53407579.

doc Page 1 of 6

Obama and Clinton plan to cool it

Earth, that is. Our energy expert cracks open the Democratic
candidates' proposals on global warming -- and is impressed.
By Joseph Romm

Mar. 15, 2008 | The most important call for the next president won't come at 3 a.m.,
and it won't involve military security.
The gravest threat to the American way of life is posed by unrestricted greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions. Global warming threatens to put the Southwest into a
permanent drought, raise sea levels by 6 or more inches a decade, generate
hundreds of millions of environmental refugees at home and abroad, wipe out half
the planet's species, and increase average temperatures in the nation's interior 10-
20 degrees Fahrenheit. And these impacts would likely get steadily worse for
hundreds of years or longer.
No enemy, foreign or domestic, poses a threat to us that is so devastating, so
irreversible. Top climate scientists tell us the threat might be all but unstoppable if
the nation and the world don't take serious steps over the next decade to restrict
GHG emissions. For all the urgent crises the next president has to deal with in the
middle of the night, the most important calls he or she will have to make concern
how to stop global warming.
We've seen that a President McCain is not likely to be the leader this country and the
world need to maintain the planet's livability for our children and the next 50
generations. What about a President Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? Both would be
a giant step forward. Unlike McCain, they have both put out detailed and
comprehensive plans. (Obama's is here. Clinton's is here.) Although you wouldn't
know it from the media coverage, these plans are more important to the long-term
health and well-being of future generations than the candidates' healthcare or Iraq
plans.
Before I look in depth at them, the first thing to make clear is that no president, not
even a modern-day Lincoln or FDR, could possibly stop global warming even by their
second term. The increase in concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases is
primarily what determines how much humans will increase the planet's temperature.
To stop concentrations from rising further, the entire planet will have to reduce total
annual emissions at least 60 percent or more from current levels, including carbon
dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. Absent a World War II-type mobilization,
that kind of dramatic change in the planet's energy system will take a few decades.
Even when concentrations stop rising, global temperatures will continue to increase
for many decades because it takes a long time for the planet's temperature to come
into equilibrium with any new level of GHG concentrations. Ultimately, by 2100, we
will probably need net human GHG emissions to be close to zero, if not negative, to
avert catastrophe. We can't stop global warming in the next decade.
Humanity's great challenge is to stop the warming before we cross key thresholds or
tipping points, in which amplifying feedbacks in the carbon cycle start to seriously
kick in and overwhelm human efforts to reduce emissions. A typical feedback would
be the melting of the permafrost or tundra, which currently has locked away some
1,000 gigatons of carbon -- more carbon than the atmosphere is holding today.
53407579.doc Page 2 of 6

If the permafrost stops being perma, that would release tens of billions of tons of
carbon into the atmosphere, much of it in the form of methane -- a much more
potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. That, in turn, would speed the
temperature increase and the thaw of additional permafrost. In short, passing such a
tipping point would set the planet on an all-but-unstoppable path to high
concentrations of GHGs, destroying the planet's livability for centuries if not
millennia, according to the latest research.
So we must sharply reduce emissions even as the population keeps growing, and do
it in a way that increases, rather than hinders, economic development, particularly in
undeveloped nations already wracked by poverty, disease, dirty water, hunger and
other scourges.
This necessitates deploying all existing or near-term clean energy technologies today
as rapidly as possibly, while shutting down or capturing the emissions of at least half
of the dirty technologies. At the same time, we must accelerate the development and
introduction of the next generation of clean technologies, which can ultimately take
global emissions as low as possible by century's end.
A mandatory GHG control system that establishes a price for carbon dioxide
emissions, such as a cap-and-trade system, is necessary. Both Clinton and Obama
endorse a cap-and-trade system, requiring an 80 percent reduction in U.S. GHGs by
2050 compared to 1990 levels, much deeper than McCain has so far endorsed and
close to what is currently believed necessary for our country and planet. Recently,
McCain has also begun waffling about just how "mandatory" his program would be.
Voluntary caps don't work and must be rejected.
Yet cap and trade is not enough. The next president has a great many important calls
to make:

•  Appoint judges who will uphold laws to reduce emissions against

challenges from the big polluters.
•  Appoint leaders and staff of key federal agencies who take climate
change seriously and believe in the necessary solutions.

•  Embrace an aggressive and broad-based technology deployment

strategy to keep the cost of the cap-and-trade system as low as possible.
•  Lead a change in utility regulations to encourage, rather than
discourage, energy efficiency and clean energy.

•  Offer strong public advocacy to reverse the years of muzzling and

misinformation of the Bush administration.
McCain is unlikely to do any of these five things. Obama and Clinton are likely to do
them all. In particular, at least from my perspective as a former Energy Department
official, the most important news is that both of them understand the necessity of the
technology side.
Obama's plan states:
"Barack Obama will use some of the revenue generated from the cap-
and-trade permit auction to invest in climate-friendly energy
development and development. This will transform the economy and
create millions of new jobs. Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years
to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure,
accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote
development of commercial scale renewable energy, invest in low
emissions coal plants, and begin transition to a new digital electricity
grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that
53407579.doc Page 3 of 6

technologies that are developed in the U.S. are rapidly commercialized

in the U.S. and deployed around the globe.
Both candidates also understand the importance of, as Clinton's plan explains it,
"Changing the Way Utilities Do Business":
"The current model for electric and natural gas utilities puts customers
and utilities at odds on efficiency investments. Consumers benefit by
spending less on electricity, while utilities actually lose money from
every electron or cubic foot of gas saved through energy efficiency. As a
result, utilities lack incentives to implement programs that would reduce
demand, even if those efficiency programs are more cost-effective than
building new power plants. Breaking this model would enable consumers
and utilities to share in the benefits of efficiency, and when combined
with a requirement that utilities take steps to reduce demand, would
unleash tens of billions of dollars of investments in energy efficiency
technology. To put this process in motion, Hillary would set binding
energy efficiency targets for utilities at the national level. She would
then encourage states to establish rate rules for utilities that both
decouple electricity sales from utility profits and enable utilities to profit
from investments in energy efficiency."
Both Clinton and Obama understand the current electric grid is too antiquated to
capture all the opportunities for clean technology, such as distributed power, real-
time energy management and plug-in hybrids. So both propose to create a Smart
Grid. Obama explains:
"... our energy grid is outdated and inefficient, resulting in $50-$100
billion losses to the U.S. economy each year. The 2003 East Coast
blackout alone resulted in a $10 billion economic loss ... Obama will
invest federal money to leverage additional state and private sector
funds to help create a digitally connected power grid. Creating a smart
grid will also help insulate against terrorism concerns because our grid
today is virtually unprotected from terrorists. Installing a smart grid will
help consumers produce electricity at home through solar panels or wind
turbines, and be able to sell electricity back through the grid for other
consumers, and help consumers reduce their energy use during peak
hours when electricity is more expensive."
Clinton would even fund 10 "Smart Grid Cities," public-and private partnerships to
deploy smart grid technology and plug-in hybrid vehicles on a large scale, to test and
refine the possibility that plug-ins could communicate with the smart grid to sell
power back to utilities when utilities most need it. Her plan notes, "Some experts
believe that providing such 'vehicle to grid' power at times when the utilities need it
most could be worth $2,000-4,000 dollars per vehicle per year, slashing the cost of
owning a plug-in hybrid."
Yes, Clinton or Obama -- and their advisors -- have thought through the climate issue
a great deal, including how to overcome the traditional barriers to residential energy
efficiency. Clinton points out:
"Builders often neglect to make energy efficient investments because
they add to the purchase price, even though they save money down the
road. As President, Hillary will establish a 'Carbon Reduction Mortgage
Association,' or 'Connie Mae,' by directing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
to facilitate the origination of energy efficiency improvement loans in
order to subsidize the additional costs of investing in energy efficiency
from the outset ... The energy bill savings will ultimately offset the cost
53407579.doc Page 4 of 6

of the loan ... The program will target lower and middle-income
homebuyers."
Clinton and Obama have aggressive efforts to boost vehicle fuel economy and shift
the country to alternative fuels. You might be worried that this would mean a big
jump in corn ethanol or maybe liquid coal, based on the fact that each of the
candidates has, in recent years, lent support to both of those ideas. But the strong
cap on carbon emissions will render those energy sources uneconomic. Also, Obama
"will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard to speed the introduction of low-
carbon non-petroleum fuels. The standard, which Obama introduced in the U.S.
Senate with Tom Harkin (D-IA), requires fuels suppliers to reduce the carbon their
fuel emits by ten percent by 2020." That would be fatal to liquid coal and drive fuels
toward low-carbon sources, such as cellulosic ethanol.
And Obama and Clinton would both take steps to ensure that U.S. car companies
would have the financial strength to meet any new regulations. The Clinton campaign
states:
"Hillary would authorize $20 billion in low-interest 'Green Vehicle Bonds'
in order to provide immediate help to retool the oldest auto plants to
meet her strong efficiency standards. She will address retiree health
legacy costs by providing a tax credit for qualifying private and public
retiree health plans to offset a significant portion of catastrophic
expenditures that exceed a certain threshold."
Both recognize that solving the climate problem requires commitments from the
large developing-country emitters. So, along with a commitment to reverse Bush
policy and reengage with the U.N. climate process, both would create a new, more
focused international forum. Says the Obama campaign:
"Obama will build on our domestic commitments by creating a
negotiating process that involves a smaller number of countries than the
nearly 200 countries in the current Kyoto system. Obama will create a
Global Energy Forum -- based on the G8+5, which included all G-8
members plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa -- of the
world's largest emitters to focus exclusively on global energy and
environmental issues."
Perhaps most important, both Clinton and Obama have said they will bring urgency
from the very top of their administrations to the enormous energy problem. Clinton
promises:
"She will create a National Energy Council modeled on the National
Economic Council and the National Security Council. This new body will
bring together disparate agencies in the federal government to put
everyone on the same page and ensure that we all have the same
priorities -- much like the National Economic Council does for the
economy. The National Energy Council would be headed by a National
Energy Advisor who reports directly to the President, and who is charged
with coordinating the implementation of Hilary's energy and climate
agenda across the Executive Branch."
Obama said in early February he would start working on a global climate effort as
soon as he becomes the Democratic nominee (which at the time he probably thought
would have happened already): "I've been in conversations with former Vice
President (Al) Gore repeatedly, and his recommendation, which I think is sound, is
that you can't wait until you are sworn into office to get started ... I think we need to
start reaching out to other countries ahead of time, not because I'm presumptuous,
but because there's such a sense of urgency about this."
53407579.doc Page 5 of 6

Clinton and Obama understand this is not just about the environment, but also about
jobs. Both have a clean-energy jobs training program. As Clinton describes hers, "The
program would target at-risk youth, veterans, displaced workers, and would teach
them skills to install and maintain energy efficiency and renewable energy
technology." These are the high-wage jobs of the future. She believes "we have the
potential to unleash a wave of private sector innovation and create at least 5 million
new jobs from clean energy over the next decade." She sponsored a clean energy
jobs provision that was included in the 2007 Energy Bill.
Yes, the plans are similar and comprehensive. I believe that, if enacted in total, they
would work, would cut emissions sharply, while generating millions of new jobs and
giving the United States leadership in what will certainly be the biggest industry of
this century: GHG-reducing technologies.
Plans are, however, easy to write, at least for Democratic candidates. The two bigger
questions are about leadership: Could Clinton or Obama get their plans enacted by
Congress? Could they get developing countries, particularly China, to agree to GHG
controls?
Each of these challenges is so huge and so unique, there is little in the record of
either candidate that lets us know which is more likely to succeed. McCain failed
twice in the Senate to win a majority for his climate bill, let alone earn the 60 votes
needed to beat a filibuster by his Republican colleagues. In fact, the second time he
tried, in 2005, he mustered only 38 votes, five fewer than he had the first time.
The first challenge is that conservatives are dead-set against virtually every single
one of the strategies needed to fight global warming. They don't like the mandatory
cap-and-trade system. McCain himself is telling journalists his mandatory program
isn't a mandate, and asking them not to use the word. Conservatives don't even like
long-standing clean energy tax credits, and McCain said he would vote against them.
And they don't like funding for clean energy research and development and
deployment programs, which have been gutted by conservatives going back to
President Reagan and the Gingrich Congress, and including President Bush, who has
tried to shut down many of the best federal programs. But they do like tax breaks for
big oil, even when the oil companies are swimming in $123 billion in profits and
record high oil prices.
That is why the U.S., once the world leader in all clean energy industries, is now a
laggard in most of them. That is why China is projected to be the top producer of
both solar photovoltaic cells and wind turbines by 2010. If you're wondering how the
U.S. could generate millions of new jobs and make deep reductions in GHG
emissions, while rejecting federal energy policies that have worked for every other
country in the world -- well, you'll have to ask that question of Sen. McCain yourself,
since I'm sure the traditional media won't.
So who would be better, Clinton or Obama, at bringing conservatives along? I
suppose that depends on whether you think we need a fighter or an inspirer to do
this next-to-impossible task. My guess is you need both. And many of the most
important phone calls for the next president will be to members of Congress to
secure their vote.
The second great climate challenge is getting China to agree to cap emissions by
2020. Given its rapacious pace of building coal plants -- a staggering 200,000
megawatts of fossil-fuel-based generating capacity (mostly coal) in the past two
years alone -- China is sending a clear signal to the world that it cares as much about
climate as the Bush administration. The only way to avoid catastrophic climate
change is if the next president 1) gets a strong U.S. climate agreement in his or her
first year to show the rest of the world we are serious about this problem; 2) makes
53407579.doc Page 6 of 6

an international treaty that includes China and India their top international priority in
their first term.
I do think it matters to China a great deal that it become the world leader in clean
technology. So if we embrace most of the Clinton and Obama strategies, we will be
sending a clear signal to the world that we aim to pursue leadership in all the key
technologies. That would make it more likely that China will get onboard. The nations
that adopt a strong emissions reduction strategy must also establish a border
adjustment for imported goods, so that countries like China won't perceive an
economic advantage by continuing to be polluters.
None of this will be easy. Again, it will probably require a fighter and an inspirer.
Someone who can make tough calls to foreign and domestic leaders. A president
(and senior staff) who believes in the crucial role of government in restoring U.S.
leadership in clean energy development, deployment and job creation. On these, the
most important of issues, I think Clinton or Obama -- not McCain -- will make all the
necessary calls.