A Politico's Notebook
Senate In The Driver's Seat On Climate Change
July 22nd, 2009
By Mark Boyd
The Waxman-Markey bill has four notable weaknesses (or compromises) that make it difficult for many environmentalists to rally behind in strong support. These weaknesses are noteworthy because they've lowered emission targets over the initial ten year period, when action is needed most. They are:
1. The 2020 cap is set 22% higher than the level recommended by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that scientists say would give us a 50% chance of avoiding the more serious impacts.
2. A high percentage of emission permits will be given away in the near term, and no one knows what a 1 ton permit will cost in 2015 because it will be based on the fluctuating market forces of a cap-and-trade system.
3. The biofuels industry was granted a billion tons (or one gigaton) of carbon offsets and was also given assurances that the overall environmental impact of biofuel production will not be a concern.
4. The EPA will no longer be in charge of regulating coal-burning power stations (mandated by the Clean Air Act) and will also not be in charge of the carbon offset program.
Consequently, the Senate needs to step-up and address the House bill's shortcomings. Scientists are ringing the alarm bells by describing “tipping points” when the planet’s temperature will reach uncontrollable levels.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently declared that “business as usual” scenarios show greenhouse gas emissions spiraling out of control and leaving us with a “dramatically changed” planet, within a relatively short period of time.
Energy Secretary Chu echoed the belief held by most climate scientists that a “tipping point” will be reached when carbon dioxide levels reach 450 parts per million (ppm). In 2008, we were already at 385 ppm, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The “business as usual” scenario sees emissions rising to a jaw-dropping 900 ppm by 2100.
In addition, James Hansen, the nation’s top climate scientist, said in 2006 that if we can keep global warming below two degrees Fahrenheit (about 350 ppm), then we can give ourselves enough time “to develop strategies that would adapt to, and mitigate, the rise in sea level.”
Moreover, Hansen says that we must seriously address reducing greenhouse gas emissions during this decade if we are to have a fighting chance of eliminating the more serious impacts. He considers “cap and trade” legislation to be a deeply flawed approach that will primarily benefit Wall Street investors. He’s in favor of a “tax and dividend” plan that is worthy of a serious debate on the Senate floor.
A “tax and dividend” policy may be the best and simplest solution to a complex problem. The idea is to set a carbon tax (or fee) on all carbon emissions, and then return the money to taxpayers based on their carbon footprint; the lower the footprint, the higher the dividend.
The "tax and dividend" plan would thankfully eliminate the Wall Street middleman, and also provide monetary incentives for everyone to lower their emissions. It would also eliminate the main argument from opponents that most taxpayers are going to get hurt ($175 a year average) by higher energy costs. I can already hear Democrats on the Senate floor saying “If you want to lower your taxes, lower your emissions.”
Finally, it is worth noting that we recently celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission that successfully landed a man on the moon. President Kennedy, in a speech before Congress just four months into his presidency, challenged American technology and ingenuity to complete the moon mission by the end of the decade. His vision guided America to one of its greatest achievements.
President Obama, just six months into his Presidency, is facing a defining moment of his own. Like President Kennedy, he needs to go before Congress and challenge American technology and ingenuity to lead the world towards a sustainable planet Earth; based on sound science and a robust green energy economy. If we're successful, it would easily become one of our nation's great achievements.
It's Time For A "California Style" Local Health Care District Law- In The United States
June 19th, 2009
By Marc Boyd
State governments are often the birthplace of our nation’s best policies. This is where public officials work on the problems of a constituency that has direct access. With that being said, I feel it is politically unwise for a member of Congress to propose a new domestic policy (like a health care co-op) that has not been successfully implemented and tested by a state government.
One successful policy developed at the state level, that has yet to enter the national debate on health care, is California’s response to injured WWII servicemen who returned to rural areas and were unable to find adequate health care.
In 1945, the California legislature created the “Local Health Care District Law” that allowed communities throughout California the authority to create a “special district” with the ability to raise funds, elect governing officials, and provide needed medical services.
Today there are 78 Health Care Districts in California that are tailored to the needs of their local communities. Most of these districts operate hospitals, but some offer primary care clinics, and others manage specific treatment programs. Surprisingly, 3 new health care districts have been created in the Bay Area since 2000.
One of the original post WWII health care districts is the Mark Twain Health Care District in San Andreas. Today, the Mark Twain St. Joseph's Hospital is jointly governed by the Mark Twain Health Care District and Catholic Healthcare West. In 2007, they provided nearly $8 million dollars in un-sponsored care and programs to the Calaveras County community.
Another successful health care district in California is located in Mountain View; it has operated The El Camino Hospital (ECH) since 1963. In 2003, ECH district voters overwhelmingly approved Measure D (71%) to provide $298 million for a new hospital. The list of accomplishments and awards at ECH are so numerous that I’d suggest a visit to their website.
Most Democrats in Congress contend that there cannot be a viable health care reform policy in America without a public-option plan. Meanwhile, Republicans are digging-in to defeat a single-payer system.
My suggestion is to create a “mandatory local health care district law,” implemented by local boards and designed to serve the 46 million uninsured Americans. This would allow the private health care system the opportunity to eliminate waste, improve efficiencies, and meet their obligations. And, a “national health care district law” could be primairly funded by the savings President Obama recently outlined.
This plan would serve the Democratic Party's historic mission to bring fairness and equality to all Americans. It would also take the sting out of their critic's argument that the Democrats want to create a one-size-fits-all health care plan.
The health care districts would govern like school boards, and operate with the same advantage of being locally controlled. Elected trustees could come from the health care industry, and they would be required to reside within the district they represent. The local health care district board would work with existing service providers, and their mission would be to fill in the gaps in coverage within their community.
Other health care options that are now being discussed are non-profit medical co-ops, which has not been tested on a large scale; and state mandated insurance coverage that has been tried in five states without a great deal of success.
A national health care district system may seem unwieldy, and would create a new government bureaucracy, but I would submit that the creation of the ”Local Health Care District Law” by the California Legislature in 1945 was a landmark policy that is stronger than ever after 64-years of operation.GM Sees Bankruptcy Looming In Its Rear View Mirror
May 13th, 2009
By Marc Boyd
In normal times the possibility of the world’s top automaker of the 20th Century going into bankruptcy would be the story of the decade. But these are not normal times. GM is now facing a June 1st, deadline that would have even Lee Iacocca scratching his head. The 2009 first quarter report has GM losing a staggering $10.2 billion. Incoming revenue has hit a brick wall - plunging 47%. Analysts say that it could have been worse, much worse; all this, and the grandchildren of US taxpayers are $15.4 billion poorer.
The current to-do list at GM headquarters is to:
· hammer out a new contract with unions
· negotiate a stock swap with bondholders
· shut down factories & dealerships
· convince Uncle Sam that they can pay off all their IOU’s.
The problems at GM should not be viewed as simply another casualty of the economic meltdown. Instead we should look at GM’s recent history, and decisions they made in their boardroom – that is where the freefall started.
In 1999, encouraged by oil companies and conflicted policymakers, GM decided to halt the production of the zero emission EV1. It is clear that their marketing efforts did not match the potential of the EV1. For example, GM only allowed the car to be leased, and the price was originally set at over $500.00 a month.
In addition, when GM surveyed potential buyers, they painstakingly pointed out EV1 drawbacks - that were disputed by many of the enthusiastic lessee’s. If you’re in the mood for a who-dun-it, check out the 2006 “Who Killed the Electric Car.”
The EV1 was designed to meet the 1990 California mandate for all automakers to power at least 2% of their vehicles sold in California to be zero emission vehicles. The mandate would have ratcheted up to 10% by 2003.
In the end, when the California Air Resources Board held hearings to discuss the fate of the EV1 they decided to cave in to the no-can-do response from GM. It was a classic lose-lose situation.
Another fateful decision made by GM in 1999 was to forge an agreement with AM General to jointly produce, market, and distribute the 4-ton gas-guzzling Hummer.
Recently, GM was in discussions with a Chinese automaker interested in buying the Hummer. The Hummer division has had a for sale sign on its windshield for almost a year.
The good news is that Chevrolet is finally starting to look like a car company that is serious about building fuel efficient small cars. The 2009 Cobalt (formerly known as the Cavalier) is a very attractive compact that comes in a sedan or a coupe and has three trim packages, the LS, LT, and the SS.
The plug-in hybrid Chevrolet Volt scheduled for 2011 could be as revolutionary as the Model T. Also available for 2011 will be the Chevrolet Spark, Chevy’s smallest car ever. The Spark should sell for about half of the Volt’s $40,000 price tag. The Spark’s global platform will finally bring impressive profitability to a small GM car.
Senator Dianne Feinstein is trying to help Congress do their part by proposing legislation called “Cash for Clunkers.” That old clunker sitting on the driveway - bringing down the neighborhood’s property values - could be worth up to $4500 dollars in an incentive program supported by President Obama. The idea is to hand out dealer-honored vouchers to car buyers for surrendering a qualified gas guzzler to the scrap yard. The new car must exceed federal fuel standards by 25% (for that class of vehicle), be a 2004 model or later, and cost less than $45,000.
With that being said, the car company known as “The Heartbeat of America” should expect a full recovery, if it stays focused on providing consumers the world’s most fuel efficient vehicles.
Earth Day and the Third Pillar
April, 22nd 2009
By Marc Boyd
The environmental ministers of the G8 began talks on Earth Day in Syracuse, Italy to discuss the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen later this year. Also invited were the environmental ministers of China, India, Brazil and several other large nations. After eight years of denial from Washington, the Obama administration is finally providing hope to the international community that an agreement can be reached to reduce greenhouse gas emissions worldwide.
So the big question is: Will the Senate finally ratify The Kyoto Protocol agreement this year? The answer may be found in recent developments.
First and most importantly, the EPA issued a preliminary determination last week that “greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare.” This action was preceded by the landmark 2007 Supreme Court case Massachusetts’s v. the EPA that granted the EPA the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants.
Therefore, under the authority of the White House, the EPA could move to regulate greenhouse gas emissions without the involvement of Congress. This gives the President an extraordinary amount of leverage as legislation moves through Congress to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.
Also last week, in a major policy speech at Georgetown University, President Obama listed the five pillars of his new administration as they complete their first 100 days in office. The five pillars he mentioned represent a “new foundation” of our government that will be “built upon a rock.”
The five pillars are:
1. New rules and regulations for Wall Street
2. New investments in education
3. New investments in renewable energy
4. A 21st century health care system
5. Restoring fiscal discipline
I found it interesting that “new investments in renewable energy” was given the third pillar. The third pillar is usually found at the core of any structure. President Obama mentioned he will be focused on new investments in solar, wind, and fuel efficient vehicles. He stated that these investments will provide a framework for a clean energy economy.
Also on Earth Day, the President visited a wind power production facility in Iowa where he proclaimed that he envisions a “new era of energy exploration in America.” The location of his Iowa visit, a former Maytag assembly facility, symbolically illustrated the transformation that is needed across America -- to a clean energy economy filled with good paying jobs.
The President also called on every American to replace one incandescent light bulb with one compact florescent light bulb. I would take that one step further and urge everyone to replace as many light bulbs as possible (if you haven't already). It seems that every time I go to a hardware store, I find a new and innovative type of energy saving light bulb. I would also suggest that we all expand our search for new ways to conserve energy, reduce waste, and limit our water consumption.
My biggest concern of the President’s clean energy economy is that a cap and trade program is very complex and therefore difficult for the average American to understand, without a handy collection of charts and graphs at their disposal. It was successfully implemented when we were combating acid rain in the 1990s, but it has a spotty record since it was adopted by the Kyoto Protocol agreement (that went into effect in 2005).
The most glaring obstacle is that we may be turning our cap and trade program over to the same Wall Street investors that have already betrayed our trust. Instead, I would propose a mixture of (heavily regulated) cap and trade policies, and a carbon fee on products purchased in the United States. The money collected on carbon fees could be used to reduce payroll taxes.
So as we reflect on how we can lower our ecological footprint in honor of Earth Day, consider performing random acts of kindness on behalf of Mother Earth. No one is suggesting a lifestyle change that you are uncomfortable with, just a more enlightened approach to the impacts placed upon our fragile planet every time we flip a switch or start our engines.
The California Green Rush
February 1st, 2009
By Marc Boyd
Last week the Next 10 public policy group, a forward-looking, non-profit, non partisan organization, released their 2009 Green Innovation Index. Ironically, this encouraging report was released at the same time that the California Legislature is engaged in a budgetary crisis that is beginning to resemble a statewide meltdown. The main focus of the report is to assess the implementation of Assembly Bill 32: The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
In California, the per-capita rate of greenhouse gas emissions is a whopping 13 metric tons (26,000 pounds) of carbon dioxide equivalent. The national average is a jaw-dropping 24 metric tons per-capita. Carbon dioxide is the most prevalent of all the man-made greenhouse emissions. The danger here is that these gases will roam the atmosphere for decades and trap heat radiating from the earth at an alarming rate.
The 10-year-challenge laid out by AB 32 is for every Californian to reduce their emissions by more than 3 metric tons to 9.8 by 2020. For help calculating your carbon footprint go to coolcalifornia.org.
The good news reflected in this report couldn't come at a better time as public officials at all levels are trying to solve the economic crisis. The most hopeful finding of the report is that California has created green jobs 10 times faster than all other jobs since 2005.
In 2008, capital investments in green tech companies in California nearly doubled the rate in 2007. The dollar figure of green tech investments was $3.3 billion in 2008, over half of the national total. In addition the major metropolitan areas of Sacramento, San Francisco, and Los Angeles have over 20% of all the hybrid vehicles registered in the U.S. in 2007.
The Next 10 report correctly points out that energy savings in California began over 35 years ago. During those 35 years, over 1.5 million jobs have been created and they have also generated $45 billion in payroll expenditures.
Other notable findings are that since 2002 energy produced by renewable sources increased by 19%, and wind energy has increased by 95% since 2003. In addition from 2006 to 2007 grid-connected solar power increased by 41%, and public transit added over 100 million transit miles from 2005 to 2006.
All this good news seems to indicate that California is poised to lead the national transformation from a fossil- fuel based economy to a green energy economy. It also reflects poorly on the current efforts by the Republican Party in California to roll back this landmark legislation.
The goals of AB 32 have set the course for California to take a leadership role in solving the climate crisis before it’s too late. This report proves that we can lower our emissions and grow our economy at the same time. We are also showing that we can painlessly meet the emission reduction goals of the Kyoto Protocol (that the US has yet to ratify).
President Obama has made it clear that we will make a clean break from the polluter-friendly policies of the previous administration. I predict a major breakthrough by the Obama administration at the Climate Conference in Copenhagen at the end of this year.
I also predict that President Obama will be pointing at the “Green Rush in California” as a model for solving our nation’s environmental and economic crisis simultaneously.
Al Gore’s 2008 Campaign to Save Civilization -From Itself
September 14th, 2008
By Marc Boyd
Just over one year ago, on 7/7/07, former Vice President Al Gore was deeply involved in the Live Earth Concert (SOS) to bring worldwide attention to the growing climate crisis. Live Earth was the largest international concert ever, and it was also the greenest, with the promoters claiming to have achieved carbon neutral status.
Fast-forward to April 2008, Gore announced the $300 million WE campaign (wecansolveit.org) sponsored by the Alliance for Climate Protection and designed to influence public opinion about the urgency of the climate crisis.
The WE campaign commercials are now running on major networks and promoting renewable energy on a massive scale. My favorite ad is the one with Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson sitting on a couch, with the ocean for a background, and talking about the one thing they agree on: Saving the Planet.
Gore is donating a generous sum to the WE campaign which includes all of his proceeds from his Oscar winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, and the money he was awarded for winning the 2007 Nobel Prize.
If you haven’t seen the movie, you may not be aware of the connection between global warming and the lengthening wildfire season, our worsening drought conditions, the increasing number of heat waves, the acceleration of animal extinctions, and possibly most important to home - the shortening ski season.
Then in July of 08, Gore unveiled the “Repower America Challenge” from Washington DC’s Constitution Hall. Gore characterizes this national challenge as a “strategic initiative” designed to free our country from the current threefold crisis of high energy prices, economic uncertainty, and global warming, with a viable solution.
Gore’s proposal, or the “three-for-one solution,” aims to convert 100% of our electrical power to renewable energy and carbon free sources within ten years. Gore calls this initiative the framework for “a bold new challenge to repower America.”
In an obvious dig at the current administration, Gore portrayed our current energy crisis in stark terms. He said, “We are borrowing money from China, to buy oil from the Persian Gulf, to burn it in ways that destroy the planet.”
To put the Repower America Challenge in context, Gore has compared it to former President John F. Kennedy’s 1961 challenge “to send a man to the moon and bring him home safely by the end of the decade.” The first WE campaign ad also compared our new challenge with our willingness to storm Normandy Beach during WWII and also to the civil rights movement of the 1960s.
Another important feature of the challenge is to eliminate payroll taxes and to institute a carbon tax in its place. “We should tax what we burn, not what we earn,” Gore said. As such, Gore has abandoned his support of cap-and-trade programs that he advocated at the Kyoto Protocol talks in 1997, because as Gore has said, “They just aren’t working.”
Interestingly, just two days after issuing his Repower America Challenge, Gore was the honored guest of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the Netroots Nation annual conference held this year in Austin Texas. Netroots Nation is the new name of the Yearly Kos conference which has become the place-to-be for liberal bloggers and activists. Last year’s convention attracted seven presidential candidates from the Democratic Party including Barack Obama. The group is essentially an emerging powerhouse because they are boots-on-the-ground keyboard activists.
Gore told the enthusiastic crowd how he plans to wage battle against global climate change saying, "We can do this, and I need your help." Not surprisingly Gore stepped-up his criticism of the current administration’s determination to drill our way out of America’s current energy crisis. He cited that the underlying problem is China’s insatiable appetite for oil which is driving up demand, at a time when supply is diminishing. He concluded his comments with a tongue-in-check bit of advice to the current administration saying: “if you’re in a hole, you stop digging.”
Recently Gore was the featured guest on Meet the Press with moderator Tom Brokaw. When Gore was pressed by Brokaw for a more definitive answer about his refusal to return to presidential politics Gore responded with a zinger when he said, “I’ve already been elected [President] and didn’t serve.” After a long pause he added: “just joking.”
Gore was paraphrasing the famous 1884 quote by Civil War hero General William T. Sherman when the general said, “If drafted, I will not run; If nominated, I will not accept; if elected I will not serve.” He was also referring to the highly controversial 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court in December of 2000 that handed over the Presidency to the best friend the oil industry has ever known.
Marc Boyd
Environmental Activist
2005 Graduate of San Jose State University
BA: Political Science