darkslope

1) A) Nuclear power is by no means the only option we have right now to reduce electrical generation carbon emissions significantly in the next 20 years. Currently, there are 24 nuclear reactors proposed in the U.S. eligible for government subsidies (they have to be proposed before December 31st, 2008), and only 1 new application has been submitted after this date (it won't receive government subsidies). Even if all of these units are built (which they will not be), this would represent roughly an 23% increase in nuclear output, assuming all current reactors stay on line, and it would take a long time before they are finally complete. While this would represent a non-trivial increase in the share of greenhouse gas-free baseload power, to say that "nuclear power is the only option we have that can significantly reduce electrical carbon emissions significantly in the next 20 years" overstates nuclear's potential (a 23% increase would raise nuclear's share from 19% to 23%), and ignores the potential of energy efficiency and renewables, such as solar (the conservative DOE estimates that solar's share can increase from <1% to 14% of electricity generation by 2030) and wind (can increase from 3.4% to 20% by 2030).

B) American public transit ridership is already growing, and an investment of $30 billion over the next 20 years can double this growth rate. I don't see any data you have that backs up your claim of "large cost increases from natural economic forces," or that "vast eminent domain seizures" will be necessary, so I can't really respond to those. If you would like to provide me with some sources, I will look them over and respond to them.

C) The entire goal of our project is to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Will some new coal and gas export projects have to be scrapped? Yes. Do we want the U.S. to stop exporting coal and gas altogether right now? No, we've never said that. Ultimately, it will be up to other countries to reduce their demand for our coal and gas, and to a certain extent there's not much we can do about it (since we're not going to become a trade-protectionist state). But we can put the brakes on the startling rate of fossil fuel extraction, and take control of our own fossil fuel resources in order to prevent too much coal, oil, and gas, from flowing out of our borders. Our export strategy will only be one part of a strategy to control exporting emissions. The majority of it will be up to other countries to reduce their demand for our fossil fuels, and that can only happen once the U.S. commits to act decisively.

2) A greenhouse gas fee is not a regulation, it is a way to internalize the external costs of greenhouse gas emissions, under the principle that the polluter should pay for his/her costs to others, and level the playing field for energy technologies that don't contribute to climate change. You may scoff at "making exceptions for the poor," but we think it is fair to compensate low-income Americans from being overly burdened by a problem that is overwhelmingly not their fault.

3) There are federal loan guarantees for renewable energy, but President Obama now wants to earmark many of these loan guarantees that should legally be available for all technologies including renewables for for "advanced fossil energy." We're not saying stop all loan guarantees to fossil fuel-based projects that could reduce emissions, but rather put every technology on the table to determine the most effective solutions. As for the potential of fossil fuels vs. renewables in the R+D sector, see our above point of the potential of efficiency and renewables. In the long term, there's only so much cleaner fossil fuels can get, while renewables have vastly more potential to reduce emissions.

4) The idea for a National Green Bank was conceived by renewable energy stakeholders, business leaders, and ratepayers. Everyone can participate in getting financing from a Green Bank to invest in emissions reducing projects, and no one is excluded. The Green Bank leverages public capital with private capital, and instills confidence in new energy markets with proven financial returns. One already exists in Connecticut, and one recently opened in New York and the UK as well. There's nothing exclusive about this; on the contrary it includes clean technologies by providing them with more financial confidence in the form of lower borrowing costs. Other such banks have been proposed, for example to support our flailing infrastructure. Another great thing about these banks is that they are self sustaining once created, operating at no cost to the taxpayer.

5) Page 30 of our report reads as follows: provide jobs training and transition programs for workers in vulnerable industries, such as coal miners and oil rig operators. If you do the math, the amount of money we suggest allocating is quite generous as well.

6) We never accuse the Administration of being ill-educated. While I cannot speak to the competency of the President's environmental advisors, the President must do more to engage the American people and encourage Congress to take action. We simply want him to go beyond his Climate Action Plan and take bolder executive action (actions which we list at the end of our full report), as well as speak out more to Congress and encourage them to act where he cannot.

Great question. In the current political climate, congressional action is extremely unlikely. But we're trying to shift that political climate to make climate solutions viable in the mainstream. And the way we're going to do that is by illustrating the benefits of action (new jobs, cleaner air, reduced climate damages now and down the road, and national security, to name a few).

Obama's Climate Action Plan is basically the most his administration can do without help from Congress. But is it too risky for Democrats? The thing about executive action is that Congressmen can stay neutral on the issue, because new regulations aren't their doing. So it'll be risky for the Democrats in fossil fuel-heavy states, while Democrats in California and NY, for example, might throw themselves behind these new regulations.

But I would say that many Democratics will, for the most part, support Obama's plans. The problem is that those plans don't go far enough, so we want to mobilize the public to push their lawmakers further.

See my response to jsennn above. I'll repost here:

Great question. Yes, developing countries are emitting greenhouse gases at increasing rates. But if the President and Congress adopt our policies, and let's say, the BRIC countries keep on spewing out Greenhouse Gases, then we are "stuck with:" slashed oil dependence, reduced air pollution, insulation from oil price shocks. So it's not as if taking action here is without its merits.

The U.S. is a leader, and other countries look to us to act. There is no chance that if we do nothing, then China will take aggressive action. So the only hope for the global climate is for the U.S. to show leadership by implementing a bold climate plan, and use that as leverage in global climate negotiations. Again, there are myriad other benefits of action, and if the U.S. could come to China and say that we have a plan to do our part, it would vastly increase the likelihood that China will follow suit. It is in our interests both from a national security standpoint and a moral standpoint. We have to be able to say that we gave it our all.

Great question. Yes, developing countries are emitting greenhouse gases at increasing rates. But if the President and Congress adopt our policies, and let's say, the BRIC countries keep on spewing out Greenhouse Gases, then we are "stuck with:" slashed oil dependence, reduced air pollution, insulation from oil price shocks. So it's not as if taking action here is without its merits.

The U.S. is a leader, and other countries look to us to act. There is no chance that if we do nothing, then China will take aggressive action. So the only hope for the global climate is for the U.S. to show leadership by implementing a bold climate plan, and use that as leverage in global climate negotiations. Again, there are myriad other benefits of action, and if the U.S. could come to China and say that we have a plan to do our part, it would vastly increase the likelihood that China will follow suit. It is in our interests both from a national security standpoint and a moral standpoint. We have to be able to say that we gave it our all.

Cars have absolutely become cleaner over the past few decades. But the oil that goes into the engines still contains the same amount of carbon as it did 20 years ago. While efficiency can play a big role in the transition, efficiency alone cannot provide all of the reductions we need. We aren't inherently against working with oil and gas companies, so long as they acknowledge that in order to maintain a safe climate, demand for oil will have to decrease, starting very soon, and proceed towards very low amounts by mid century. If they are on board with that, then I'm all for partnerships with oil companies that would assist in the transition.

So I guess to sum up, I do think there is some more progress to be made in terms of efficiency. And one of the most effective ways to encourage oil conservation is by putting a price on carbon, as ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson once threw his support behind. We'd love to work with anyone and everyone, including oil companies, who will push for our carbon-reducing policies to come to fruition. But that speech was in 2009, and I'm not sure if Tillerson, or any other CEO for that matter, still believes that.