Hill Heat

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) invites you to a briefing to examine the public health impacts and costs associated with transportation in the United States. The briefing will address how federal transportation infrastructure policies can improve public health and mitigate climate change at the same time. Panelists will include:

• Lawrence Frank, PhD, Professor, Sustainable Transportation Program, University of British Columbia
• Patrick Kinney, ScD, Associate Professor, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University
• Thomas Gotschi, PhD, Director of Research, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
• Jenelle Krishnamoorthy, PhD, Professional Staff, Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
• Susan Abramson, MHS, Director, Public Health Policy Center, American Public Health Association

The transportation sector is associated with multiple public health risk factors – adding billions of dollars to our national healthcare bill – while accounting for approximately 28 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. This briefing will explore an emerging body of research documenting local, regional and national health impacts from transportation and implications for addressing transportation-related impacts on climate change.

Exposure to air pollution from vehicles has been linked to premature deaths, cancer, asthma, and other lung ailments. Time spent driving and limited options to walk or bike have been shown to be significant risk factors for health problems associated with physical inactivity, such as stress and obesity, which have reached epidemic proportions in the United States. Many of these impacts, asthma and obesity in particular, disproportionately affect children. Recent studies suggest that climate change will exacerbate many of these impacts, however, transportation strategies to address these public health concerns have proven effective measures to help mitigate climate change.

Federal economic stimulus legislation as well as anticipated federal transportation, climate, and energy bills are all important opportunities to address the public health impacts and costs associated with transportation as well as energy security and climate protection goals. Key questions to be addressed include:

• What are the public health impacts associated with transportation?
• What are the opportunities to simultaneously address climate change and different public health impacts associated with transportation?
• What transportation policy options would be most appropriate and effective to address both public health and climate change goals?

This briefing is free and open to the public. No RSVP required. For more information, contact Jan Lars Mueller at (202) 662-1883 or jmueller@eesi.org.

Witnesses

• Lisa P. Jackson, Nominated to be Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• Nancy Helen Sutley, Nominated to be Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality

10:00 Boxer: Today marks a turning point for the environment and the health of the United States. I want to welcome Mrs. Jackson, who I’ve had the privilege to have several discussions in my office. Nancy Sutley has a strong record of service in my state of California. The mission of the EPA is to protect the public health and the environment. EPA must rely on science, not special interests. The chair of the CEQ needs to bring all the voices in the administration together.

10:11 Inhofe: What exactly is going to be the role of the new energy czar Carol Browner?

10:15 Lautenberg (D-N.J.): I am delighted to be able to greet Lisa Jackson. Lisa has fought to keep our state’s air clean. The challenges facing our environment are serious, numerous, and require immediate action.

10:20 Bob Menendez (D-N.J.): I’m proud to join my colleague in presenting Lisa Jackson to the committee. Her scientific background complements her managerial experience. I believe she will be the best administrator in the history of the department we have seen. In New Jersey, only the strong survive. Not only has she survived, she has thrived.

10:25 Boxer (D-Cal.): I’m going to miss Sens. Bond and Voinovich. But we keep renewing this Senate. Even when we disagree we’ve had a great working relationship.

10:26 Bond: We’ll do everything we can to keep it interesting.

10:27 Inhofe: We had breakfast this morning with the new members. I will really miss these two guys.

10:27 Klobuchar: I welcome our two new members. I enjoyed meeting with Jackson and Sutley. First, to quote Sen. Clinton, I’ve been very concerned that the EPA has been “operating in an evidence-free zone.” I’d like no more redacted testimony, and no more testimony intended to mislead on the facts and the law. Home-grown energy will generate a boom in our economy. I look forward to your thoughts how protecting the environment will create a 21st-century economy.

10:31 Barrasso: Congratulations to both of you, and thank you for both coming to my office. We in Wyoming are concerned when federal laws are used in ways they were never intended. Ranchers and miners in Wyoming know that dealing with climate change through the Clean Air Act would be a disaster. Turning the Endangered Species Act into a climate change bill is something Congress never intended. The true intent of the Clean Water Act—there’s overwhelming objection to extending jurisdiction over all water in the United States.

10:35 Boxer: We really have very big differences. You’re not going to make everybody happy. If you do, you’re doing nothing.

10:36 Merkley: We’ll miss Voinovich and Bond’s experience.

10:38 Bond: I want to protect the natural resources of Missouri. I was the co-author of the acid rain emissions trading provisions of the Clean Air Act. We need to protect our families. We’re suffering right now. They’re facing the housing crisis and job loss. Protecting families from climate change proposals that would raise costs by $6.7 trillion. That means zero-carbon nuclear power. Cellulosic ethanol. We want clean cars. We want clean coal technology. But we can’t support proposals from East and West Coast states that would kill Midwest manufacturing. We want to find a middle ground.

10:42 Carper: We can no longer afford inaction on climate change or air pollution. We must send the right signals to industry. We need leaders that can build alliances. I can think of noone more qualified to lead the EPA and the CEQ than Ms. Jackson and Ms. Sutley. Inaction means that thousands will die prematurely from pollution, thousands of children will be exposed to mercury.

10:47 Alexander: I enjoyed our meeting. Sen. Carper and I have worked together quite a bit: we need a new CAIR rule and a new rule on mercury. In discussions about climate change, I hope you will focus on carbon-free solutions and be skeptical of so-called renewable solutions—they’re just wind. Windmills on our ridges would interfere with our views of the Smokies. Subsidies for wind are 27 times greater per kilowatt-hour than any other renewables. All revenues from cap and trade should be returned to the people. A carbon-free fuel standard and cap and trade for power plants would cover two-thirds of all carbon emitted, then return all the money collected to people having trouble paying their energy bills.

10:51 Cardin: Thank you for being willing to serve. I’ve had the chance to talk with both of you in my office. The first issue I’m going to bring up is the Chesapeake Bay.

10:55 Isakson (R-Ga.): I’m very impressed by her resume, Tulane and Princeton. One of the unintended consequences of regulation is that it sometimes doesn’t work. There are ways to find flexibility. The potential regulation of greenhouse gases by the department has included the possibility of taxation on livestock. We have to be very careful about regulating natural emissions. I didn’t always agree with Carol Browner but she had a lot of sense. I was proud to be able to talk with you, Ms. Sutley, yesterday. It’s very important that we come up with a working water plan.

10:58 Whitehouse (D-R.I.): It is a perilous and fascinating time. With respect to the EPA, this is an agency that has fallen into significant distress. It needs its integrity restored. The people who work at the EPA give up a great deal in their lives. They’re not significantly well paid. They take pride in the mission. If you take away that pride by taking away the integrity of the agency, you risk taking away the key element of the agency’s success. Johnson has been a disgrace to this country.

11:02 Voinovich (R-Ohio): I think this next two years may be the most important two years I’ve served. I think some of the work we do on this committee is going to shape what the future looks like. I enjoyed our meeting in my office. For the record, I think Steve Johnson did an outstanding job as head of the EPA.

11:06 Lautenberg (D-N.J.): The EPA prevented action at the local levels. Under Mr. Johnson, the EPA sided with industry more often than not. The current administration has failed to provide sufficient funding to support the Superfund program. It’s time to usher in a better and brighter future.

11:10 Merkley (D-Ore.): It has been our experience in the past few years that it’s been up to the states to take the lead. We have the most aggressive renewable energy standard. The most aggressive energy efficiency standards for appliances.

11:15 Baucus (D-Mont.): Asbestos is an insidious poison.

11:17 Vitter (R-La.): I haven’t had a chance to visit with Nancy Sutley.

11:20 Jackson: Opening statement.

11:25 Baucus: Asbestos in Libby, Montana.

Jackson: It sounds like one of the worst sites I’ve heard of. I will report within 90 days on this issue.

Baucus: EPA’s never done a toxicity assessment.

11:33 Inhofe: Sen. Boxer and I genuinely like each other. This job is really tough. I was really pleased that you talked about transparency. This is very important. I don’t agree with the criticisms with the current administration not being forthcoming. I think they have. There’s never been a director who’s been more qualified than Stephen Johnson. I think he did a very good job.

Jackson: I look forward to working with this committee.

Inhofe: You were very emphatic about science. You said, science is my guide. That’s music to my ears. I know people don’t want to talk about it, but so many individuals have changed their mind on global warming. I want a commitment that you will take the time in the next two weeks that you will pull up my speech on the floor, and meet with you at some point.

Jackson: I’m happy to exchange views with you and to read your speech.

11:49 Boxer: It seems to a lot of us that there are disasters waiting to happen. EPA has authority to act. Will you commit to quickly assess the sites for immediate hazards and establish strong standards?

Jackson: EPA must assess the hundreds of sites out there immediately. Many are upstream of schools. I think EPA needs to assess first and foremost the current state. That’s only the beginning. EPA has in the past assessed its regulatory options with coal ash. It’s time to reassess those options.

Boxer: Sen Carper is going to have authority over TVA. We may move legislatively, but I think you have the authority to act. Rep. Rahall is looking to regulate under the Mining Act. I don’t think that’s necessary. Last year, President-elect Obama co-sponsored my bill to grant the California waiver. Will you immediately revisit the waiver?

Jackson: You have my commitment I will immediately revisit the waiver, looking at the science and the rule of law, relying on the advice of the staff.

11:55 Barrasso: On coal ash, I talked about clean coal technology with the nominee for Sec. of Energy and Interior. We don’t want to limit new technology.

Jackson: Coal is a vital resource in our country. It provides about 50% of our electricity. We have to mention in the same breath that it is the largest source of greenhouse emissions. We must invest aggressively in a technology that will work.

Barrasso: In the Financial Times, an article talks about what we’re asking people to do – to save the planet, they have to clean their teeth in the dark.

Jackson: One of the ways to begin to address climate change today is energy efficiency. Changing our habits, our appliances. I prefer not to think of this as pain as individual responsibility. People need to understand they have a responsibility in the choices they make. We should give them choices, allow them to have energy-efficient homes, more efficient cars.

Barrasso: Obama is going to appoint Carol Browner as White House adviser.

Jackson: Final EPA decisions will be made by the EPA administrator.

Barrasso: If you two disagree?

Jackson: I take very seriously my legal responsibility to enact the laws of Congress. Advisers can agree and disagree.

Barrasso: Questions of Congressional intent.

Jackson: I believe the laws are meant to have the flexibility to deal with the issues of today. I will commit to an ongoing conversation.

Barrasso: Unfunded mandates to states have grown.

Jackson: Budget realities for states are playing out every day. The EPA administrator has a role in formulating the President’s budget. Much of the permitting and enforcement work happens at the state level.

12:04 Lautenberg: I feel in some ways you’re part of my group. This is an engine that can’t stop. You were instrumental in writing New Jersey’s global warming law.

Jackson: We now have a modest cap-and-trade program operating in ten Northeast states. I look forward to sharing that experience with those in the committee that want to. There’s a tremendous role for states and municipalities in terms of reducing global warming emissions.

Lautenberg: We have to eliminate or certainly reduce this attack on the welfare of our children. We are facing something if unchecked will affect the health of future generations to a disastrous level.

12:12 Isakson: I have a suggestion for you to consider: people in regulatory positions can assume their relationship with those they regulate is adversarial, or they can work with businesses. I hope you’ll work on the issue of downstream pollution.

Jackson: As a resident of a state that gets one-third of its pollution from outside sources, I well understand the conundrum of meeting attainment standards.

Isakson: Taxing cattlemen that emit methane naturally since God created the earth.

Jackson: My commitment is that we will have conversations with stakeholders. All industries have the potential to do environmental harm. We have to make sure they are ready to deal with the future.

Isakson: Erosion control and the Clean Water Act.

12:19 Boxer: I can assure you that 80% of this country are much more worried that we’ve done nothing on CO2.

12:21 Whitehouse: There’s some dispute on this committee on whether the EPA is in distress. I don’t think there’s any dispute within the EPA.

Jackson: The role of the Inspector General is important.

Whitehouse: Watch out for OMB. It has become the political bullyboy influencing agency decisionmaking. I’ve spoken to Peter Orszag about this. Cass Sunstein’s appearance promises reform. Rhode Island is one of the states participating in the California waiver. How much can you go forward on your own?

Jackson: Much of the initial agenda for the EPA is now set by court decisions. I will review the California waiver decision forthwith. The Supreme Court has ordered the EPA to make an endangerment finding. When that finding is made, it triggers the beginning of the regulatory process. Another court decision on CAIR commands EPA to review that. All those things together means there will be an extraordinary burst of activity not just from EPA but also from Congress. I think there is a real opportunity to move together. Industry would prefer a clear roadmap. I think there is tremendous opportunity there.

12:29 Boxer: Obama committed not to reviewing the waiver, but signing the waiver. TVA needs to stop bemoaning commitments to the environment.

12:32 Cardin: We look forward to the California waiver going forward. Chesapeake bay and lead poisoning.

Jackson: Lead poisoning in children is an important issue.

12:39 Carper.

12:50 Voinovich: It would be great to get Browner together with the committee. We haven’t done very much in this committee. We haven’t been able to harmonize issues of energy, economy, environment. A hundred communities are being asked to take care of their combined-sewer overflow problems. We have an interesting environment today. We need to do more planning than ever before. I think there’s an urgency about climate change. It has national security implications. But how do you do something without killing the economy?

Jackson: We need to be able to review our rules: Are they legal, are they sustainable, are they based on science?

1:02 Merkley: We have one lifetime to address climate change.

1:32 Boxer: Perchlorate. Superfund.

1:50 Jackson hearing concludes.

2:05 Sutley: I will play an important role in formulating the executive branch’s policy on climate change. There is effectively no agency that is not touched by these issues. It will be a complete effort by the executive branch.

Boxer: OMB role.

Sutley: The OMB has executive order responsibilities. I think science decisions and science review should be done by science experts in the agencies. I don’t expect people in the OMB unless they are scientists to review the science.

Boxer: OMB has gotten involved and called the shots. It’s a red flag. The Obama OMB may be different from the Bush OMB. We look to you for leadership on the environment. From what you’ve said, I feel good about it. The IRIS program.

2:16 Whitehouse: You play everybody who participated in the public process for a fool when you make actual decisions in secret. The entire agency process was a sham, all done behind closed doors by OMB and the White House. This is an issue I’ve taken up with OMB.

2:19 Sutley: The question of how the role of the climate adviser is formulated is an important one. The CEQ will retain all of its statutory roles. The EPA administrator will continue her advisory role. Climate change is one of the most important issues of the day. I can tell you that we will be working together closely, and the decisions of which policies the president will pursue will be his decision.

Whitehouse: Will you report to Carol Browner on issues of climate change?

Sutley: I know we will work together very closely.

Whitehouse: Oceans.

2:27 Boxer: There are some questions in writing that we would like answers to by Friday so we can move on the nominations. We stand adjourned.

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) and MissionPoint Capital Partners invite you to a lunch briefing and demonstration discussing smart grid technology, what it is, how it can be used, and what key policy issues and market barriers affect its development. The need for a smart grid is increasingly recognized as policymakers at all levels of government look for ways to improve the energy efficiency of producing and using electricity in our homes, businesses, and public institutions. Many believe that a smart grid is a critical foundation for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to a low-carbon economy. A smart grid entails technology applications that will allow an easier integration and higher penetration of renewable energy. It will be essential for accelerating the development and widespread usage of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and their potential use as storage for the grid. Certainly, PHEVs have been of great interest in the Congress. Smart meters are a key component in the smart grid system that can help utilities balance demand, reduce expensive peak power use and provide a better deal for consumers by allowing them to see and respond to real-time pricing information through in-home displays, smart thermostats and appliances.

Congress may take up provisions related to a smart grid as part of the upcoming economic recovery package. Regardless, these issues will certainly be part of policy discussion as energy and climate legislation is considered in the 111th Congress. This briefing provides an opportunity to hear first-hand from a panel of experts about some of the demonstration projects and deployments underway, and lessons learned from those experiences. It is a chance to see and participate in a “hands-on” demonstration of smart grid applications. The briefing will also discuss existing federal/state barriers and various policy options to address them. Speakers for this event include:

• Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA)
• Dan Abbasi, Senior Director, MissionPoint Capital Partners
• Bill Vogel, Chief Executive Officer, Trilliant Networks
• Dave Mohler, Chief Technology Officer, Duke Energy
• Mike Carlson, Chief Information Officer, Xcel Energy
• Bob Gilligan, Vice President, Transmission and Development, GE Energy
• Michael Butts, Director of Advanced Metering Infrastructure, Baltimore Gas and Electric
• Dan Delurey, Executive Director, Demand Response and Smart Grid Coalition
• Eric Miller, Chief Solutions Officer, Trilliant Networks (Moderator)

This briefing is free and open to the public. Lunch will be served. No RSVP required. For more information, please contact Laura Parsons at lparsons@eesi.org or (202) 662-1884.

MissionPoint is an investment firm exclusively focused on financing the transition to a low-carbon economy. This is the first in a series of Hill briefings that MissionPoint is co-sponsoring to describe selected pieces of the low-carbon puzzle that it has experience evaluating, backing and strategically accelerating.

President-elect Barack Obama has reportedly selected Dr. Jane Lubchenco, “an environmental scientist and marine ecologist who is actively engaged in teaching, research, synthesis and communication of scientific knowledge,” as the next director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Lubchenco, like Obama’s science adviser John Holdren, is a MacArthur Fellowship winner and was president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

In 1998, Lubchenco founded the Aldo Leopold Leadership Program at the Stanford University Woods Institute for the Environment, the “first formal effort in North America to train mid-career academic environmental scientists to communicate effectively to non-scientific audiences.”

In an interview with the New York Times, Lubchenco strongly advocated holistic efforts to limit human impacts on marine ecosystems:

Networks of no-take marine reserves, for example, can protect habitat, biodiversity, the BOFFS (big old fat female fish) that provide the bulk of the reproductive potential for future generations, and they can provide insurance against mis-management and environmental change. Networks of no-take areas may well provide the most resilience to climate change by protecting as much genetic and biological diversity as possible and allowing adaptation to occur.

From the Wonk Room.

President-elect Barack Obama’s reported selection of Dr. Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy is a bold stroke to set the nation on the path to a clean energy economy. Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, is the sixth director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a Department of Energy-funded basic science research institution managed by the University of California. After moving to Berkeley Lab from Stanford University in 2004, Chu “has emerged internationally to champion science as society’s best defense against climate catastrophe.” As director, Chu has steered the direction of Berkeley Lab to addressing the climate crisis, pushing for breakthrough research in energy efficiency, solar energy, and biofuels technology.

At Berkeley Lab, Chu has won broad praise as an effective and inspirational leader. “When he was first here, he started giving talks about energy and production of energy,” Bob Jacobsen, a senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley Lab, told the San Francisco Chronicle in 2007. “He didn’t just present a problem. He told us what we could do. It was an energizing thing to see. He’s not a manager, he’s a leader.” In an interview with the Wonk Room, David Roland-Holst, an economist at the Center for Energy, Resources and Economic Sustainability at UC Berkeley, described Chu as a “very distinguished researcher” and “an extremely effective manager of cutting edge technology initiatives.” Roland-Holst praised Chu’s work at Lawrence Berkeley, saying “he has succeeded in reconfiguring it for a new generation of sustainable technology R&D, combining world class mainstream science with the latest initiatives in renewable energy and climate adaptation.”

Under Chu’s leadership, Berkeley Lab and other research institutions have founded the Energy Biosciences Institute with $500 million, ten-year grant from energy giant BP, and the Joint BioEnergy Institute with a $125 million grant from the Department of Energy. The BP deal has raised questions and protests about private corporations benefiting from public research. At the dedication of JBEI last Wednesday, Chu “recalled how the nation’s top scientists had rallied in the past to meet critical national needs, citing the development of radar and the atomic bomb during World War II”:

The reality of past threats was apparent to everyone whereas the threat of global climate change is not so immediately apparent. Nonetheless, this threat has just got to be solved. We can’t fail. The fact that we have so many brilliant people working on the problem gives me great hope.

Chu’s leadership extends beyond this nation’s boundaries. As one of the 30 members of the Copenhagen Climate Council, Chu is part of an effort to spur the international community to have the “urgency to establish a global treaty by 2012 which is fit for the purpose of limiting global warming to 2ºC,” whose elements “must be agreed” at the Copenhagen summit in December, 2009.

Last year, Dr. Chu co-chaired a report on “the scientific consensus framework for directing global energy development” for the United Nations’ InterAcademy Council. Lighting the Way describes how developing nations can “‘leapfrog’ past the wasteful energy trajectory followed by today’s industrialized nations” by emphasizing energy efficiency and renewable energy.

It’s hard to decide if the selection of Dr. Chu is more remarkable for who he is – a Nobel laureate physicist and experienced public-sector administrator – or for who is not. Unlike previous secretaries of energy, he is neither a politician, oil man, military officer, lawyer, nor utility executive. His corporate ties are not to major industrial polluters but to advanced technology corporations like AT&T (where he began his Nobel-winning research) and Silicon Valley innovator Nvidia (where he sits on the board of directors). Chu is a man for the moment, and will be a singular addition to Obama’s Cabinet.

A panel of environmental and regulatory experts will discuss the ramifications of these last-minute rulemakings at a hearing next Thursday before Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

The Select Committee recently released a report detailing these frightening possible significant regulatory rule changes by the Bush administration in its final days. The report is entitled “Past is Prologue: For Energy and the Environment, the Bush Administration’s Last 100 Days Could Rival the First 100.” It highlights the major issues the public and the media should look out for in the closing days of an administration that possesses a sharp deregulatory bent.

From the Wonk Room.

Lisa Jackson, President-elect Barack Obama’s co-chair of his energy and natural resources transition team, has emerged as the top candidate to be administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Jackson, a 46-year-old African American engineer, left her job as administrator of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to become Gov. Jon Corzine’s chief of staff on December 1. Jackson has a mixed record at the New Jersey DEP, earning praise for her work ethic but criticism for difficulties achieving the department’s mission.

In an exclusive interview with the ThinkProgress Wonk Room, Gov. Corzine says Jackson has been “remarkably successful” despite a limited budget and competing state priorities:

Lisa Jackson is, without question in my mind, someone who has overwhelmingly been successful as an environmentalist, but also she has also been a person who understands that we have to move in a disciplined thoughtful manner. We can’t do everything at once. . . I think Lisa has done a remarkable job of trying to move the environmental agenda forward within a constrained world.

Watch it:

Corzine’s view is shared by local environmentalists like the Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions’ Sandy Batty, and Environment New Jersey’s Dena Mottola Jaborska, who told Environment and Energy News that Jackson is “a skilled administrator who’s willing to listen” and the “best DEP commissioner that New Jersey had for a long time.” Jackson’s agency “has suffered from a slate of budget cuts by Democratic and Republican governors alike, and thousands of staff positions have been lost over the years.” Struggling to reduce a multi-billion-dollar state debt, Corzine himself has slashed the DEP budget even as the department’s responsibilities have expanded to handle global warming.

The list of problems at the underfunded agency is long. The Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has been the most critical of Jackson’s potential appointment, claiming “Jackson embraced policies at DEP echoing the very practices at the Bush EPA which Senator Barack Obama condemned during the presidential campaign,” including “suppression of scientific information, issuance of gag orders,” and “closed-door deal-making with regulated industry executives and lobbyists.” PEER’s Jeff Ruch describes Jackson as “a pliant technocrat who will follow orders”:

While Ms. Jackson has a compelling biography, little of what occurred during her 31-month tenure commends her for promotion. Under her watch, New Jersey’s environment only got dirtier, incredible as that may seem.

PEER, which exposed many of the EPA’s worst practices under Stephen Johnson, notes that “Jackson appointed the lobbyist for the New Jersey Builders Association as her Assistant Commissioner to oversee critical water quality and land use permits,” and “failed to warn parents or workers for months about mercury contamination” at a day-care center in a former thermometer factory.

Transcript:

As Congress considers a multi-billion dollar program of loans to America’s auto industry, many measures of success or failure exist for the industry and the government’s attempts to help the automakers. Chief among those measures of success is how effectively America’s auto industry, and the industry as a whole, is transformed to build cars for the future that reduce our dependence on oil. Will the auto industry meet the fuel economy rules passed by Congress and signed into law nearly a year ago, which could revitalize the industry? Should American taxpayers expect even higher fuel economy performance in return for their investment of additional billions in loans? Do the auto companies’ plans impair their ability to meet the current fuel economy regime?

A panel of auto industry and fuel economy experts will discuss these issues and other energy implications of the automotive industry loan program at a hearing tomorrow before Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Chairman Markey authored the House language that became the current fuel economy standards of at least 35 mile per gallon by 2020.

Today an analysis of the car companies’ own data revealed that General Motors and Ford are now positioned to comply with California’s landmark global warming standards if they are applied nationwide, which could represent a significant increase in fuel economy. According to the analysis of the companies’ data released today by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the two major automakers are in a position to meet the California global warming tailpipe standards. This analysis is important because some lawmakers in the House and Senate have proposed imposing a condition on the auto bailout that would grant the California waiver or prohibit the automakers from fighting the waiver in court or in state legislatures.

Witnesses

• Joan Claybrook, President, Public Citizen
• Reuben Munger, Chairman and Co-founder, Bright Automotive
• Dr. Peter Morici, Professor of International Business, Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland
• Geoff Wardle, Director of Advanced Mobility Research, Art Center College of Design
• Richard Curless, Chief Technical Officer, MAG Industrial Automation Systems

You are invited to a briefing which will discuss a phased-in, revenue-neutral national carbon tax as a policy option for addressing climate change. This briefing is sponsored by the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI), the Carbon Tax Center, the Climate Crisis Coalition, Friends Committee on National Legislation and Friends of the Earth.

The briefing will focus on the environmental, economic, economic-efficiency, logistical and political benefits of a national carbon tax, particularly one that is phased-in and revenue-neutral. Many economists have called for enactment of a carbon tax as the simplest, easiest to administer and most transparent approach to carbon pricing, despite the conventional wisdom that a “cap and trade” regime is key to a political consensus.

Speakers for this event include:

• Rep. John B. Larson (D-CT)
• James Hansen, PhD, Director, Goddard Institute of Space Studies, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
• James Hoggan, British Columbia Public Affairs Advisor; Chair, David Suzuki Foundation
• Gilbert Metcalf, PhD, Professor of Economics, Tufts University; Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research
• Robert Shapiro, PhD, Co-Founder and Chairman, Sonecon; former U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs
• Brent Blackwelder, President, Friends of the Earth (Moderator)

Issues to be discussed include:

• The need for carbon emissions pricing
• Relative time frames for implementing a carbon tax and a carbon cap and trade system
• Revenue-neutrality vs. targeted investment
• Revenue tax-shift vs. revenue distribution via “dividends”
• Potential implications for cap and trade from the financial crisis
• Lessons from Canada’s recent national election which turned, in part, on a carbon tax proposal, and from British Columbia’s carbon tax which took effect in July 2008

This briefing is free and open to the public. No RSVP required. For more information, please contact James Handley at (202) 546-5692 or jashand@juno.com, Charles Komanoff at (212) 260-5237 or charles@carbontax.org, or Laura Parsons at (202) 662-1884 or lparsons@eesi.org.

From the Wonk Room.

The Washington Post’s Al Kamen reports that there’s “buzz” that the Obama transition is “looking hard at some scientific types” to lead the Energy Department. Dr. Steven Chu, the Nobel laureate director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, is reportedly a dark horse candidate.

In a presentation at this summer’s National Clean Energy Summit convened by the University of Nevada Las Vegas, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), and the Center for American Progress Action Fund, Dr. Chu described why he has moved from his background in experimental quantum physics to tackling global warming:

Consider this. There’s about a 50 percent chance, the climate experts tell us, that in this century we will go up in temperature by three degrees Centigrade. Now, three degrees Centigrade doesn’t seem a lot to you, that’s 11° F. Chicago changes by 30° F in half a day. But 5° C means that … it’s the difference between where we are today and where we were in the last ice age. What did that mean? Canada, the United States down to Ohio and Pennsylvania, was covered in ice year round.

Five degrees Centigrade.

So think about what 5° C will mean going the other way. A very different world. So if you’d want that for your kids and grandkids, we can continue what we’re doing. Climate change of that scale will cause enormous resource wars, over water, arable land, and massive population displacements. We’re not talking about ten thousand people. We’re not talking about ten million people, we’re talking about hundreds of millions to billions of people being flooded out, permanently.

As Dr. Chu explains in the above video, the optimal way to reduce greenhouse emissions is to waste less energy, by investing in energy efficiency. He demolished the myth that we can’t reduce our use of energy without reducing our wealth by offering numerous counterexamples, or, in his scientist’s jargon, “existence proofs.” Applause broke out when he described how companies, after claiming efficiency gains and lowered costs were impossible, “miraculously” achieved them once they “had to assign the jobs from the lobbyists to the engineers.”

Chu continued by discussing what he has done to develop “new technologies to transform the landscape.” He discussed the Helios Project, the research initiative Berkeley Lab launched for breakthrough renewable energy and efficiency technology. In addition to research into energy conservation, Berkeley Lab researchers are pursuing nanotech photovoltaics, microbial and cellulosic biofuels, and chemical photosynthesis.

Dr. Chu concluded his address with a reminder why this challenge is so important:

I will leave you with this final image. This is – I was an undergraduate when this picture was taken by Apollo 8 – and it shows the moon and the Earth’s rise. A beautiful planet, a desolate moon. And focus on the fact that there’s nowhere else to go.