Gov. Palin’s Misleading Washington Post Op-ed (Media Matters Action Network)
A handy fact check with helpful links debunking Palin’s most spurious claims and providing actual analysis on the costs of the climate bill.

Palin eschews facts and economics in blasting cap-and-trade bill (Grist)
Grist’s executive editor Russ Walker has a point-by-point rebuttal of Palin’s piece, neatly summed up thusly:

Palin’s thesis comes loaded with plenty of rhetoric and zero facts. It offers nothing more than assertions about the emissions reduction part of the bill, ignores the energy investment and green jobs provisions, blames “Washington bureaucrats” for hampering oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (not Congress, where elected lawmakers have repeatedly expressed the American public’s desire to keep ANWR off limits), and fails to even take note of the underlying issue—catastrophic climate change.

What Gov. Palin Forgot (Huffington Post)
Senator Kerry points out that Palin fails to even mention the crisis of global warming, despite its already disruptive effects in Alaska, before going on to emphasize the environmental, economic and security costs of inaction.

An op-ed on Guantanamo policy that fails to acknowledge the existence of terrorists would not be taken seriously. Neither should an op-ed on energy reform that fails to mention the irrefutable reality of climate change.

And, unfortunately, even in the areas Gov. Palin does focus on, she gets things wrong. She focuses on energy production, but ignores the huge expansion of new, clean energy sources made possible through smart energy reform legislation.

Sarah Palin Does Not Understand Cap and Trade (The Daily Dish)
In addition to pointing out that revenues generated from the cap and trade mechanism are designed to benefit the poorest quintile of Americans, Conor Clarke recaps some Econ 101 for Governor Palin’s benefit.

The point of cap and trade is to solve a problem of social cost: As an energy consumer, I am imposing a cost on society (pollution) that I do not take into account when I make the original decision to consume.

This happens all the time. My decision to drive creates traffic that imposes a cost on society. A company’s decision to fish in the ocean imposes a cost on the world’s common stock of fisheries. A banker’s decision to take on a huge amount of risk creates danger for the economy as a whole. The problem is that none of these private actors adequately bears the cost of their decisions. So, the usual solution is to increase the price of these decisions — with congestion charges, or private property rights, or taxes — so that private consumers take into account social costs.

Palin’s Recipe for Baked Alaska (NRDC Switchboard)
NRDC’s Climate Campaign Director Pete Altman weighs in with the effects of dirty energy and global warming on Palin’s home state, as documented by the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Washington Post, Fred Hiatt turn op-ed page into a “joke” with yet another falsehood-filled piece attacking climate action and clean energy — by GOP quitter-in-chief Sarah “Four Pinocchios” Palin! (Climate Progress)
Joe Romm has a great tirade calling out the Post for its lack of journalistic integrity, and also refutes Palin’s contention that cap-and-trade would stunt economic recovery in the short term.

Let’s set aside the rather obvious fact that the bill that doesn’t even start imposing a cap until 2012, so it’s absurd to assert it will “undermine our recovery over the short term.” The reverse case is, in fact, stronger — see Nobelist Krugman attacks “junk economics”: Climate action “now might actually help the economy recover from its current slump” by giving “businesses a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities.”

Moreover, even in 2012, the total value of the allowances will be under $50 billion (in a $15 trillion economy) and all that money is going to be returned to the economy, so again, like all economic models show, the bill will have no significant negative impact.

Full text

Updated, Full Text Version of Waxman-Markey Climate Bill (Mother Jones)

If you—like Reps Joe Barton (R-TX) and John Boehner (R-OH)—are having problems locating a full text version of the Waxman-Markey climate bill, HR 2454, complete with amendments, we’ve linked to them here.

Analysis

One brief shining moment for clean energy (Salon)
The inimitable Joe Romm of Climate Progress says passing the House is a transformative first step, but it’s not enough:

While the bill’s targets may seem dramatic, they are in fact less than what the science tells us is required to avoid catastrophic warming. The 2020 target in particular is far too weak and quite easy and cheap for the country to meet with efficiency, conservation, renewables and fuel-switching from coal to natural gas.

We need more than ACES (Grist)
Ted Glick of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network lays out steps for ensuring that the Senate passes a strong bill.

Removal of “citizen suit” provisions eased passage of ACES (Global Climate Law Blog)

Howrey’s climate law blog draws attention to the removal of the citizen suit provision from ACES. Most other major environmental laws, like the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, grant standing for citizens to bring suits against polluters. A citizen suit provision in an earlier draft of ACES was stripped out due to the fear of overlitigious environmentalists:

A staff member in the office of Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) had warned that the subsection could result in a flood of “lawsuits filed by environmental groups who perceive some risk—and they undoubtedly will perceive it” and that “this provision will further empower the eco-trial bar to fight the ravages of climate change and the businesses it dislikes, with no effect on the former and disastrous consequences for the latter.”

ACES Puts US and World On Safer Temperature Path (NRDC)
A new Duke University study analyzes the impacts of ACES, concluding that it will lead to stabilizing CO2 levels at 450ppm and a 2-degree increase in global temperatures from 1990 levels.

How The Climate Bill May Spur An Energy Revolution (Huffington Post)
A look at how ACES would affect people’s lives and the economy.

Obama’s Reaction

Obama Warns Against Trade Penalties in Energy Bill (New York Times)
In a stark contrast to yesterday’s strong endorsement of the ACES bill, today, the Times reported Obama as quite critical of ACES’ tariff provisions:

At a time when much of the world is mired in recession, Mr. Obama said, “We have to be careful about sending any protectionist signals.”

He said that certain energy-intensive American industries — like steel, aluminum, paper and glass — had legitimate concerns about competition from developing nations and that he would seek to level the playing field in international negotiations.

But he warned that trade sanctions that are based on the extent to which other countries curb carbon dioxide emissions might be illegal and counterproductive.

Obama Hails Climate Bill, Hopes For Some Changes (Washington Post)
The Washington Post highlights Obama’s characterization of ACES as an “extraordinary first step” and notes that he had little to criticize, except that he hoped to remove a clause that would impose a tax on countries that don’t regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

In a midday interview in the Oval Office, however, Obama had little to criticize as he savored last week’s narrow victory in the House on one of his top domestic priorities: a climate bill that is designed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and promote renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Obama Casts Doubt on Call for Climate Tariff (Wall Street Journal)
The Wall Street Journal provides a little more context about the tariff clause, related provisions, and how it pertains to the international negotiations at Copenhagen:

The president suggested that other provisions in the bill would help energy intensive industries. The bill offers free emissions permits to certain trade sensitive industries during a lengthy phase-in period. More broadly, Mr. Obama is headed to Copenhagen for an end-of-year summit aimed at forging a global pact on emissions, and among the issues in those negotiations is whether to create protections for countries that sign onto the deal.

Politics  

House passes climate-change bill (Politico)
Politico recaps and analyzes the political implications of passage in the House, including reporting on fence-sitters as well as vote-switcher Rep. Doggett (D-Tex.)

But the all-hands-on-deck effort to protect politically vulnerable Democrats by corralling the minimum number of votes to pass the bill, 219-212, proves that there are limits to President Barack Obama’s ability to use his popularity to push through his legislative agenda. Forty-four Democrats voted against the bill, while just eight Republicans crossed the aisle to back it.

Climate bill shaped by compromise (via LA Times)
A rundown of the agriculture and coal compromises entailed in passing ACES:

That approach is fast becoming an Obama hallmark, a blueprint for the administration’s battles over healthcare, financial regulation and the climate bill in the Senate: It is a devotion to compromise, and finding a way to maintain strict discipline among hopeful but anxious liberals.

One hurdle down for climate bill, 60 more to go (Grist)
Kate Sheppard emphasizes the narrow win and the challenge ahead:

House Democrats late Friday eeked out a win on the American Clean Energy and Security Act, getting just one more vote than was necessary to pass the sweeping bill. The victory marks the first major action by the U.S. Congress to address climate change, but the narrowness of the vote suggests the fragile nature of the effort to restructure the country’s energy portfolio.

Pelosi, Waxman, Markey, Slaughter Triumph (The Atlantic)
Marc Ambinder calls it a victory:

…in passing the largest and most ambitious overhaul to the nation’s energy policy in decades, Democrats in the House of Representatives are celebrating a genuine policy accomplishment.  The bill is so big, so audacious, even in its watered down form, that if it somehow manages to pass the Senate, it will almost immediately change the lives and lifestyle of every American, the fortunes of major industries, and the economic future of regions, cities and towns.

Climate Change Bill May Be Election Issue (New York Times)
Carl Hulse compares ACES to the doomed 1993 “B.T.U. tax”. Over on Dot Earth, Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin responds:

There are enormous differences between the two situations and initiatives. The 1993 tax was pursued mainly as a source of revenue to cut the deficit, not a means of reducing American dependence on foreign oil and cutting risks of dangerous climate change. But there is one similarity. Democrats, particularly from coal states, helped set the stage for the failure of the 1993 tax, according to various experts, and according to Mr. Clinton. …Democrats from states that produce or depend on fossil fuels have been slow to buy into the climate bill.

ACES in 60 Seconds (Matthew Yglesias)
Matthew Yglesias embeds a nice 60-second pastiche of the floor debate, and observes:

So what kind of congressman looks at a complicated effort to overhaul a complicated subject matter, then kind of shrugs and says “well this is complicated and I’m too lazy and stupid to be bothered to figure out what’s happening!” Well, I know what kind of congressman does that. But it’s pretty irresponsible.

GOP Senators Pledge to Fight Climate Bill (Roll Call)
Republican Senators took to the Sunday morning talkshows vowing to block passage in the Senate:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” called the measure a jobs killer and argued it would lead to electricity rate hikes.

“If we do have a global warming problem, and many people believe we do, we need to target it on a global basis,” he said, suggesting the need to address foreign polluters like China and India.

Bill Status

Rep. Waxman Gives Himself Another Day to Finish Climate Talks With Farm State Democrats (via NYT)
Looks like neither the Agriculture committee and the Ways & Means committee will have a chance to do a formal markup on the bill. They will be making deals with Waxman to get their agendas dealt with.

Pelosi has given eight committees reviewing the Waxman bill until Friday to wrap up their work, and most are expected to defer to the Energy and Commerce package along with a number of modifications as part of a manager’s amendment.

Bill Analysis

Myth: Waxman-Markey gives away 85 percent of allowances to polluters (via Grist)

Point is, roughly half the allowance value goes to consumers. Roughly a quarter goes to Clean Stuff like clean energy, prevention of international deforestation, adaptation, state efficiency programs, and the like. And roughly a quarter goes to Dirty Stuff like merchant coal generators, oil refineries, and trade-exposed, carbon-intensive industries like steel. Not how I’d do it, but not “giving away 85% of allowances to polluters.” The bulk of the value is going toward protecting consumers and transitioning to a clean energy economy.

ACES Toolbox Analysis (via NWF)
Great breakdown of the good, the bad and the ugly in the bill.

Politics

White House hopes new climate report is a ‘game-changer’ (via Grist)
Review of the report released at GlobalChange.gov. An hour-long video of the press conference can be found here. You can also find the slideshow here. Find out how your region will be impacted.

The administration also hired Resource Media, a San Francisco-based public relations firm, to help with messaging on the document. Zach Warnow, a program coordinator at Resource Media, said the firm has been working on PR related to the report for about three-and-a-half months. The group has worked on a number of environment-relate projects in the past, including work on behalf of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

At the same time, administration officials said they aren’t using the document as a policy prescription, but more as an impetus to action in general. “It’s science that will inform policy,” said Lubchenco. “It doesn’t dictate any particular solution, but it says this is important, we need to act sooner rather than later, this affects you.”

Obama targets US public with call for climate action (via Gaurdian)
Same as above with an audio clip from the Gaurdian.

Senate Energy Bill Falls Short on Clean Energy, Jobs
Statement from the Sierra Club regarding the Senate energy bill.

Washington, D.C.–Today the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee reported the “American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009.” Sierra Club announced its opposition to the bill in its current form and offered the following comments.

Public Opinion

Climate change polls may be misleading (via Cult of Green)

Maybe, just maybe, the increasingly dire warnings of scientists and all the headlines about the Waxman-Markey bill, which is working it’s way through Congress, will finally firm up support for taking decisive action on global warming. At the same time, the fact that taking action will require sacrifices seems likely to make that consensus more difficult.

I’ve been behind on my ACES reading, so not all of these are from today. I’ve broken them into categories

Bill Status

Waxman: Climate Bill Hits the House Floor in 2 Weeks [Solve Climate]
A look at where the bill is at and where it’s heading.

Waxman and Markey are calling for full support, though.
If the House doesn’t pass the bill, they said, the Senate won’t act. The stars don’t align like this very often, with a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, an international treaty six months away, and a president who supports climate action. The nation can’t count on the window of opportunity remaining open for long, they said.

The Climate Post: Waxman-Markey, Bonn, and carbon counting [Grist]

In preparation, negotiators this week and next descend on Bonn, Germany, where nations have their first opportunity to react to the United Nations’ negotiating text, released last month. Diplomacy efforts continue to step up, in Bonn and elsewhere, with U.S. special envoy on climate change Todd Stern visiting Beijing next week.

GOP American Energy Act: Impact Of Global Warming ‘Shall Not Be Considered For Any Purpose’ [The Wonk Room]
The Republican alternative energy bill strips EPA of any authority to regulate climate change and doesn’t consider greenhouse gas emissions as a factor for the bill. Thankfully, it will never see the light of day.

Bill analysis

14 Things I Love–and 6 I Hate–About Waxman-Markey [Sightline]
Wonderful article on some of the more in-depth pros and cons to the bill.

7. I love that, starting in 2026, federal authorities will auction all unallocated permits and distribute the proceeds in equal payments to all legal US residents. By 2030, that’s 55 percent of permits, worth tens of billions of dollars. It’s almost Cap and Dividend, and it will probably make climate policy a pocket-book winner for every families below the median income.

CBO: Cap And Trade Bill Will Reduce Deficit By $24 Billion [Business Insider]

International

Halfway to Copenhagen, no way to 2 °C [Nature]
Comprehensive look at the policies implemented by developed and developing nations. Makes estimates

In the longer term, Annex-I industrial emissions would fall to 57–63 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050 — if current positions were faithfully implemented. Global industrial emissions, however, would be approximately 102–111 per cent above 1990 levels by 2050.

China says no to binding greenhouse gas cuts after talks with US [AFP via Grist]
China-US negotiations before Copenhagen have taken a turn for the worst. China said it won’t agree to an international cap.

“China is still a developing country and the present task confronting China is to develop its economy and alleviate poverty, as well as raise the living standard of its people,” foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang told reporters.

“Given that, it is natural for China to have some increase in its emissions, so it is not possible for China in that context to accept a binding or compulsory target.”

Canadian government to establish carbon trading market [Vancouver Sun]

In a speech to the Economic Club of Canada, he [Environment Minister Jim Prentice] did not say when the government hopes to see the market operating but he released proposed draft rules, allowing a 60-day public comment period and a plan to publish final rules in the fall.

[http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=1493 Japan reduction target leaves UN climate chief speechless] [COP15]
Japan pledges to reduce emissions by 12% from 2005 levels by 2025. This low pledge is another bad sign for the upcoming Copenhagen climate negotiations.

Environmentalists attending U.N. climate negotiations in Bonn said the reduction amounted only to 8 or 9 percent cut compared with the more widely accepted base line of 1990.

Agriculture

Carbon: America’s New Crop [Solve Climate]

There is huge potential to incentivize a shift to organic farming practices in the bill. Such practices sequester more carbon in the soil, thus farmers could actually be paid for such a shift if carbon is monetized.

Will Big Ag plow under Waxman-Markey [Grist]
A great look by Tom Philpott at how the Hour Agriculture Committee might influence ACES in the coming weeks—by giving allowances (aka cash) to farmers for “chemical no-till agriculture” which hasn’t been proven to sequester carbon. He argues that organic farmer does save carbon, but probably won’t get any attention. Read more from Grist about how organic farming should be included in the bill.

Peterson has vowed to line up 35 to 40 Democratic representatives from ag-heavy states to vote against the bill on the House floor if his agenda isn’t accepted—giving him something close to de facto veto power. In the AgriTalk segment, Peterson says, “I don’t think it [Waxman-Markey] has the votes” to prevail on the House floor. Translation: If I don’t get what I want, I’m squashing it.

Public Hearings – Day 1 [House Agriculture Committee]

“Many Members of the House Agriculture Committee have serious concerns about how climate change legislation being considered in Congress will affect the people living in their districts,” Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson said. “This hearing has helped us better understand what is being proposed and what can be done to improve the legislation.”

Eight Reasons for Farmers to Support Global Warming Action [Center for American Progress]