If global warming proceeds unchecked, we can expect harsher storms to damage our coastal cities. Declining snowpack and changing snowmelt patterns threaten our hydropower system. Increasingly severe fires threaten our forests. Salmon, which need cold water, are already at risk. Our signature crops, such as the grapes used to make Pinot Noir, will no longer flourish in Oregon in a changed climate.
How do we prevent global warming? The answer is as simple as how we ourselves get in shape--"eat less and exercise more." Or in terms of our energy agenda: "conservation and renewables." Use less energy, overall; use it more efficiently; produce more of it from renewable sources. It won't be easy - but it is fairly straightforward.
And doing so will, in the long run, cost us less than the costs of coping with the always intensifying impacts of global warming.
It's important to understand the starting point. Right now, the United States, with 5% of the world's population, produces 25% of the greenhouse gases. We have a moral obligation to lead on this issue. And a practical one: the rest of the planet understands there's no point to taking difficult actions if the U.S. is not a participant.
Automobiles are definitely responsible for a lot of the problem: about 30% of fossil fuel carbon emissions come from the transportation sector. But another 30% are from industry, and 40% from buildings - more precisely, heating and cooling in buildings, doing laundry in buildings, running computers in buildings, etc.
Most of our nation's electricity comes from burning fossil fuels. About half (nationwide) comes from coal - a huge source of greenhouse gases. About 20% comes from natural gas - which is somewhat less carbon-intensive (i.e., better) than coal, but still a fossil fuel. Another 20% comes from nuclear plants, which do not produce greenhouse gases, but of course raise other concerns. Hydropower (much of it in the Northwest) represents about 7%. Other renewable sources, such as wind and solar, now provide just a tiny fraction of our power.
Scientists warn that to prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change, we need to reduce our carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. That's a tall order, and it will require a multi-pronged offensive to achieve those reductions. Here are some of the steps we (and the rest of the world) need to take:
Conservation - Transportation
Require more fuel-efficient cars. Congress has recently passed tougher fuel-efficiency standards. That's good. They'll need to get tougher. The federal government might help by entering into research partnerships with the automakers to develop ever more efficient vehicles (for example, looking for ways to make cars out of lighter materials). It might help also by granting EPA waivers to Oregon, California and the dozen or more other States that have now adopted tougher state emissions standards for new cars.
Some point to electric cars as a solution. But if the electricity comes from coal, we've just shifted cars from one fossil fuel to another. That would reduce dependence on foreign oil, but wouldn't stop global warming. If and when we make dramatic strides in renewable energy production, electric cars will help prevent global warming. More immediately, as discussed below, we should explore various forms of biofuels (making sure the biofuels we choose aren't emitting more carbon emissions from production than they are displacing).
Reduce driving through better planning and more mass transit. The federal government should shift transportation funding dollars into buses, subways, high-speed rail, and light rail. Federal and state transportation dollars should be awarded for solutions that result in the lowest overall carbon emissions. For example, we should be giving more transportation funding to states and localities that promote ‘smart growth' - planning to ensure that people live closer to their jobs, to reduce driving, and to discourage sprawl.
Conservation - Buildings
The consulting firm McKinsey & Co. recently issued a report, commissioned by both environmental and industry groups, which found that the United States could reduce carbon emissions by 28% largely by building more energy-efficient buildings. The report said that although they may have higher up-front costs, these buildings ultimately pay for themselves through reduced energy costs.
States and localities can promote energy conservation through strict building codes that require energy efficiency. The federal government should use financial carrots and sticks (such as, again, adjusting transportation funding formulas to reward good behavior) to push states and localities in the right direction.
Conservation - Home Lighting and Appliances
The new Democratic Congress has already taken steps to phase out old-fashioned light bulbs and adopt tighter energy efficiency standards for appliances, like water heaters and washing machines. We should build on that progress.
Renewables - Wind
According to some estimates by respected experts, wind power could eventually provide up to 20% of electricity in America. Oregon has already developed a great deal of wind power, and should continue doing so. But for the country as a whole to meet that 20% target, we will have to take full advantage of the power potential in the big, windy states in the middle of the country, like Wyoming and the Dakotas. That means, among other things, that the federal government will need to build new power transmission lines, from those very rural states to power-hungry population centers.
Renewables - Waves
According to other estimates, wave energy could eventually produce up to 5 or 10% of America's electricity. We should step up our investment in wave energy research and development - which of course would benefit Oregon, because we happen to have access to waves. At the same time, we should take care to ensure that wave energy facilities are designed so as to minimize any impact on fisheries.
Renewables - Solar
Right now, solar power is not cost competitive on a mass scale. But many big brains in the energy field believe that solar is THE potential breakthrough technology. If we invest billions of dollars and our brightest minds in the ‘search for solar,' we might see cost-competitive solar power within the next five to ten years, and expect to be generating 50% of our electricity in 50 years. Given the limitations on other renewable sources - as noted above, nobody expects either wind or wave energy to provide a majority of our power - it is imperative that we launch a solar energy ‘Manhattan Project' as soon as possible.
A January 2008 Scientific American article outlines a $420 billion plan to make solar the source of 69% of America's electricity by 2050. The plan calls for a combination of price supports, erecting a vast array of photovoltaic cells in the Southwest, building a series of concentrated solar power plants, developing new power storage facilities, and building a new nationwide transmission system. Although the specifics of the plan may be subject to debate, it represents the kind of ‘big thinking' we need to engage in. And $420 billion, while a lot of money, is less than we have already spent on the war in Iraq - and, on an annual basis through 2050, is a small fraction of the federal budget. However, it is real money. That's one of the reasons why I, unlike either of my major opponents in this election, have acknowledged that we need to look seriously at the federal budget and make the tough choices to bring our fiscal house in order.
Renewables - Biofuels
Although it won't happen overnight, we can reduce dependence on foreign oil and carbon emissions, too, if we start generating electricity and running cars on biofuels. Replacing oil with corn ethanol would help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and somewhat reduce our carbon emissions (according to some estimates, corm ethanol, as a fuel, is 20% less carbon intensive than oil). But researchers believe that ethanol from other sources - such as hybrid poplar trees, grown right here in Oregon, and wood waste from forest thinning, right here in Oregon - could be significantly more carbon-efficient. Research in this area, with governments partnering with the private sector, should be stepped up.
Carbon Sequestration
Some smart people believe that we can capture the carbon emissions from coal plants and store them permanently underground, in a process called ‘carbon sequestration.' If that is truly possible, it could have a big impact on carbon emissions. But it will take a major research effort to determine if large-scale sequestration is feasible. Howard Herzog of MIT, an advocate of this approach, thinks that the price tag on this research is about $1 billion a year over eight to ten years. Given that coal provides 50% of our electricity, and it will be quite a challenge to replace coal power with all-renewable power in a short period of time, that's an investment worth making.
Foreign Trade: Tax Carbon-Intensive Imports
In recent years, we have, in effect, exported a lot of our carbon emissions to China, as carbon-intensive manufacturing has moved to China, which exports products back to us. Some worry that if the United States adopted strict carbon emissions standards and China did not, it would simply accelerate the process of exporting both jobs and pollution. (Gordon Smith has expressed a version of this concern.) The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) has proposed that if and when we adopt tough carbon standards, if other countries do not, we should impose a ‘carbon tax' on products from those countries designed to reflect the difference between their standards and ours. I believe IBEW has the right idea.
"Cap-and-trade": A tool, not a talisman
One method for reducing carbon emissions is to adopt a "cap and trade" system. These systems (to simplify a complex concept) cap the overall amount of carbon emissions and require fossil fuel producers to meet those reduced emissions levels or pay a price for the excess carbon they (or their products) emit.
The idea of a cap-and-trade system - and it is a powerful one - is to harness the power of the market to provide incentives for conservation and investment in renewables. One concern I have about such a system, however, is that, without other government efforts to directly promote conservation and renewables, a cap-and-trade system could simply drive up the cost of energy for low- and middle-income people. In effect, it could become a regressive tax increase. So although I still think a cap-and-trade system is a good idea, it is only part of the solution, and would require careful monitoring. One good option is rolling revenues back into energy efficiency investments targeted to consumers. It saves ratepayer dollars, conserves energy and reduces carbon emissions simultaneously. Other complementary programs and regulatory tools will also be needed such as better auto fuel efficiency standards.
An End to Political Manipulation on Environmental Decisions
As a lawyer at the Justice Department, I spent eight years fighting to clean up our air and water. In the U.S. Senate I'll keep up that fight. Too often in recent years, that work has been hijacked by the special interests and ideologues in the Bush administration riding roughshod over scientific data to protect big polluters. Our fishing industry on the southern coast is struggling to survive in part because Gordon Smith and Dick Cheney chose favorites with Klamath River water - pitting farmers against fisherman, tribal nations and conservationists--and disregarding the evidence that such diversions would cause a massive fish die-off. The manipulation of scientific data and government reports by political appointees must end. And we must stop the revolving door that has put industry lobbyists in charge of protecting our natural resources.Sustainable Practices that Protect Jobs and Our Ancient Forests
I think that those of us who call ourselves environmentalists have to recognize that in the past, some environmentalists have seemed insensitive to the loss of family-wage timber jobs, and adopted a rigid religious opposition to timber harvest. But today, even the greenest of the green, such as longtime environmental activist Andy Kerr, have come around to the notion that in some forests, "a thick and undesirable understory of small, young trees ... pose a significant fire hazard." Kerr has written that, "Logging for ecological restoration will produce much less timber than was historically removed from federal forests, but significantly more timber than has been removed in recent years."
It is true that thinning small trees while preserving large old-growth trees will not produce as much revenue as sales that include old growth. And some mills are not equipped to handle small-diameter trees. But that doesn't mean that you fail to take action, and doesn't mean that you have to ‘sweeten the pot' for timber companies by cutting old growth. In some cases, the federal government may have to pay timber companies to do the thinning. And the government should consider offering mills financial assistance to help them modernize and accommodate smaller logs. In the Senate, I will fight for federal assistance to help Oregon's timber industry adapt their operations for these smaller logs.
In addition, I will push hard for a strong investment in cellulosic ethanol research - literally turning our trees and undergrowth into biofuels. Oregon has an opportunity to become a global leader in this emerging renewable energy source, but we must invest now to develop a cost-competitive process for producing these fuels.
Restore the "Polluter Pays" Principle to Superfund Cleanup
When Congress passed the Superfund, they required the oil and chemical industries to pay a tax to help pay for toxic waste cleanups. The law says that when individual polluters responsible for specific sites can be identified and held responsible, they pay the bill. But the oil and chemical tax payments into the Superfund played two important roles. In cases where the individual responsible polluters could not be found, or had no assets, the Superfund revenue paid for cleanup. And in every case, the Superfund pays for the initial investigation and government studies needed to determine the responsible parties.
But since 1995 Republicans have repeatedly blocked the reauthorization of the oil and chemical taxes, leading the Trust Fund to go bankrupt in 2003. This leaves the oil industry almost completely off the hook for Superfund cleanups, because something called the ‘petroleum exclusion' largely exempts oil companies from site-specific liability. Now, Superfund cleanups that are not funded by site-specific responsible parties are paid for by general tax revenues, competing with other priorities like health care and education. It is my pledge to secure reauthorization of funding for the federal Superfund Trust Fund - restoring the ‘polluter pays' principle on which Superfund was established.
