Methane as Environment Destroyer

• Written By: Dennis Mullin
• 12-30-2009
• Categorized in: America Week

Methane as Environment Destroyer

ENVIRONMENT: Most everybody has written off December's Copenhagen global warming summit as a joke – having produced more flatulent bureaucratic gasses than any herd of bovines anywhere. And while Obama tries to spin it as a great world-changing event, it’s becoming increasingly clear that he probably won’t even be able to pass his own cap-and-trade environmental pact this year. Coming off the bruising health care debate, Democrats don’t want to go into the 2010 elections with two bank-breaking monkeys on their backs. That’s why sentiment is building to back off of this fight. And there are environmental fights aplenty ahead.

By Dennis Mullin

Bruised by the health care debate and worried about what 2010 will bring, moderate Senate Democrats are urging the White House to give up now on any effort to pass cap and trade in 2010. “I am communicating that in every way I know how,” said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of at least a half-dozen Democrats who've told the White House or their own leaders that it's time to jettison the centerpiece of their party's plan to curb global warming.

The creation of an economy-wide market for greenhouse gas emissions is the heart of the climate bill that cleared the House in 2009. But with the health care fight still raging and the economy still hurting, moderate Democrats have little appetite for another sweeping initiative -- especially another one likely to pass with little or no Republican support.

“We need to deal with the phenomena of global warming, but I think it’s very difficult in the kind of economic circumstances we have right now,” said Indiana Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh, who called passage of any economy-wide cap and trade “unlikely.”

POOR PROSPECTS: At a meeting about health care last month, moderates pushed to table climate legislation in favor of a jobs bill that would be an easier sell during the 2010 elections, Senate Democratic aides tell Politico. “I’d just as soon see that set aside until we work through the economy,” said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.). “What we don’t want to do is have anything get in the way of working to resolve the problems with the economy.”  “Climate change in an election year has very poor prospects,” added Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). “I’ve told that to the leadership.”

At least some in the Democratic leadership appear to be listening. Asked about cap and trade, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said: “At this point I’d like to see a complete bill, but we have to be realistic."

Moderate House Democrats who voted in favor of the cap-and-trade bill just before the July 4 recess came under fire back home, and Republicans have vowed to make the issue a key line of attack during next year’s elections.  Some Democrats would prefer to deny them that target. “I’d prefer to do energy because I think you could get a really broad consensus on a lot of energy legislation,” said Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.).

PACKAGE: But supporters of the climate bill say that cap and trade is an inextricable part of any energy package for next year. “We’ve got to keep them together because they go together,” said Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, who infuriated liberals with his opposition to the public option in the health care bill but who's trying to keep cap and trade alive in a bipartisan climate bill he's drafting with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

The White House remains firmly behind an economy-wide cap-and-trade system, which would curb greenhouse gas emissions and create a market for polluters to buy and sell carbon allowances. “We think that a cap-and-trade mechanism is the best way to achieve the most cost-effective reductions," a senior administration official told reporters last week. But Kerry raised eyebrows last week when he seemed to hint at some flexibility over the issue. "I can't tell you the method or the means or amount by which we might price carbon," he told reporters in Copenhagen. "We haven't resolved that issue yet.”

INVESTMENTS: A move away from cap and trade would bitterly disappoint the environmental community and many powerful utility companies, which have lobbied hard for the system. Many utilities, investors and even some consumer companies like Starbucks and Nike believe cap and trade will unleash a flood of investments in energy efficiency and renewable fuels like wind, solar and nuclear power. But passage will be a heavy lift — with few signs of Republican support and mounting concern from moderate Democrats.

Earlier this month, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) introduced a bill that would replace cap and trade with a system that would set a price on carbon dioxide emissions and return all the revenue to consumers, instead of industry.

And Republican Sens. George Voinovich of Ohio and Richard Lugar of Indiana are examining proposals to cap greenhouse gas emissions only on power plants, coupled with energy efficiency programs for buildings and transportation.

NO CONSENSUS: After the tough health care fight, the Democratic leadership believes a climate bill must pass with significant bipartisan support or risk leaving the party open to attack during the midterm elections. “Any bill dealing with energy and climate change will have to be bipartisan to pass,” said Durbin. “Sen. Kerry assures me that there are other [Republicans] that he may have.” But even among Republicans who believe global warming is a problem, few — if any — other than Graham support an economy-wide cap and trade

Meanwhile, if you want any evidence of how nasty the environmental debate is going to be – regardless of which view triumphs, witness Barstow, CA. A California senator's recent move to put more than one million acres of the Mojave Desert off limits to development is spotlighting a clash between two prime goals of environmentalists.

Before Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to create the Mojave Trails National Monument and other protected wilderness areas, solar-power developers had submitted nearly two dozen proposals since 2006 for projects that would make the Southern California desert the biggest solar farm on Earth. California has set an ambitious target of garnering one-third of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

DEVELOPMENT: That has sparked a renewable-development boom as utilities sign contracts for everything from solar farms to geothermal plants. It also has made it easier for developers to secure financing. But some of the land solar developers consider prime real estate also is prized by conservationists who want to preserve unspoiled stretches of unique desert, such as the Sleeping Beauty Valley and Marble Mountains in the Mojave.

The conflicting visions for the Mojave are part of a broader struggle playing out as the nation embarks on a renewable-energy push. In Kansas, some of the last tall-grass prairie habitat could be threatened by wind farms in the Flint Hills area. More than 96% of tall-grass prairie has been destroyed. Critics say wind turbines not only have a visual impact on the landscape, but also require extensive road construction.

RECREATIONAL: Feinstein's Mojave bill would protect 1.7 million acres of desert, while still allowing current recreational uses. The biggest piece would form the Mojave Trails National Monument, at 941,000 acres, east of Los Angeles along a 105-mile stretch of historic Route 66. It also would create the Sand to Snow National Monument on 134,000 acres of federal land near Palm Springs, and would put additional acreage under wilderness protection, including important animal-migration corridors.

Feinstein is a longtime supporter of desert preservation who sponsored the 1994 California Desert Protection Act that turned the nearby Death Valley and Joshua Tree wilderness areas into national parks. Once word spread that she was trying to protect another stretch of desert in the Mojave, some developers began to rethink their plans.

Tessera Solar, a Houston developer, dropped plans to develop a 5,000-acre site in the Mojave, "knowing Sen. Feinstein was moving forward with her bill," a company spokeswoman said. BrightSource Energy signed power-purchase agreements with Southern California Edison, a unit of Edison International, and Pacific Gas & Electric Co., a unit of PG&E Corp., for 2,600 megawatts of power it intends to furnish from numerous desert sites beginning in 2013.

PRISTINE TRACTS: John Woolard, chief executive of BrightSource, said Feinstein "got quite upset" when she learned development was proposed on some pristine tracts under federal control. His company decided to forgo plans to build a solar project in the Broadwell Dry Lake area that would be within the proposed monument boundaries. However, he warned that putting parts of the Mojave off limits "would push solar farms out of state."

Others have also complained that California's aggressive renewable-energy target, combined with tough land-protection laws, could end up sparking a renewable-energy boom in neighboring Nevada or Arizona.

Feinstein's bill attempts to find common ground between developers and those who support renewable energy. Although it prohibits energy development within the monument area, the bill includes provisions that would allow faster and cheaper development of private lands. Instead of taking seven to nine years to do endangered-species act reviews on private land, renewable-energy developers would qualify for reviews taking 18 months to three years.

MANDATE: California's own analysis shows it needs 128,000 acres of desert terrain to fulfill the state mandate for a big boost in utility-scale solar projects. But there currently are projects proposed that would utilize nearly a million acres.

David Myers, the executive director of Wildlands Conservancy, the chief critic of Mojave development, said the legislation is "fantastic" because it redirects activity from sensitive areas to land that already has been degraded by prior use, such as cattle grazing or alfalfa cultivation. His organization donated 600,000 acres in the Mojave to the federal government in stages from 1999 to 2003, with the understanding that it would be permanently protected. Mr. Myers was furious when applications began pouring into the Bureau of Land Management seeking permission to develop it into renewable-energy parks -- as though there were no prior understanding.

The Mojave is particularly attractive because it not only offers nearly uninterrupted days of bright sunshine in a sparsely populated area, but lies near a major electric-transmission corridor from California to Nevada. "We don't have to sacrifice our national treasures for renewable energy," Mr. Myers said. "We need both."