The Folly of Green
September 10, 2008
Joe Romm Tries to Shut Down Climate Bill Debate by Attacking Breakthrough Institute
May 23, 2009 | Teryn Norris,
Breakthrough Institute spent the past week analyzing the Waxman-Markey climate bill. We released several objective and transparent analyses for the benefit of our readers, exploring the allocation of allowances and the use of offsets in an effort to illuminate some of the weaknesses and strengths of the bill. This analysis was cited by Time Magazine, National Public Radio, Reuters, and the Wall Street Journal.
For the record, Breakthrough Institute has a long history of advocating progressive climate and energy policy (see our history). In 2003, Michael and Ted co-founded the Apollo Alliance, the first-ever public campaign calling for a $300 billion federal investment in clean energy. In 2005, former Senator Obama introduced a proposal co-written by Breakthrough to raise fuel efficiency standards, "Healthcare for Hybrids." In 2007, the Obama campaign adopted a $150 billion clean energy investment platform based on Breakthrough's recommendations. And in April 2009, the Obama administration adopted Breakthrough's proposal for a National Energy Education Act. Throughout this time we have continually advocated (see our writing page) a national approach on climate change and clean energy capable of achieving the broad transformations we need.
To support his assertion that Breakthrough's analysis of Waxman-Markey is anti-environmental and anti-climate-action, Romm raises two criticisms. First, he claims we misrepresent the bill's offset provisions. He states, "[the Breakthrough Institute] analysis is devoid of any analysis -- or understanding -- of the offset market... it is clear that the offset provisions in Waxman-Markey do not vitiate the targets. Indeed, I have previously explained why the supply of domestic offsets provision does not undermine the target." This comes after Romm's long effort to "debunk" carbon offsets as a legitimate climate mitigation strategy, coining the term "rip-offsets."
Breakthrough's analysis is unrelated to the use of domestic offsets, which is clear from a brief reading of our posts. Our findings relate to the use of international offsets and their potential impact on U.S. emissions. Jesse Jenkins states, "the use of international offsets would allow U.S. emissions to continue at up to 1.5 billion tons higher than the emissions reduction path intended by the bill." This analysis can be viewed here and downloaded here, and we encourage our readers to take a look and offer feedback. In order for this scenario not to occur, several contingencies must prove true:
(1) The opportunities to reduce emissions in "capped" sectors must be more affordable than paying for international offsets; (2) Offsets must not be readily available at the scale permitted by the bill and the cost of reducing emissions in capped sectors does not trigger the release of additional emissions from the strategic reserve pool; (3) Emission reductions must be driven by factors other than the cap and trade mechanism, for example, by the complementary measures contained in the bill, by other policies, or by macroeconomic factors.
Each of these contingencies is uncertain, complex, and subject to debate. Our analysis intends to reveal an outcome in which these contingencies do not prove true. Romm may claim this exercise is anti-environmental and anti-climate-action, however, given the importance of rapidly reducing U.S. emissions, we are committed to a transparent discussion about the possibilities of the legislation.
Romm's second criticism regards a carbon pricing scenario contained in Michael and Ted's recent piece in Yale Environment 360. Michael and Ted wrote, "If the price of carbon dioxide is only $5 per ton -- a level Waxman-Markey supporters like the Center for American Progress's Joe Romm says it could reach -- there would be just $3 billion for energy technology and just $250 million for R&D." Romm doesn't deny his prediction that the bill would result in a $5-10 per ton price, however, he attacks this as a misrepresentation because the price will "rise quickly after 2020." In fact, the majority of Breakthrough's analysis assumes an average allowance price of $10 to $15 between 2012-2025, consistent with the EPA (see here and here). However, given the critical nature of large-scale federal investments in clean energy, we believe it is important to consider all scenarios under this bill. (Note: the latest version of the bill, released after Michael and Ted's article went to publication, contains a price floor of $10 for these allowances.)
We have documented Romm's histrionics and misrepresentations several times, as well as his incorrect views on energy technology. Those readers interested in reviewing this debate can do so here. In this post, Romm also lists some of his previous blogs about Breakthrough and criticizes Michael and Ted's other recent writing. For the benefit of our readers, below we correct Romm's major misrepresentations step-by-step.
Romm's attempt to shut down serious debate about critical climate legislation -- and his aggressive effort to attack and discredit those attempting to illuminate the bill's weaknesses, including reputable environmental activists and reporters -- should raise questions about his role as a credible and progressive climate advocate. And whether the Center for American Progress continues to tolerate his behavior may have a lasting impact on its credibility as one of the nation's largest progressive think tanks.
----
Corrections to Romm's May 22, 2009 post, "Memo to media: Don't be suckered by bad analyses from the Breakthrough Institute the way Time, WSJ, NPR, and The New Republic have been"
(#1) Romm: "They attacked President Obama's cap-and-trade climate plan as political suicide and doomed to fail, 18 months after endorsing the plan -- heck, they said it was their plan all along."
Fact: Breakthrough never suggested that Obama's cap and trade plan was political suicide. We said his threat to mandate significant emissions reductions through Clean Air regulations that would drive up energy prices was political suicide. The threat has in fact proven empty, with Obama, Congressional leaders, and regulated industries all agreeing to pass cap and trade legislation that mandates no substantial reductions in carbon emissions for two decades and places severe limits on how much energy prices may rise.
What Breakthrough said:
"Still, most greens were heartened after the White House announced plans to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. But the threat to regulate CO2 will ultimately run into the same political constraints that have hamstrung efforts to cap carbon emissions in the U.S. Congress. The Obama administration is unlikely to propose regulations that will significantly increase energy prices in key political battleground states, at least not in his first term. And subsequent administrations are no more likely to propose or stand behind unpopular regulations that will raise energy prices than will the Obama administration. As such, the threat to regulate CO2 will likely prove empty -- a gesture to environmental supporters and the international community that Obama is serious about climate change, but unlikely to result in substantial reductions in U.S. carbon emissions or break the current gridlock in Congress."
(#2) Romm: "So it is perhaps not surprising that 18 months after I got them to strongly and publicly endorse Obama's cap-and-trade plan, they have launched a series of attacks on it -- attacks based on misrepresentation and misanalysis."
Fact: Breakthrough endorsed Obama's energy plan, which called for $15 billion annual investments in clean technology, far reaching renewable portfolio and efficiency standards, and a 100% auction with no price caps, not a cap and trade system that gives away the mass majority of allowances for free, allows emissions from regulated sectors of the economy to rise for two decades, guts renewable energy requirements, and includes little public funding for clean energy research and development or deployment.
What Breakthrough said in 2007:
"Romm asks if we embrace Obama's plan. Not only do we embrace it, we've been advocating such a plan since 2002. In the run up to the 2004 presidential elections we aggressively lobbied the Kerry campaign for such investments and were repeatedly rebuffed by his environmental policy and political advisers who claimed, similar to Romm, that major public investments weren't a priority.
Obama's energy plan, like the plan that we outline below, recognizes the need for regulatory standards and a cap on emissions. But these are positions he has long held -- last January he co-sponsored a cap and trade bill in the Senate. What was new about Obama's plan announced Monday was the large public investment. Obama's proposed clean energy investment is not only larger than anything proposed by the other Democratic Presidential candidates, it is much larger than anything lobbied for by the national environmental lobby in Washington. It goes half way toward the at least $300 billion we need to achieve the emissions reductions and clean energy price reductions we need."
(#3) Romm: "They utterly... missrepresent the findings of the International Energy Agency, McKinsey, and the Stern Review"
Fact: Breakthrough has repeatedly documented how Romm's views on energy technology stand in opposition to the majority of energy and climate experts. As we wrote last month:
"Romm has recycled his assertions that no new technological development (beyond very minor improvements to existing technologies) is necessary to tackle the massive global energy and climate challenge. He repeats his efforts to label those who call attention to the scale and urgency of our energy innovation challenge and advocate major investments in energy technology as "climate delayer-equivalents." And Romm does so at the exact same time as he plainly ignores -- one might say, denies -- the wide body of evidence and expert consensus that dramatic innovation to spur both incremental and transformative developments in a whole suite of clean energy technologies is critical if we hope to overcome the climate and energy challenge and preserve a prosperous global society."
(#4) Romm: "[The Breakthrough Institute] has recently written two attacks on Waxman-Markey, "The Flawed Logic of The Cap-and-Trade Debate," which attacks any effort to significantly raise the price of carbon pollution through a tax or a cap."
Fact: We endorsed low and sustainable carbon prices in the Yale article, as we have since 2007. We criticized the policy advocacy framework -- such as that which led to Waxman-Markey -- which continues to rely upon the implementation of high carbon prices in the face of overwhelming evidence that no political economy in the world has been willing or able to maintain high carbon prices.
What Breakthrough said:
"The problem is that no government in the world so far has been willing to establish and sustain a high price on carbon, whether through taxes or caps... Rather than attempting to establish high carbon prices globally in order to create sufficient incentives for private interests to invest in energy technology innovation, this new framework focuses on establishing very modest and politically sustainable carbon prices in developed economies to fund very large public investments in technology innovation and to help bring competitive technologies to market...
Far better to accept that the price for carbon won't be high and implement a simple and transparent program to establish a stable and low price. Such an approach is compatible with either a carbon tax or cap-and-auction with hard price caps and floors... It is time that we get serious about how to achieve deep reductions in emissions with the low carbon price we will get rather than the high carbon price we may wish for... the alternative is another decade of attempting to implement policy predicated on high carbon prices without the necessary price signal for those policies to have any chance of succeeding."
See here for more information about Joe Romm and our ongoing debate.
Comments
Where I see things headed is a more sustainable civilization that can meet the needs of future generations. Our ability to control emissions and clean up the environment is based on having greater access to lower polluting energy sources rather than some idyllic lifestyle. Advanced energy sources such as nuclear fusion (even the controversial nuclear fission) would allow greater opportunities to clean up the environment while meeting human needs across the globe.
By R Margolis on 2009 06 04
Robert,
You are pointing to an interesting ethical problem. Humans are blessed and cursed with a limited-but-functional ability to see and comprehend the potential for endgame, be it climate change, overpopulation, other environmental mess, etc... and this capacity to see large-scale endgame increases as the time devoted to daily survival decreases.
It's obviously a good idea to care about the Endgame... but how do humans ethically limit other humans' energy consumption? It's one thing when it's intercultural... but how do you tell some other culture that what your culture has been doing for a long time is wrong?
Do you have the right to tell someone living a developing world existence that their way of life is "saner" than yours? Does that romantic idea remain somehow relevant even when disease, shorter life span and all the other grinding realities of poverty are accounted for?
How much control do we have over this larger Endgame Problem, and what do we have to give up (like the idea that all humans are basically equal, for instance) to have the kind of control you want to have?
Is there a way to think about this Endgame without prescribing permanent poverty for a huge chunk of the world?
By Deborah Fisher on 2009 05 31
Don't you ever worry where it's all heading? If we really did have access to limitless clean energy we would inevitably use that energy to ramp up population and completely trash the environment. About the only think keeping us in check is the fact that energy IS limited. Implicit in your last post is the suggestion that "much of the world" should adopt the high-consumption lifestyle of the rich West.
In my view we should be trying to gently back away from the obsessive growth mentality and return to a saner way of life. So would this be a good thing if it works?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/28/national-ignition-facility-fusion-energy
By Robert on 2009 05 29
For much of the world that has no electricity, conservation is not an option (i.e., cannot conserve when already at zero). Even in the developed world, energy sources such as wood simply will not provide enough energy to replace fossil fuels. Solar and wind require cheap energy storage technologies to avoid the double trap of paying for a part-time energy source and and part-time storage unit. We need energy sources that are cleaner, yet still abundant and reliable.
By R Margolis on 2009 05 28
R Margolis - It's a question of where you start. If the market can be rigged through caps, tax or whatever to favour clean energy sources then the technology will optimise over time though the normal workings of the market. Also, there is an enormous amount that can be achieved through conservation. We have halved our domestic energy bills in the last 3 years without any impact on standard of living (and it keeps me fit collecting wood for the log burner!).
At the moment it is a mug's game trying to harvest clean energy when there is all that nearly free dirty energy just waiting to be dug up. The externalised costs need to be internalised.
By Robert on 2009 05 27
Even if you could accomplish the political miracle of getting acceptance of high carbon prices, there is no easy, off the shelf, renewable energy technology that can replace coal and natural gas. Energy storage technologies of this scale to balance renewables simply do not exist. You need to at least have a path to the technology before you can transition the economy.
As for the steady state economy/population, it will still require a good deal of energy to maintain standard of living. Even if population is frozen at the current number, increases in energy will be required to alleviate poverty and provide basic health and economic services.
By R Margolis on 2009 05 27
Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus do not impress me. Anyone who preaches perpetual economic growth is seriously out of touch with reality.
The economy will stop growing. The human population will also stop growing.
These must occur by necessity and no amount of conservatives trashing the planet for the economy;s sake will prevent it from occurring.
There is a natural life cycle for civilizations. You may have noticed that the Roman Empire, British Empire and Soviet Union no longer exist. Nothing lasts forver.
If anyone imagines that Global Technological Civilization will last forever that person is delusional and has probably swallowed the lies of the economists.
Our civilization is already dying. The death of technological civilization has already become evident in a thousand different ways.
Yet these two fools claim that the economy must keep growing forever and that humans should care more about the economy than anything else.
Humans should keep in mind that Homo sapiens can go extinct. The economy won't mean much when humankind is extinct.
Instead of worrying about the economy, humankind really should worry about survival.
By David Mathews on 2009 05 27
Tom, we're trying to expand the discussion and illuminate the bill's weaknesses so that climate legislation can be strengthened. That's why we've made all our analysis open and transparent and highlighted the most critical areas for improvement.
By Teryn Norris on 2009 05 26
I think it may be a little disingenuous to claim Romm is "trying to shut down debate" on Waxman-Markey - any more than BI is.
By Tom Schueneman on 2009 05 26
Personally, I think the only policy that can ultimately work is to place a global cap on the amount of coal, oil and gas that is extracted each year, then reduce this cap by an agreed percentage each year with the objective of leaving as much as possible permanently in the ground. That is pretty much what Hansen is saying (although he focusses mainly on just coal). Market forces are incredibly powerful. Faced with this new world shortage of fossil fuel they would rapidly find an optimum mix of new energy sources and conservation so that business could continue without undue interruption.
Politically such a global carbon-capping scheme is just not possible at the moment, but this could change quickly as new climate-related natural disasters occur.
I don't think Waxman-Markey will have any effect whatsoever on US emissions and definitely not on global emissions. I am deeply sceptical of any piece of legislation as complex as W-M, but equally I don't think a simple carbon tax would work either - how would you stop the revenue being funnelled into carbon-intensive public sector projects? In the meantime W-M gives the impression of taking the problem seriously but in reality just kicks it into the long grass for another 20 years.
TBI's idea that some technological breakthrough will make clean energy cheaper than fossil fuel energy is nice, but in my view a long-shot. Definitely worth major investment, but don't rely on it coming up with the solution. Worse still, even if clean energy can be made cheaply there is every reason to expect all available reserves of coal, oil and gas will be extracted anyway - liquid fuels are useful for aviation and a host of other applications not easily addressed by cheap, clean electricity.
Political will is the key. If coal was viewed with the same abhorrance as asbestos then it would be banned overnight.
By Robert on 2009 05 26
I too have had my comments critical of cap-and-trade deleted at Climate Progress. But I commend Joe Romm for maintaining that very informative site which has served as a useful forum for technical and political discussions. I hope he will continue that good work after ending his role as a spear-carrier for policies he initially opposed.
Thanks to Roger Pielke, Jr. for refreshing our memory.
The climate progress we need ultimately must come from technical progress, so how does Waxman-Markey help there? Not much. The best its advocates can say is that it is a first step, and that even a flawed bill is better than doing nothing.
The price per ton of CO2 is ridiculously small, and big emitters don't even pay anything for most of their indulgences. Europe has shown that cap-and-trade does not reduce emissions. And what happens to the auction money? What is expected to go to clean tech research and deployment will go instead to health care. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/conrad-open-to-energy-taxes-for-healthcare-reform-2009-03-29.html
And then there is the "trade" part of cap-and-trade: a new junk market for Wall Street to scam with, using tree offsets. Who will guarantee that these trees are thriving, how will we keep them watered during a worldwide drought when our own forests are drying up and burning, and how will anyone know what these traded offsets are really worth? Both in origination and in risk packaging, there is ample latitude for fraud, just as there was with mortgage-backed securities.
Looks like the environmentalists supporting the Democrats have been played for fools. This will dampen enthusiasm for the next steps we need, and ultimately must hurt President Obama.
By Wilmot McCutchen on 2009 05 25
Waxman has a clip on you tube floating around where he admits he has not read the bill. Jowe Romm most like also has not.
our constitution still denies taxation without representation. If there are penalties and tax components, don't we have the right to know?
By seven on 2009 05 25
I have been reading ClimateProgress for over a year. It's entertaining and topical, but I agree with all your critisisms of Romm. He shuts down debate with anyone who disagrees with him in even the slightest detail.
I have now been moderated to death and then banned twice on his blog. If you read the comments that survive they are now all of the "Joe
you're a fantastic guy I want to have your babies keep up the good work" variety.
By Robert on 2009 05 24
I'll have to agree with Romm on the need for high carbon pricing to effect real change, assuming that exacting equitable compensation for the externalized but very real costs of fossil fuel use is "high".
Unless and until market signals functionally reflect real ecological and social costs, markets will be the problem, not the solution.
But cap and trade does indeed risk smoke and mirrors, and other political and corporate shenanigans.
A carbon tax, though, will do nicely. Hasn't been successfully done before? Neither has any new policy implementation, until it has. Folks in the pre-world war II 20th century would have thought the endangered species act or the creation of the EPA to be pipe dreams.
By theCascadian on 2009 05 24
Here are some quotes from Romm:
On the use of offsets generally:
"Q: What is the difference between carbon offsets and mortgage-backed securites?
A: Lipstick.
Carbon offsets and mortgage-backed securities are quite similar in that is impossible for the vast majority of people, even experts, to know what value they have, if any."
http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/02/q-what-is-the-difference-between-carbon-offsets-and-mortgage-backed-securites/
On the use of offsets in last year's Lieberman-Warner bill:
"Now when I redo the math, it seems the most likely outcome of this bill is that U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions in 2025 would we about the same as they are now, and possibly higher. If that's the best we can do for a piece of legislation that's deader than a dead parrot -- it is a dead parrot whose body has been given to a veterinary anatomy class for dissection and had its heart removed -- why bother?"
http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/27/boxer-bill-update-probably-no-us-co2-emissions-cut-until-after-2025/
On the USCAP proposal:
"The USCAP plan would call for a reduction of 1.0 to 1.4 billion tons of U.S. GHGs in 2020, while allowing 2 billion or more tons of offsets, at least half of which don't even have to be in this country. When would US carbon dioxide emissions see serious reductions under this plan? Who knows?"
http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/15/nrdc-edf-uscap-us-climate-action-partnership-plan-coal-offset/
And on forestry:
"Offset projects should simply not include tree planting."
http://www.grist.org/article/the-first-rule-of-carbon-offsets-no-trees
On an earlier McCain plan:
"If emissions reductions can be done through a rigorous and verifiable process, then they can and should be included in the overall cap. The probability that there are offset-like emissions reductions floating around the ether that are both abundant and cheap is quite small. That is why a major offset-based strategy would "involve substantial issuance of credits that do not represent real emissions reductions," as the Stanford study concluded. That report's policy conclusion:
*****We argue that the U.S., which is in the midst of designing a national regulatory system, should not rely on offsets to provide a reliable ceiling on compliance costs....
Offsets can play a role in engaging developing countries, but only as one small element in a portfolio of strategies.... *****
The entire foundation of McCain's climate plan is built on quicksand."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-romm/mccain-climate-plan-a-fra_b_101390.html
On the use of offsets in cap and trade:
"Let's hope Congress actually listens to GAO and sharply scales back the use of offsets in future climate bills."
http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/05/gao-rips-rip-offsets-the-use-of-carbon-offsets-in-a-cap-and-trade-system-can-undermine-the-systems-integrity/
By Roger Pielke, Jr. on 2009 05 23