Why Energy Policy Should Outweigh Any Other Discussion In Washington

Tuesday, December 28, 2010 / Posted by Kevin O'Rourke /

Since I have now completed the in-class portion of my law school career, a post updating this site is long overdue. However, in the interest of time, I have decided to add a portion of one of my final papers from last semester. Titled "Bridging the Gap: Progressive Fusion in Politics", this paper synthesizes much of what I have learned from my energy policy coursework at Vermont Law. Hope you find it interesting.

Reshaping the United States (U.S.) energy policy is perhaps the most pressing political challenge that our country currently faces. Peak global production of conventional oil,[1] anthropocentric climate change,[2] nuclear waste storage and disposal,[3] and the ever increasing use of dangerous, expensive fossil fuel extraction techniques,[4] are among the many weighty concerns associated with the way the U.S. and the rest of the world consumes energy. The externalities of our country’s fossil fuel use go far beyond the environmental problems associated with climate change and the extraction of fossil fuels, as the U.S. foreign policy and military industrial complex have increasingly become servants to maintaining open trade routes to the least economically expensive forms of energy.[5]
Moreover, many academics, politicians, and citizens, understand the relationship between the cost of energy and macroeconomic development, yet the U.S. political process has thus far been unable to deliver a comprehensive policy to ensure a long-term transition away from the pollution and national security issues that fossil fuel use entails. Thus, the security of our country’s future economic prosperity, overall health, and social wellbeing, are inherently tied to our national energy policy. However, despite the scientific consensus of the anthropogenic cause of climate change,[6] nearly half of all Americans[7] and all but a few members of the Republican Party in Congress deny the human causes of global warming.[8] Despite this, most Democrats and Republicans can at a minimum agree that our dependence on foreign oil poses serious trade and national security issues.[9] Therefore, our oil consumption is one energy issue where there is immediate room for legislative progress. This paper will address the underlying values of the Republican Party and tap into these values to build bipartisan support for a comprehensive national energy policy that addresses the global insecurity that is the result of our fossil fuel dependence.

I. Overview of the Energy Problem
The burning of fossil fuels is the primary contributor of anthropogenic climate change[10] and the U.S. is the second largest contributor to this problem.[11] Global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) continue to rapidly rise as non-OECD countries such as China and India rush to install fossil fuel capacity to power their economic development.[12][13] Members of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the premier research collaborative on climate change, predict that unless global emissions of CO2 peak by 2015,[14] the world will be unable to stabilize the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at 450 ppm (which is estimated to equate to a 1.4-3.1 temperature rise).[15] Unfortunately for all species of this planet, the results of stabilization at 450 ppm would still only create a “reasonable chance” of avoiding catastrophic consequences for human and ecological systems.[16] Due to the global nature of the problem, essentially all nations agree that some form of international policy will be necessary to achieve these stabilization goals.[17] However, thus far there has not been any success at reaching a global agreement, mainly as a result of the U.S. failure to develop and implement a domestic energy policy to limit fossil fuel consumption.[18] Although several regions[19] in the U.S. have independently begun work on policies to reduce CO2 emissions,[20] the long-term success of these programs is dependent upon the implementation of national and international binding legislative agreements. Previous global agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S. and China did not agree to, have subsequently been abject failures.[21]
The U.S. is by far the largest consumer[22] and importer of oil.[23] The U.S. consumes nearly twice the amount of liquid fuel that it produces per year,[24] while consuming one fifth of all oil produced.[25] The U.S. domestic production of oil peaked in the early 1970’s,[26] and has been slowly declining ever since, despite increasingly expensive and dangerous efforts to tap deep-water offshore supplies.[27] Additionally, as the oil supplies of the largest exporting nations of conventional oil are controlled by nationally owned oil firms,[28] the U.S. access to these sources is tenuous, as it is inherently dependent on favorable foreign relations with these countries.
In 2003 the U.S. led invasion of Iraq and subsequent removal of Saddam Hussein from power was in part directly related to the country’s need for uninterrupted access to regional conventional oil supplies.[29] Iraq possesses the third highest total of provable conventional oil reserves.[30] In total, Iraq and neighboring Kuwait combine to hold 219 billion or approximately 20% of the world’s conventional provable oil reserves.[31] Therefore, it was thought to be politically desirable for the U.S. to attempt to install a democracy favorable to U.S. interests in that region to ensure unimpeded access to conventional oil supplies. However, despite the continual U.S. military presence,[32] Iraq conventional oil production has not yet been able to return to the output prior to the first Iraq war.[33] Additionally, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost U.S. taxpayers over $1.1 trillion dollars thus far, [34] while neither Iraq nor Afghanistan have been able to stabilize their countries without continued U.S. military assistance.[35] Furthermore, despite a troop surge in Afghanistan,[36] violence hit an all-time high in November of 2010, up 300 percent from 2007,[37] while Afghani public opinion of the U.S. is at an all-time low.[38] For a basis of spending comparison, the 2009 federal economic stimulus package only contained about $100 billion (of the nearly $800 billion spent) in green projects, [39] while China plans to spend $738 billion over the next decade in renewable energy.[40] Clearly, the U.S. is not currently prioritizing its policy decisions around domestic energy development, and is subsequently missing out on an immense opportunity, while wasting precious lives and resources on unwinnable wars. In short, these wars have cost hundreds of thousands of lives,[41] over $1 trillion and have done little to secure future energy supplies, or even stabilize those regions.
Although the U.S. has been successful in transitioning the majority of its oil imports to more politically friendly countries in the Western hemisphere, such as Canada and Mexico, heavy reliance on these countries for oil poses a new set of problems.[42] First, Canada’s oil reserve and oil producing capacity is heavily dependent on the use of tar sands, which are expensive to produce, environmentally disastrous, water intensive, and potentially only capable of producing an extra 3 million barrels per day by 2025 (or less than one-fifth of what the U.S. consumes daily).[43] Second, Mexico’s conventional oil production has been in decline since 2004[44] and proved oil reserves have been declining since 1990.[45] Thus, Mexico cannot be relied upon to meet future U.S. oil needs if our consumption does not decrease. Therefore, due to the overall impact that the U.S. has on world energy consumption, and the fact that world supply of conventional oil will only decrease going forward, it is necessary that the U.S. lead the way with a sustainable energy policy - if the global community is to succeed in successfully addressing the issues of peak oil and climate change.
In order to achieve these broad reaching goals, a new political consensus in the U.S. needs to be achieved; one that transcends current political factions by touching on shared American values and establishes a policy path to a new future, one where all Americans have an opportunity to prosper. This begins with actively engaging those individuals most opposed to substantive change in the energy sector - the Republican Party. However, first, the next section will discuss some of the existing policy options; why they have failed, what can be learned from their failures as well as a recommendation for future policy options.

II. Legislative Solutions: Past, Present, and Future
         A. Past as Prologue
         While there have been some legislative successes in U.S. energy policy, for every minor victory, there has been offsetting economic growth that has hindered the overall goals of reducing fossil fuel consumption and the resulting pollution. For example, although the Clean Air Act is widely considered the most successful of the major environmental statutes passed in the early 1970’s, it still has resulted in 1/3 of the current U.S. population (approximately 100 million people) living in areas where the air quality is in non-attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality standards - levels determined “unsafe” for human health.[46] In another example, in response to the OPEC oil embargo from 1973-1974 (at a time when the U.S. was only importing 35% of its oil as opposed to the 50% it imports now), former Presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter took significant energy conservation steps. During their respective terms, these Presidents established minimum efficiency standards for cars and appliances, lowered the highway speed limit to 55 mp/hr to conserve fuel, and made significant investments in energy efficiency and in solar power. However, although President Carter’s “malaise speech” about energy conservation[47] was initially well received, the public eventually would not support his suggested energy tax increases. Eventually, most of their conservation efforts were essentially disregarded when President Ronald Reagan took office, as he brought with him deregulation of the energy sector and a strong military presence in the Middle East.[48]
The problem with focusing solely on energy efficiency, however, is that it only addresses a symptom of the much larger problem - consumption in America - which is the underlying driver of our energy crisis. However, even if the focus had remained on energy efficiency, that focus would have been slightly misplaced, as efficiency without price signals[49] to change consumption behavior (or conservation behavior) simply allows for more consumption for less cost, as demonstrated by the relative increasing use of energy per person in the U.S. since the 1970’s.[50] The notion that increased efficiency simply results in increased consumption is known as “Jevons paradox” or the “Jevons effect,” in honor of William Stanley Jevons, who in 1865 noted that improvements in fuel efficiency seemed to increase fuel consumption rather than decrease it. Although this effect is often ignored by both economists and environmentalists that tout energy efficiency as a partial cure for our energy consumption problems, empirical studies in the field of ecological economics reveal that energy efficiency alone will never solve our energy dilemma.[51] Thus, without capping our consumption of nonrenewable energy, and the use of energy-intensive products and foods, the U.S. will continue to be increasingly vulnerable to oil prices and the effects of climate change. 
B. Present Failures
            The 111th Congress was supposed to be the moment where the stars aligned for comprehensive energy policy reform. Newly elected President Barrack Obama had run on a renewable energy and green jobs platform and the 2009 stimulus bill had set the ball in motion as renewable and energy efficiency projects received unprecedented federal funding. The Democrats controlled a majority in the House and a super-majority in the Senate. A catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico outraged the public and drew new attention to the dangers of deep-water offshore drilling. However, despite these factors, there has still been a complete failure in Congress to legislate any new long-term energy bill. The one minor victory, the 2009  U.S. House of Representatives passage of the Waxman-Markey “American Clean Energy and Security Act,” (“ACESA”), contained major concessions to both coal and nuclear industries - while barely passing.[52]

            However, the ACESA suffered from similar structural flaws that previous trading programs have faced.[53] The ACESA contained weak near-term reductions in GHGs, with a 17% reduction from 2005 levels by 2020, and a 83% reduction below 2005 levels by 2050.[54] First, there is strong support showing that the initial caps were not correctly set, as recent CO2 emissions trends show the near-term caps were overallocated. A 2009 Energy Information Agency report shows that the U.S. energy related CO2 emissions have already dropped 8.5 percent from 2005 levels.[55] By not demanding enough reductions in the short term, and without any immediate way to adjust the cap, the comprehensive climate bill would have likely fallen victim to the same overallocation problems that have plagued previous cap-and-trade programs, thus not achieving the long-term reductions necessary. Second, the inclusion of international offsets for CO2 emissions would have created another massive regulatory and administrative burden that would have undoubtedly suffered from similar transparency and monitoring problems that unfolded under the Kyoto Protocol.[56] With the potential for international ‘gaming’ of the system, and the inherent difficulties of monitoring 1 billion international offsets as allocated by the act,[57] it is unlikely that it would have created a better than a business as usual scenario.

             On the Senate side, the Kerry-Lieberman legislation was similarly structurally flawed, yet with a super majority requirement for floor debate, the bill never even made it to the floor. Despite their inclusion of industry leaders in the bill drafting process, Kerry and Lieberman failed to satisfy Senate Republicans (who felt the bill would hurt the economy), and many Democrats (who felt that there were too many concessions in the bill favoring coal and nuclear).[58] The result is that the American people are left with a short-term boost to renewable development and energy efficiency programs through the provisions in the 2009 stimulus package, but no long-term federal incentives that will be necessary to keep the renewable energy market cost competitive, creating jobs, and changing how the U.S. consumes energy.

            Inherent in the failure of these two bills, is the underlying vulnerability of our economy to fluctuations in energy prices, a problem that has been unresolved since the 1970’s. 70% of our GDP is based on consumer spending[59] and the economy needs to grow at a rate unprecedented since the early 1950’s to employ new entrants to the job market as well as those who lost their jobs in the current recession.[60] Moreover, our income and wealth distribution are incredibly stratified, with the top 1% of earners (approximately 3 million people) making more than the bottom 50% combined (150 million people).[61] The average American citizen has $43,874 in debt[62] while the median household income is only $52,029.[63] Furthermore, energy price increases disproportionately affect the middle and lower classes as they have the least disposable income.

            Thus, under our current economic structure, unless we keep consuming, the GDP will not grow, jobs will not be created, and our debt-based economy will collapse under loan defaults. Therefore, finding a way to avoid the lower and middle classes bearing the lion’s share of the burden of higher energy prices, as well as creating long-term incentives to rebuild our manufacturing job base through the production of renewable energy sources, will have to be central features of any successful comprehensive energy policy.
            C. Future Solutions
After the failure of the comprehensive cap-and-trade bills, many commentators and politicians have noted that perhaps more of a piecemeal approach will be necessary.[62][63] A piecemeal approach, unlike comprehensive legislation, could potentially remedy some of the flaws in the political process that have plagued prior efforts. By passing legislation in small chunks, it would be easier for legislators to avoid incurring the lobbying wrath of 12,488 registered lobbyists in D.C.[64] Although a piecemeal approach would be an incomplete start to what would eventually have to be legislated to achieve the GHG reductions necessary to match up with climate science, this approach seems to be the path of least resistance at the moment. First, at a minimum, there will need to be a utility only cap-and-trade program. The electricity generating sector accounts for 41% of total greenhouse gas emissions[65] and as the country moves towards more electric vehicles to reduce its oil dependence, the electric grid will play potentially play an ever-increasing role in the total U.S. GHG emissions. Thus, capping emissions on the electricity grid will ensure that all future electricity generation will only come from sources with less GHG emissions such as renewables or natural gas. A utility only cap-and-trade system was discussed in the Senate during the 111th Congress and did receive some bipartisan support,[66] but as with the Kerry-Lieberman proposal, it did not make it to a Senate floor debate. Central to the success of any future cap-and-trade proposal is that initial allowances must be auctioned rather than handed out for free, as an allowance auction would raise revenue to offset increases in utility bills for middle-lower income consumers.
Second, any future legislation needs to be paired with strong federal goals to reduce oil consumption. There are a variety of policy tools at the legislatures disposal including: (1) raising CAFE standards on automobiles in a tiered fashion with attainable yet extremely progressive goals; (2) a tax and dividend scheme at the pump, which would increase gasoline taxes, the revenues of which could be earmarked to provide tax credits or rebates to purchasers of vehicles with a miles per gallon standard that would increase over time; (3) develop and implement a federal plan for high-speed rail both for commercial and passenger transit to reorganize the way our infrastructure ships transports goods; and (4) federally mandate and setup federal block grant loan programs to develop affordable, reliable, and comprehensive public transportation systems for all major metropolitan areas.
Lastly, with a cap on utilities, and rising energy rates, it would be necessary to further incentivize energy efficiency from the federal level. Although the energy efficiency and conservation block grant program (EECBG) was one of the success stories of the 2009 stimulus package, there is still much work to be done in making U.S. commercial buildings and homes more energy efficient. Using Denmark, an international leader in energy efficiency, as an example, the U.S. could duplicate some of their policy choices including: (1) requiring labeling of energy use all houses when they are sold; (2) strengthening regional building codes to require more efficient homes and buildings; (3) revolving loan funds at the state level to provide energy efficiency retrofits for low-income housing that pays upfront cost and then charges consumers on a monthly basis through their normal electricity bill.
However, for any of these policies choices to succeed, a new political consensus will need to be built at the federal level. This will require effective messaging of the importance of long-term energy policy strategy as vital to the U.S.’s economic and national security interests. Likewise, the messaging must transcend party lines and focus instead upon shared values. The remainder of this paper will be devoted to addressing the key constituencies that make up the Republican party that must be energized and motivated to generate upward political pressure for substantive change.

[1] International Energy Agency, (World production of conventional oil peaked in 2006), http://www.iea.org/speech/2010/Tanaka/WEO2010Washington.pdf, (retrieved December 4, 2010).
[2] IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers (2007), “Causes of Change”, International Panel on Climate Change, (Noting that there is a “very high confidence” that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.) http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html, (retrieved December 4, 2010).
[3] Nuclear Information and Resource Service, “Yucca Mountain: No Place for Nuclear Waste”, http://www.nirs.org/radwaste/yucca/yuccaltrbycorbin102400.htm, (retrieved December 13, 2010).
[4] Gross, Daniel, Slate, “The dangerous new era of extreme energy,” http://www.slate.com/id/2255906/, (retrieved December 13, 2010).
[5] Klare, Michael, “Resource Wars: The new landscape of global conflict”, pg. 8, (“The uninterrupted flow of energy supplies is especially critical; as the world’s leading consumer of oil and gas, the United States must retain access to overseas supplies or its entire economy will face collapse.”).
[6] Anderegg, William, “97% of top climate researchers agree on the anthropogenic nature of climate change,” http://news.stanford.edu/pr/2010/pr-climate-change-doubters-062510.html, (retrieved December 4, 2010) Letter to the U.S. Congress from 18 scientific organizations to U.S. Congress, http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/media/1021climate_letter.pdf, (retrieved December 4, 2010).
[7] Gallup Polls, “Americans’ Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop,” March 11, 2010, http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/Americans-Global-Warming-Concerns-Continue-Drop.aspx, (retrieved December 13, 2010).
[8] Johnson, Brad, Think Progress, “Amid Army of GOP Denies Vying for Senate Seats only Mike Castle Supports Climate Action, http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/13/gop-senate-deniers/, (retrieved December 4, 2010).
[9] Bush, George W., State of the Union Address, Jan. 31, 2006, “America is addicted to foreign oil” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013101468.html, (retrieved December 12, 2010), Obama, Barrack, White House Energy and the Environment, (“Our addiction to foreign oil and fossil fuels puts our economy, our national security and our environment at risk.”)(Thus, each of the last two presidents, one Republican, one Democrat have consistently addressed the necessity of dealing with our oil demand problem.) http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/energy-and-environment, (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[10] IPCC, supra, note 2, “Global increases in CO2 concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use.”
[11] Union of Concerned Scientists, “Each Country’s Share of CO2 Emissions”, (Using data obtained from the Energy Information Agency.) http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html, (retrieved December 4, 2010).
[12] Energy Information Agency, EIA 2010 International Energy Outlook, Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions. (“From 2006 to 2007, total energy-related carbon dioxide emissions from non-OECD countries grew by 4.9 percent, while emissions from OECD countries increased by 1.0 percent.”) http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html, (retrieved December 4, 2010). [herein after EIA]
[13] EIA, U.S. Carbon Emissions in 2009: A Retrospective Review, (U.S. CO2 emissions have actually been declining overall since 2005, we are already a total of 8.5% below 2005 numbers) http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/environment/emissions/carbon/index.html, (retrieved August 2, 2010.)
[14] St. James Palace Nobel Laureate Symposium, “Action for a Low Carbon and Equitable Future”, http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/files/sjp-memorandum.pdf, (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[15] IPCC, supra, note 2.
[16] Id. at chapter 10, Table 10.8.
[17] RTE News “Nations agree on a climate deal” (Almost two hundred countries have reached a deal to help combat climate change, including a new fund to help poor nations.) http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1211/climate.html, (retrieved December 10, 2010).
[18] Porter, Andrew, The Telegraph, “China and America to blame for Copenhagen failure, says Brown.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6859567/Gordon-Brown-Copenhagen-China.html . (“If America and China were able to show that they were doing more, and I believe that they could, then all countries - Australia, Brazil, Japan, Korea - all these countries that have got ranges would be prepared to go to their highest level of ambition.” Quoting British prime minister Gordon Brown.) (retrieved December 4, 2010), see also CBC News, “U.S. to blame for climate summit failure: Gore.” (“The United States deserves much of the blame for the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit after it turned its back on a little-known offer from China, former U.S. vice-president Al Gore said Thursday.”) http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/04/22/mtl-gore-millenium-summit.html (retrieved December 4, 2010).
[19] Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, http://www.rggi.org/home, (retrieved December 12, 2010)., California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, Cap-and-Trade, (The New England region as well as West Coast states have initiated regional cap-and-trade programs without federal support).http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm, (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[20] EIA supra, note 13.
[21] Prins, Gwyn and Rayner, Steve (2007) Time to ditch Kyoto. Nature, 449 (7165). pp. 973-976.
[22] EIA, “Country Energy Profiles,” (In 2008, the U.S. consumed approximately 19,498,000 barrel of oil per day. This is more than double the consumption of China (7,831,000), and more than the entire European Union (13,680,000, 2007 est)), https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html. (retrieved December 4, 2010).
[23] Id.
[24] EIA, “Short Term Energy Outlook”, (U.S. imports 9.67 mb/d of total liquid fuels more than we produce.) http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/cf_tables/steotables.cfm?tableNumber=9, (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[25] EIA, Oil: Crude and Petroleum Products – Energy Explained, Your Guide to Understanding Energy (US Petroleum Consumption 18,771,000 barrels/day, World Production 84,365,095 barrels/day.) http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_home#tab2 , (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[26] EIA, “U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousands of Barrels per Day).” http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=M, (retrieved December 4, 2010).
[27] National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, “Deepwater Horizon/BP Oil Response”, (see generally, Deepwater Horizon spill, worst in U.S. history) http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/dwh.php?entry_id=809, (retrieved December 12, 2010)
[28] The Economist, “National oil companies: Really Big Oil”, (Nationally owned companies own 90% of the world’s oil) http://www.economist.com/node/7276986?story_id=7276986, (retrieved December 4, 2010).
[29] Klare, supra, note 5.
[30] EIA, “Provable World Oil Reserves,” http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/crudeoilreserves.xls, (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[31] Id.
[32] ABC News, “US Forces Still in Fight at End of Combat Mission” (As of September 2, there are still nearly 50,000 combat troops in Iraq, who are still dealing with violence on a daily basis). http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=11530832, (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[33] EIA, “Table 11.5 World Crude Oil Production, 1960-2009”, http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb1105.html, retrieved December 12, 2010.
[34] Congressional Research Service, “The Cost of the Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11.” (“Congress has approved a total of $1.121 trillion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks”) http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf, (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[35] Jane’s Sentinel Country Risk, (Afghansitan ranked as #3 least stable country, Iraq as number 22, despite U.S. military presence). http://www.janes.com/news/security/countryrisk/, (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[36] Tiron, Roxanna, The Hill, “CBO: Troop surge in Afghanistan to cost $36 billion over the next 3 years.” http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/77619-cbo-troop-surge-to-cost-36-billion-over-three-years, (retrieved December 4, 2010).
[37] Ryan, Missy, Reuters News Service, “Afghan violence soars, insurgency expanding,” http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AM5WB20101123, (retrieved December 4, 2010).
[38] Global Post, “Afghanistan War: Public opinion turns sharply against the US forces” (Poll conducted by the Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research, showed that only 6% of Afghani people view the U.S. “very favorably”, only slightly better than the 2% that Osama Bin Laden received.) http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/afghanistan/101208/afghanistan-war-us-troops-counterinsurgency-public-opinion (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[39] Hargreaves, Steve, CNN, “The ‘green share of the stimulus,” http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/04/news/economy/green_stimulus/, (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[40] Ying, Wang, Bloomberg News, “China may spend about $738 Billion on clean energy projects in the next decade.” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-20/china-may-spend-about-738-billion-on-clean-energy-projects-in-next-decade.html, (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[41] The Washington Post, “Faces of the Fallen: Iraq and Afghanistan Casualties”. (The U.S. has lost 5,829 soldiers in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom combined.) http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/ (retrieved December 12, 2010). Just Foreign Policy, “Iraq Deaths” (Based off the main study published in the medical journal The Lancet, as of 2006 it was estimated that over 600,000 Iraq civilians have died as result of the invasion. Iraqbodycount.com estimates 99,025-108,102 civilian deaths) http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[42] EIA, “EIA’s Energy in Brief: How dependent are we on foreign oil?”(Mexico and Canada combine for 32% of the U.S. total oil and petroleum product imports), http://www.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm, (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[43] King, Byron G., Money Week, “Are Canadian tar sand the answer to our oil needs?” http://www.moneyweek.com/investments/commodities/are-canadian-tar-sands-the-answer-to-our-oil-needs.aspx, (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[44] EIA, “International Energy Statistics,” http://tonto.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=53&aid=1&cid=regions&syid=1989&eyid=2010&unit=TBPD, (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[45] EIA, E“International Energy Statistics,” http://tonto.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=57&aid=6&cid=MX,&syid=1985&eyid=2010&unit=BB, (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[51] Alcott, Blake, “Jevons Paradox.” Ecological Economics, Vol.54 p9-21 (2005).
[52] U.S. EPA, Economic Analyses, Climate Change, Executive Summary, Waxman-Markey Draft, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/pdfs/WaxmanMarkeyExecutiveSummary.pdf, (last visited, August 2, 2010).
[53] Lesley K. McAllister, The Over Allocation Problem in Cap-and-Trade: Moving toward Stringency, 34 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 395, 396 (2009).
[54] Id.
[55] see note 13, supra.
[56] David G. Victor, The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming, http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s7029.pdf (last visited August 2, 2010.).
[57] Id.
[58] Lizza, Ryan, The New Yorker, “As the World Burns: How the Senate and the White House missed the best chance to deal with Climate Change.” http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_lizza, (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[59] Maiello, Michael, Forbes Magazine Online, “GDP and the Hamptons”, http://www.forbes.com/2009/09/08/gdp-consumer-spending-intelligent-investing-hamptons.html, (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[60] Shierholz, Heidi, Economic Policy Institute, “Signs of healing in the labor market although unemployment remains in the double digits,” http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/signs_of_healing_in_the_labor_market_though_unemployment_remains_in_double_/ . (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[61] PoliticFact.com, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/10/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-viral-speech-says-top-1-percent-ear/, (retrieved December 14, 2010).
[62] Whitehouse, Mark, Wall St. Journal Online, “Americans Pare Debt,” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703625304575115672827553404.html, (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[63] U.S. Census Bureau, “USA Quick Facts from US Census Bureau”, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
[64] Geman, Ben, The Hill, Reid: Next climate bill should be ‘piecemeal’”, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/117555-reid-next-climate-bill-should-be-piecemeal, (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[65] Roberts, Dave, Grist, “Is a utility-only cap-and-trade bill worth passing?” (“At this point, however, the question may no longer be whether a comprehensive bill is preferable to a utility-only bill, but whether a utility-only bill is preferable to the energy-only bill the Senate seems bent on passing. Judged against that somewhat pathetic baseline, it is, in fact, preferable.”) http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-21-is-a-utility-only-cap-and-trade-bill-worth-passing/ , (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[66] OpenSecrets, “Lobbying Database”, http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/, (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[67] EPA Climate Change FAQ sheet, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html, (retrieved December 12, 2010).
[68] New York Times, “Senate Climate Bill’s Boosters try a Smorgasbord Strategy in Bid for Votes,” http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/06/09/09greenwire-senate-climate-bills-boosters-try-smorgasbord-68212.html?pagewanted=all, (Sen. Linsey Graham, originally a cosponsor of the Kerry-Lieberman legistlation, removed his name after a debate with Sen. Harry Reid over bringing immigration policy reform prior to the energy legislation that he had spent 9 months working on.) (retrieved December 12, 2010). Politico, “Bingaman eyes utility-only approach to climate bill”, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39669.html (“The Bingaman legislation focuses on power plants, which produce about one-third of the nation’s annual emissions, but also includes provisions allowing energy-intensive manufacturers to sign up after 2011 if they want to gain regulatory certainty on climate change rather than face the prospect of new Environmental Protection Agency rules.”)

Sphere: Related Content


Post a Comment