via Matt Yglesias, we have Bradford Plumer suggesting that the U.S. “implement some sort of variable oil tax that would keep the domestic price of oil more or less stable: When world oil prices rise, the tax decreases; when oil prices plunge, the tax increases.” “That would help create a predictable price signal to encourage conservation and alternatives to oil, and raise revenue for energy projects (not to mention send fewer dollars overseas),” wrote Plumer.

Big Wall Street banks such as Goldman Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley and others are able to sidestep the regulations that limit investments in commodities such as oil, and they’re investing on behalf of pension funds, endowments, hedge funds and other big institutional investors, in part as a hedge against rising inflation.

According to McClatchy, “critics say this speculative flow of money into commodities markets is a self-fulfilling prophecy that’s distorting the usual process by which buyers and sellers set prices and is driving up the prices of oil, gasoline, grains and other essentials.” Both Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have received $10 billion in TARP money.

The Department of Defense (DOD) is the single largest consumer of energy in the United States. A new report by the Military Advisory Board (MAB) of the Center for Naval Analysis, “Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security,” describes the significant security threats the energy status quo poses to US military missions and the country:

Energy, security, economics, climate change — these things are connected.

General Charles F. “Chuck” Wald, the chairman of the MAB, laid bare the conclusions of the report in his opening remarks at the panel discussion to launch the report, held at the Newseum on Monday. Describing the oil crisis as a serious and urgent threat to national security, General Wald noted that not only does the military’s inefficient use of oil “reduce combat effectiveness,” but that American dependence on oil has a major impact on foreign policy. Significantly, he noted that the problem was “dependence on oil, and not just foreign oil.” The US has less than two percent of global oil reserves, making it dependent on foreign sources for current consumption levels.

The panel explained that US’s exposure to volatile international oil markets also poses a significant financial threat:

– The US military consumes over 300,000 barrels of oil per day, leading to a bill of $20 billion in FY 2008.

– Skyrocketing oil prices in 2008 led to a more than 50 percent increase from the $13 billion paid for oil in FY 2007.

General Wald warned that the current status quo on oil was part of the reason for the current global financial crisis. Even worse, unless urgent action is taken to overhaul energy use in the US, a future financial crisis “could dwarf this one.”

Calling efficiency the “hat trick” of energy, the panel experts described efficient energy use as essential to protecting American troops and saving lives. As General Ronald F. Keys, a retired US Air Force commander pointed out:

When you’re being shot at, of course that’s important for folks who are out there in harm’s way.

In Afghanistan, 70 percent of the convoys are used for carrying fuel and water. In Iraq, where the majority of fuel delivery is for generators that provide for tent air-conditioning, the military tried insulating tents with foam, reducing energy consumption by a remarkable 45 percent. Cutting the energy use not only saves money but also cuts the number of dangerous convoy runs.

The vulnerability of domestic bases to the conventional electric grid can cause them to fail when there are malfunctions, thus jeopardizing overseas operations and potentially leading to a national state of emergency at home. Dr. Ashton Carter, the undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, noted, “Terrorists and other antagonists recognize the vulnerability of our energy infrastructure.” Not only does smart grid technology bolster physical security and cybersecurity, it also allows for electricity from renewable sources to connect to the main grid, delivering clean energy over long distances to reach consumers. Senator John Warner (R-VA), one of the sponsors of the Climate Security Act of 2008, spoke at the event to say that a smart grid was needed “to get renewable sources of energy to the marketplace in a cost-effective way.”

A smart grid is one of the six priorities for DOD that are emphasized in the MAB report. Dr. Carter spoke of deepening partnerships between DOD and the Department of Energy to further such goals, especially with “a gaggle of physicists working on energy issues” in the administration, including Secretary of Energy Dr. Stephen Chu and White House science advisor John Holdren. By undertaking a comprehensive energy reform program, the US military can play an important part in repowering America, and in strengthening the United States at home and abroad.

Vitter said:

“According a preliminary estimate based on the Center for American Progress data, 271,000 oil and gas jobs would be destroyed annually by the administration’s proposed new taxes and fees on energy.”

Watch it:

This is a totally fabricated distortion of our 2008 report, “Green Recovery: A New Program to Create Good Jobs and Start Building a Low-Carbon Economy.”

We wondered where Vitter got it — it turns out this talking point has been circulating for some time, appearing in a document put out by the American Petroleum Institute, in a messaging memo from the oil-backed group Freedom Works, and on a set of talking points hosted on ConocoPhillips’ web site.

The point is a complete distortion of our data (nothing new for conservatives when it comes to energy policy). Our “Green Recovery” report shows that a two-year $100 billion federal investment in a green recovery program, including investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy, would create approximately 2 million jobs. The same amount of money invested in the oil industry would create 542,000 jobs over two years or…271,000 per year.

Apparently, they’ve taken this to mean that President Obama’s energy plan would cost 271,000 lost oil and gas jobs every year, which is simply not what the report says.

This was an analysis of two alternative stimulus plans, one focused on greening the economy, and one focused on boosting the oil industry. The report found that greening the economy creates far more jobs (four times as many) than plowing the same amount of federal money into oil.

Now, to be fair, as the United States shifts off of oil and fossil fuels in the years ahead, there will necessarily be fewer jobs created in the dirty energy, oil & gas extraction and petroleum refining industries, even as more jobs are created in the renewable energy industry, efficiency improvements, and infrastructure upgrades. What is true, however, is that this shift will yield a major net expansion in employment — about 1.2 million more jobs for every $100 billion shift in spending out of fossil fuels and into clean energy.

This job expansion will cover the full range of job categories and every region of the country. This major expansion in employment will result because renewable energy and efficiency improvements are more labor intensive, and substitute domestic spending for imported energy.

If the beneficiaries of the dirty energy status quo and their allies in Congress like Senator Vitter want to defend the interests of the oil & gas industries in order to block the greening of our economy, prevent the creation of millions of new jobs, continue with more of the same Bush-Cheney energy policies that have kept America dependent on oil, and accelerate catastrophic climate change, that’s their right.

Just don’t distort our research in order to do it.

Isn’t it obvious that at one time it was a lot warmer in Alaska and on the North Pole? It wasn’t a big pipeline that we’ve created from Texas and shipped it up there and put it under ground so we can now pump it up?

Watch it:

“No,” Secretary Chu responded, “there are continental plates that have been drifting around throughout the geological ages.” The “driving force” for Alaska’s oil formation during the Triassic era 200 million years ago, according to University of Alaska geologist Mark Rivera, “is plate tectonics, which is the unifying theory of geology.”

Ironically for someone who has called climate science “absolute nonsense,” Barton was actually onto something. During the Triassic, the entire planet was indeed a hothouse and entirely deglaciated. The carbon dioxide (CO2) content in the atmosphere was at its highest ever levels, spiking from 1000 parts per million to 3000 ppm. The end of the Triassic period was marked by one of the largest mass-extinction events in Earth’s history.

Habitable conditions for humanity, hundreds of millions of years later, are very different. Carbon dioxide levels, which had been below 300 ppm for the last 650,000 years and was stable at 280 ppm during the rise of human civilization, have skyrocketed since 1800 because of our burning of coal, oil, and natural gas to 388 ppm, a nearly 40 percent rise.

Transcript:

BARTON: Dr. Chu, I don’t want to leave you out. You’re our scientist. I have one simple question for you in the last six seconds. How did all the oil and gas get to Alaska and under the Arctic Ocean?

CHU: (Laughs.) This is a complicated story but oil and gas is the result of hundreds of millions of years of geology and in that time also the plates have moved around. And so, it’s a combination of where the sources of the oil and gas …

BARTON: Isn’t it obvious that at one time it was a lot warmer in Alaska and on the North Pole? It wasn’t a big pipeline that we’ve created in Texas and shipped it up there and put it under ground so we can now pump it up and ship it back?

CHU: No, there are continental plates that have been drifting around throughout the geological ages.

BARTON: So it just drifted up there.

CHU: Uh…. That’s certainly what happened. It’s a result of things like that.

WAXMAN: The gentleman’s time has expired.

Billions Of Dollars In Annual Savings Across The Nation

Source: 4/22/09 Congressional Testimony, Kevin Knobloch, Union of Concerned Scientists

UCS will soon release the complete version of its two-year study, “Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy,” which uses a modified version of the Department of Energy’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to project “how UCS recommendations would reduce emissions and lower energy costs over the next 20 years.” Tomorrow, UCS president Kevin Knobloch will testify before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce about the initial findings of the Clean Energy Blueprint:

– Under the Blueprint, our nation meets a carbon cap of 26% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 56% below 2005 levels by 2030.

– We can achieve these deep cuts in carbon emissions while saving American consumers and businesses $465 billion annually in 2030. The Blueprint also builds $1.6 trillion in cumulative net savings between 2010 and 2030.

– We can keep jobs growing at the same rate as in the reference case.

– We can cut the use of oil and petroleum products by 6 million barrels a day in 2030 – as much oil as we currently import from OPEC and 30 percent of our nation’s current total daily oil consumption.

– We can save consumers money on their energy bills because of increased energy efficiency, even though electricity rates and gasoline prices go up slightly. That means families will see average household savings of $900 a year in 2030, while businesses will, all together, save nearly $130 billion a year.

– We can reduce power plant carbon emissions 84% below 2005 levels by 2030. The Blueprint policies will also cut mercury, acid rain, smog and soot pollution, improving air and water quality and saving lives.

– We can cut emissions from cars and trucks by 40% compared to their 2005 levels and freeze emissions from freight trucks at 2005 levels even as the economy undergoes significant growth. The transportation sector contributes the second largest area of emissions reductions and accounts for one-half of the net consumer and business energy cost savings in 2030.

The savings in the transportation sector come on top of the savings that will come because of the increase in fuel economy standards in 2007. Strong efficiency standards, like those in Waxman-Markey, drive the transformation of the electricity sector, allowing the nation to end its dependence on dirty coal and allow citizens to keep their money in their pocketbooks.

Efficiency Key To Transforming U.S. Electricity Use

Source: 4/22/09 Congressional Testimony, Kevin Knobloch, Union of Concerned Scientists

The “April Fools” Republican budget would keep America on the Bush-Cheney path of paying fossil fuel polluters to burn up the planet. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, sketched out their plan to continue Bush-era policies in the Wall Street Journal:

Our budget lays a firm foundation to position the U.S. to meet three important strategic energy goals: reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, deploying more clean and renewable energy sources free of greenhouse gas, and supporting economic growth. We do these things by rejecting the president’s cap-and-trade scheme, by opening exploration on our nation’s oil and gas fields, and by investing the proceeds in a new clean energy trust fund, infrastructure and further deficit reduction.

Now I feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. Their “firm foundation” is just rehashed talking points from George W. Bush, who similarly promised year after year (after year after year after year after year after year) to reduce our dependence on foreign oil:

Rejecting Cap-and-Trade. In 2007, the Bush White House threatened to veto the Lieberman-Warner cap and trade bill as “bad legislation” that “would raise fuel prices and raise taxes on Americans” and “demand drastic emissions cuts that have no chance of being realized.”

Opening Oil And Gas Exploration. Under Bush, the United States opened the floodgates to domestic drilling, increasing the number of permits issued each year by the federal government increased by more than 361 percent. From 2004 to 2007, the Bureau of Land Management issued 28,776 permits to drill on public land, ten thousand more than the number of wells actually drilled. The only result? Record profits for oil and gas companies at the expense of American farmers and ranchers. Meanwhile, gas prices exploded and our dependence on foreign oil rose to record highs.

Clean Energy Trust Fund. Bush established a cornucopia of “clean energy” initiatives, including the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership for “clean nuclear,” Future Gen for “clean coal,” the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy, and the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Under the cover of these voluntary programs, Bush slashed funds for renewable energy, blocked energy efficiency standards, and even killed off FutureGen’s attempt to make coal less dangerous.

Like Bush, the House GOP is lying to the public while relying on the goodwill of industry, showered with subsidies, to reduce pollution. In reality, even well-designed voluntary agreements (VAs) between government and industry to reduce catastrophic pollution don’t work. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change explains, “there is little evidence that VAs have achieved significant reductions in emissions beyond business as usual (high agreement/much evidence).”

Paul Ryan sums up his Bush-lite plan to cut taxes on corporations, privatize Medicare, and increase subsidies for oil tycoons by saying:

In the recent past, the Republican Party failed to offer the nation an inspiring vision and a concrete plan to tackle our problems with innovative and principled solutions. We do not intend to repeat that mistake.

April Fools!

Restoration of Superfund. In 2002, Bush shafted Superfund, the successful program to clean up the most toxic sites in America, by eliminating the tax on industrial polluters “that once generated about $1 billion a year.” President Obama’s budget reinstates Superfund taxes in 2011, restoring $17 billion over ten years to the depleted program.

Polluters Pay To Fight Climate Change And Make Work Pay. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, instituted a voluntary program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 2002 (they rose). President Obama calls for a mandatory cap on carbon emissions starting in 2012, expected to raise $645.7 billion over ten years. Instead of sending those revenues back to the polluters, $15 billion a year will go to clean energy technologies, with the rest funding the Making Work Pay tax credit to reduce payroll taxes for every working American.

Ending Tax Breaks For Fossil Fuel Industry. Big Oil had no better friends in the White House than Bush and Cheney, both oil men. Oil, natural gas, and coal companies enjoyed record profits even as the rest of America suffered from skyrocketing energy prices. Yet Bush protected numerous incentives and tax breaks for companies that drill and mine our shared resources. President Obama’s budget eliminates $31.75 billion in oil and gas company giveaways and increases the return from natural resources on federal lands by $2.9 billion over ten years.

In a column at the Center for American Progress, director of climate strategy Dan Weiss analyzes the budget and finds: “President Obama’s proposed energy budget is a ray of sunshine after an eight-year blackout. Congress must now make this clean energy future a reality.”

Reuters (2/18/09): “Western climate plan could prolong recession.” “A cap-and-trade program planned for the Western United States and Canada,” Reuters reporter Nichola Groom writes, “could prolong the economic recession and chase high technology investment to other regions, according to a new study commissioned by” the Western Business Roundtable, described only as “a group of business leaders.”

Although Groom does report that Jim Sims is not only the chief executive of the Roundtable but also “chairman of Colorado-based lobbying firm Policy Communications Inc,” nowhere does the article describe who the “group of business leaders” are. The Roundtable is, in fact, as the DeSmog Project’s Kevin Grandia has previously reported, a “fossil-fuel industry organization whose membership includes Peabody Coal, Shell Oil, and the Western Fuels Association.” Policy Communications is also responsible for these other Orwellian front groups: Partnership for America, Americans for American Energy, NextGen Energy Council, and the Conservation Science Foundation.

AP (2/15/09): “Former astronaut speaks out on global warming.” “Former astronaut” Harrison Schmitt “is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change” hosted by “the Chicago-based Heartland Institute,” reports the Associated Press. Schmitt “walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate,” with a “science degree from the California Institute of Technology” and “doctorate in geology from Harvard University in 1964.”

The Associated Press story, cribbed from a piece by the Santa Fe New Mexican, fails to mention that Schmitt is a Republican who was the president and chairman of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy from 1994 to 1998, and remains its “chairman emeritus.” The Annapolis Center is an ExxonMobil-funded front group founded by Richard Siebert, a National Association of Manufacturers lobbyist. Furthermore, Media Matters notes the article fails to mention the “Heartland Institute receives funding from the fossil fuels industry.”

Of course, this misreporting is not special to the wire services. The Washington Post publishes the global-cooling rants of George Will; the New York Times publishes John Tierney’s radical global-warming Pollyannaism; CNN’s Ali Velshi promotes liquid coal and goes on drilling junkets with Michelle Bachmann. Igor Volsky describes the sorry state of climate-change journalism in today’s Progress Report:

Given the media’s eagerness to prop up global warming skeptics, it’s no surprise that “only 40 percent of Americans believe that ‘most’ scientists agree that ‘global warming is happening.”

A powerful coal and oil industry lobby group called the the Western Business Roundtable is scheming to derail the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), founded by a number of progressive US states and Canadian provinces in 2007 to begin tackling carbon emissions in the face of endless inaction from their national governments. The Desmog Project has come into possession of an internal memo that the Western Business Roundtable recently sent to their members, laying bare their strategy for smearing the work of the WCI.

The WCI aims to lay the foundation for a continental cap and trade system to limit greenhouse gases 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. The coalition currently has 11 member states and provinces representing 20 percent of the US, and 70 percent of the Canadian economy. They recently released their detailed recommendations for a regional cap and trade system that will be voted on for ratification by the member states and provinces.

The Western Business Roundtable is a conservative fossil-fuel industry organization whose membership includes Peabody Coal, Shell Oil, and the Western Fuels Association. WBR is a project of the right-wing public relations firm Policy Communications, which is also responsible for these other Orwellian front groups: Partnership for America, Americans for American Energy, NextGen Energy Council, and the Conservation Science Foundation.

And guess what? This group is about to release an “economic analysis” that will trash the recommendations of the WCI. Wonders never cease. The Business Roundtable memo obtained by the Desmog Project talks candidly about yet to be released “findings”:

Our report… will critically examine virtually all aspects of the WCI Recommendations, including its major assumptions, scenarios, findings, recommendations and economic modeling. Among the specific topics to be addressed in this analysis are these:

- Inefficiencies of a Unilateral Regional Plan

- Lack of measurable benefit in future climates according to United Nations-IPCC assumptions

- Implausibility of the WCI’s Electric Power Scenario

- Likely Actual Costs of WCI Initiative

- Macroeconomic Implications on GDP, Industry and Jobs

- Disproportionate Impact On Low-Income Families of Higher Prices Caused by WCI Recommendations

- Impacts on New Power Plant Construction and Energy Supply

- Bureaucratic Implications

Strange. This “detailed economic analysis” sounds a lot more like an industry-funded PR campaign. Don’t expect any surprises when industry again opposes meaningful change around carbon. Instead, except more drivel about “carbon capture and storage” technology and of course, the further expansion of coal plants.

The important work of the Western Climate Initiative represents a significant step towards tackling carbon emissions and move towards a green economy. As their recommendations move toward ratification, expect the usual fossil-fueled push-back. It seems no good deed goes unpunished.

Originally posted at DeSmogBlog.

Representatives of major greenhouse gas-emitting industries have also recoiled at the prospect of Waxman being in charge instead of Dingell.

R. Bruce Josten, the top lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “took issue with the idea of a Waxman-led committee given the Californian’s support for far more aggressive greenhouse emission limits compared with Dingell,” telling E&E News, “It’s scary, isn’t it?”

The Chamber’s public comments reinforce the anonymous “refining industry insider” who told E&E News “all hell will break loose legislatively” if Waxman won.

The coal lobby has also weighed in on this dispute. Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, told Bloomberg News that Waxman likely would be “a very slow learner on the importance of coal for affordable energy. It would have been problematic in the best of times to have Mr. Waxman’s views prevail.”

Climate Progress’s Joe Romm responds, “If actually trying to prevent catastrophic global warming is ’scary’ then all I can say is ‘Boo!‘”

Digg it!

UPDATE: Josten and Popovich are the top figures in the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth, the front group formed in 2001 to promote the Cheney energy bill.

UPDATE 2: In 2006, the New Republic’s Bradford Plumer wrote this review of Dingell’s impact on clean-air legislation during his 50-year tenure:

For most of the 1980s, Congress was unable to pass legislation updating the Clean Air Act–including, crucially, taking action on acid rain–in large part because Dingell kept the bill bottled up in committee. “John Dingell is the number-one reason why we haven’t had a floor vote on clean air for the last ten years,” one frustrated observer told the Boston Globe. Environmentalists all but declared him public enemy number one, nicknaming him “Tailpipe Johnny” and “Dirty Dingell.”

It was only in 1990, when the prevailing winds in Congress had shifted and Dingell realized that clean-air regulations were going to pass with or without him, that he relented and sponsored a bill himself. But he managed to remove new restrictions on tailpipe emissions, beat back a proposed 40 percent increase in fuel-efficiency standards for cars, and killed an amendment requiring that one million “ultra-clean” vehicles be produced a year in the coming decade. That was enough for the auto industry to declare victory. “We are very grateful for the work he has done,” said Thomas Hanna, then-president of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association. “We think the bill is tough enough and it would be tougher without him.”

Two years later, Dingell forced his fellow committeeman Henry Waxman–also the ranking member of the House Committee on Government Reform and Dingell’s chief antagonist during the clean-air debates–to back off on a global-warming bill that would have required that the United States stabilize carbon emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. In an angry five-page letter to Dingell, Waxman denounced those who “reflexively oppose new environmental legislation.” Recently, Waxman has pledged to push forward once more with aggressive climate-change legislation, and the old rivalry between the two prominent House Democrats is bound to resurface. In an interview with Environment & Energy Daily earlier this year, Dingell said of Waxman’s newest bill, which has 90 co-sponsors and gives the EPA increased authority to regulate carbon emissions, “I have reason to believe it’s on the extreme side.”

In this weekend’s Wall Street Journal, Alan Reynolds accuses us of being lawyers, not economists. We are guilty as charged. But the rest of Reynolds’ rant is wrong.

Reynolds disputes our organization’s estimate that John McCain’s tax plan is worth $3.8 billion to the five largest American oil companies. He claims that we excluded the oil companies’ deductions and credits from our analysis. But we did include deductions. And though we excluded credits — because they are not publicly available — they would have only increased the size of our estimate.

Our estimate is conservative in other ways as well. It used 2007 profits, even though oil companies are breaking all the records this year. It did not count McCain’s big expansion in deductions for business investment. And it did not include oil companies’ foreign profits.

We analyzed 200 companies last spring, and our results have been featured in millions of dollars worth of advertising. None of these companies have disputed our results. In fact, no one did until Reynolds wrote his column three days before the election.

Reynolds gets the big things wrong as well. There is little reason to think corporate taxes put American businesses at a competitive disadvantage. Corporate tax collections are among the lowest in the world because our code is riddled with special interest deductions, credits and exemptions that shield corporate profits from tax. While corporate tax reform is overdue, John McCain’s plan would drive up the deficit, shift the tax burden onto middle-class wages, and harm the economy.