Hill Heat

Al Gore’s response:

I am deeply honored to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This award is even more meaningful because I have the honor of sharing it with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the world’s pre-eminent scientific body devoted to improving our understanding of the climate crisis – a group whose members have worked tirelessly and selflessly for many years. We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level.

My wife, Tipper, and I will donate 100 percent of the proceeds of the award to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion in the U.S. and around the world about the urgency of solving the climate crisis.

Through The Climate Project, Gore has trained over 1000 people to give his “Inconvenient Truth” presentation; the website allows people to request a presentation.

Gore is the chairman of ACE. The board consists of:

• Theodore Roosevelt IV, Managing Director, Lehman Brothers, Chair of the Pew Center for Global Climate Change
• Larry J. Schweiger, President & CEO, National Wildlife Federation
• Carol M. Browner, Principal, The Albright Group, LLC, Clinton EPA Administrator
• Brent Scowcroft
• Lee Thomas, Reagan EPA Administrator
• Orin S. Kramer, General Partner, Boston Provident, L.P., Chairman, New Jersey State Investment Council, Carter White House
• Congressman Sherwood L. Boehlert
• Kevin Wall, CEO, Control Room, Producer, Live Earth/SOS

Come to a book party from 5 – 7 pm at Third Way’s DC headquarters, (2000 L Street NW, Suite 702).

Cohosts: Ted Nordhaus, Michael Shellenberger, Robert Nordhaus, Jeff Navin, Teryn Norris, Mark Schmitt, Michael Tomasky, Kelly Young, Third Way, The Breakthrough Institute

Democratic Senators Bob Menendez (NJ), Jack Reed (RI), John Kerry (MA), Russ Feingold (WI), Chris Dodd (CT) and Dick Durbin (IL) wrote last week to Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA), the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee, to weigh in on the draft plan of the legislation the two are developing.

They mirror the previous praise by Democrats on the subcommittee in their letter:

We write today to congratulate you on your leadership in addressing global warming. The outline of proposed legislation that you distributed last month is an important start and your efforts to forge a bipartisan bill and attempt to pass a meaningful climate change bill this Congress deserve praise and recognition.

They go on to express some concerns, though without the vehemence of the Kit Bond’s conservative criticism:

• Calling for a 80% reduction by 2050 with specific and aggressive interim targets, as opposed to the 70% target in the draft
• Reiterating opposition to “safety valve” legislation like that in Bingaman-Specter
• Criticizing the degree to which free allocations of emissions credits are given to the fossil fuel sector
• Calling for more emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable energy: “take some of the considerable resources generated by the auction process and devote them to further research and incentives for renewable energy . . . make the bill more balanced by devoting a larger share of the allowance value to public purposes, including support for energy efficiency and renewables”

As he previously announced he would, Energy and Commerce’s Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee chair Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) released the first of a series of white papers on climate legislation today, Scope of a Cap-and-Trade Program.

Based on the hearings earlier this year, the Committee and Subcommittee Chairmen have reached the following conclusions: The United States should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by between 60 and 80 percent by 2050 to contribute to global efforts to address climate change. To do so, the United States should adopt an economy-wide, mandatory greenhouse gas reduction program. The central component of this program should be a cap-and-trade program. Given the breadth of the economy that will be affected by a national climate change program and the significant environmental consequences at stake, it is important to design a fair program that obtains the maximum emission reductions at the lowest cost and with the least economic disruption. The Subcommittee and full Committee will draft legislation to establish such a program.

Oddly, the white paper fails to mention a baseline for emissions reductions; the scientific consensus for the 80 percent reduction is from 1990 emissions levels.

The white paper makes no recommendations on how credits should be allocated, though Boucher has stated his resistance to auctions in the past. Nor does it discuss interaction with foreign carbon markets or how to deal with imports from unregulated entities.

The white paper argues that complementary measures are necessary:

“Even with a broad-based cap-and-trade program, complementary measures (such as a carbon tax or other tax-based incentives, efficiency or other performance standards, or research and development programs) will also be needed. For example, funding for research, development, and deployment of new technologies would assist industries that will need to adopt new technologies. In addition, efficiency or other performance standards might be appropriate for some economic actors that would be inappropriate to include directly in a cap-and-trade program, but that should contribute to an economy-wide reduction program in some other way.

Proposed measures range from Dingell’s carbon tax, increased CAFE standards, appliance and lighting efficiency standards, a federal renewable energy standard, to carbon sequestration funding.

Further notes are below.

Forwarded to Hill Heat (as always, I’m reachable at cunctator@hillheat.com):

A Message from Irv Miller

Dear Associate:

Toyota is currently the target of a campaign by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) that accuses us of opposing increases in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars and light trucks. The assertion by this group that we are actively lobbying against increased fuel economy standards is just flat wrong, and we want you to be aware of the company’s position on this important issue and the facts.

FACT: Toyota has long supported an increase in the CAFE standards. Moreover, Toyota has always exceeded federal fuel economy requirements. We’ve never waited for federal mandates. Under the current CAFE standard, an automaker’s average miles per gallon for cars must exceed 27.5 and light trucks must exceed 20.7. Trucks weighing less than 8500 lbs. must average 22.5 mpg for model year 2008, 23.1 mpg in 2009 and 23.5 mpg in 2010.

FACT: There are various bills before Congress that would mandate a new target of 35 mpg by 2020 and require both cars and trucks to meet that standard. Our engineers tell us the requirements specified by these proposed measures are beyond what is possible. Toyota spends $23 million every day on R&D but, at this point, the technology to meet such stringent standards by 2020 does not exist.

FACT: Toyota supports a proposal known as the Hill-Terry bill, HR 2927, that would set a new standard of from 32 to 35 mpg by 2022 (up to a 40% increase) and maintain separate categories for cars and light trucks. That won’t be easy, but we believe it is achievable.

To help set the record straight, I have posted a message on this topic on the company’s blog. To learn more, visit the blog by clicking here—> http://blog.toyota.com/2007/09/irvs-sheet-a-ca.html

Toyota, maker of the 46 MPG Prius*, is lobbying against the Markey-Platts fuel-economy bill (HR 1506), which calls for 35 MPG by 2020, and for the significantly more industry-friendly Hill-Terry (HR 2927) as part of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. (An AAM rep has even commented on this site).

NRDC is challenging Toyota on its blog and with its How Green is Toyota? campaign, which asks people to email the Toyota North America president and stop opposing Markey-Platts.

Irv Miller, Toyota North America’s VP of corporate communications, promoted Hill-Terry on the Toyota blog in July and fired back at NRDC in September.

Today, from Thomas Friedman in the New York Times:

Representative Edward Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who heads the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said to me that Toyota could meet a 35 m.p.g. standard in Japan and Europe today, “but here — even though they bombard Americans with ads about how energy efficient Toyota is — they are fighting the 35 m.p.g. standard for 2020.”

Mr. Markey said he has tried to persuade Toyota that “a lot of people have bought Priuses or Camry hybrids to fight global warming and reduce our dependence on foreign oil” and “they would be shocked to find out” that Toyota is lobbying against the highest m.p.g. standards for America.

The Natural Gas Council will hold a news conference to discuss a new study that projects the impact of proposed greenhouse gas reduction policies on future natural gas demand and energy markets.

Contact: Jeff Eshelman at 202-857-4722

1201 15th St. N.W., Suite 5000

Coverage of the Bush administration’s Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change from around the Web, the event keynoted by the president, who was pointedly absent at the UN’s similar event.

DeSmogBlog, U.S. hosts climate-change conference and promptly digs in its heels:

Curiously, or perhaps not, Rice’s remarks echoed those of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper two days earlier, when he told delegates at UN Headquarters that Canada favors an approach that balances global-warming mitigation with economic growth. Harper’s remarks were so in-keeping with the U.S. position they could have been framed by the White House.

ED’s Climate 411, Our Message to the White House Major Emitters Meeting:

A big challenge like global warming requires action and leadership from the United States. And everyone in this room knows what few have been willing to say aloud: No caps, no real progress. The world cannot sufficiently address the climate challenge until the U.S. embraces binding short- and long-range declining caps – determined by what the scientists say is necessary.

Reuters, FACTBOX-Bush’s evolving policy on global warming:

March 28, 2001 – Stating his opposition to the 1997 Kyoto treaty on global warming, Bush says it is against U.S. economic interests and unfair as big developing countries like China and India escape binding emissions pledges.

June 11, 2001 – Shortly before his Europe tour, Bush says it remains uncertain how much of global warming is caused by humans and pledges to use science and diplomacy to fight it….

July 6, 2005 – Bush for the first time says he recognizes that “an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem” of global warming, during a visit to Denmark on his way to the Group of Eight (G8) summit in Scotland….

The United States is committed to collaborating with other major economies to agree on a detailed contribution for a new global framework by the end of 2008, which would contribute to a global agreement under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change by 2009.

To this end, President Bush asked Secretary Rice to host a meeting of major economies in Washington, D.C., on September 27 – 28, 2007. Bush intends to address the conference. At this meeting, we would seek agreement on the process by which the major economies would, by the end of 2008, agree upon a post-2012 framework that could include a long-term global goal, nationally defined mid-term goals and strategies, and sector-based approaches for improving energy security and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, we expect to place special emphasis on how major economies can, in close cooperation with the private sector, accelerate the development and deployment of clean technologies, a critical component of an effective global approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. James L. Connaughton, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, will serve as Bush’s personal representative.