The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it.
Want more? Joseph Romm has you covered.
“One of things that they do in this chapter is try to frame this as them versus the environmentalists, to say, ‘We’ve got the scientists on our side, and you’ve got Al Gore’,” says Romm. But, he argues, climate scientists familiar with the book see Dubner and Levitt as gravely mischaracterizing the state of the science
Go read the whole thing.
And I’ve also been meaning to link to this open letter to Steve Levitt, which is excellent. Very much worth taking the time to read if you are following the controversy over Superfreakonomics.
Witnesses for Wednesday’s hearing: Panel I, Jobs and Economic Opportunities: Peter Brehm, vice president of business development & government relations, Infinia Corp.; Dan Reicher, director, climate and energy initiatives, Google Inc.; Dave Foster, executive director, Blue Green Alliance; Michael Nutter, mayor of Philadelphia; Kate Gordon, senior policy adviser, Apollo Alliance; Bill Klesse, chairman and CEO, Valero Energy Corp.; and Brett Vassey, president and CEO, Virginia Manufacturers Association.
Panel II, National Security: Former Sen. John Warner (R-Va.); Kathleen Hicks, deputy undersecretary for strategy, plans and forces, Defense Department; Retired Vice Adm. Dennis McGinn, U.S. Navy, member, Center for Naval Analysis Advisory Board; retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales; Drew Sloan, fellow, Truman National Security Project; and retired Lt. Col. James Jay Carafano, deputy director, Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Director, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, Heritage Foundation.
Panel III, Utilities: David Crane, president and CEO, NRG Energy Inc.; Ralph Izzo, chairman, CEO and president, Public Service Enterprise Group Inc.; Kevin Law, president and CEO, Long Island Power Authority; Nathaniel Keohane, director of economic policy and analysis, Environmental Defense Fund; Joel Bluestein, president, Energy and Environmental Analysis Inc., ICF International; Barry Hart, CEO, Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives; and Dustin Johnson, commissioner, South Dakota Public Utilities Commission.
Panel IV, Adaptation: Shari Wilson, secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment; Ronald Young, president, California Association of Sanitation Agencies; Peter Frumhoff, chief scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists; Larry Schweiger, president and CEO, National Wildlife Federation; Fawn Sharp, president, Quinault Indian Nation; Jim Sims, president and CEO, Western Business Roundtable; and Kenneth Green, resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute.
Witnesses for Thursday’s hearing: Panel I, Moving to a Clean Energy Economy: Preston Chiaro, CEO, Energy Product Group, Rio Tinto; John Rowe, chairman, president and CEO, Exelon Corp.; Willett Kempton, professor, marine policy, University of Delaware; Bob Winger, president, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Local 11; Fred Krupp, president, Environmental Defense Fund; Mike Carey, president, Ohio Coal Association; and Bob Stallman, president, American Farm Bureau Federation.
Panel II, Transportation: Former Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), co-chair, Bipartisan Policy Center’s National Transportation Policy Project; William Millar, president, American Public Transportation Association; Mike McKeever, executive director, Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG); and Barbara Windsor, president & CEO, Hahn Transportation Inc.
Panel III, Actions in Other Countries: John Podesta, president and CEO, Center for American Progress; Ned Helme, president, Center for Clean Air Policy; Jonathan Lash, president, World Resources Institute; Iain Murray, vice-president for strategy, Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Panel IV, Moving to a Clean Energy Economy: Linda Adams, secretary, California Environmental Protection Agency; Dave Johnson, organizing director, Laborers’ Union Eastern Region, Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA); J. Stephan Dolezalek, managing director, VantagePoint Venture Partners; David Hawkins, director, Climate Center, Natural Resources Defense Council; Eugene Trisko, attorney for the United Mine Workers of America; Charlie Smith, president & CEO, CountryMark; and Paul Cicio, president, Industrial Energy Consumers of America.
Joseph Romm summarizes at Grist.
When Paul Krugman, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Joseph Romm, Bradford Delong, Brad Johnson, Matt Yglesias, Melanie Fitzpatrick, David Roberts, Tim Lambert, Felix Salmon, Corbin Hiar, William Connelly, Oliver Willis, Scott Lemieux, Ezra Klein, Daniel Davies, Brian Dupuis, and Mark Thoma have all published scathing criticisms of your book — several days before the book is actually released — something has gone terribly wrong. I mean, wow.
And while most who argue against meaningful action on climate change limit themselves to disputing either the science or the economics, you have apparently accepted no such limitations. Perhaps if you had limited your arguments to one of these angles or the other you wouldn’t have made so many egregious factual errors.
But perhaps this was all just a clever marketing ploy. I can’t help but wonder if chapter five was deliberately crafted to cause an uproar. Some sort of hail mary attempt to draw attention to an otherwise less-than-spectacular book. If this is the case — and you truly have adopted the ‘all news is good news’ mantra — then I guess congratulations are in order. Your book is almost as relevant as the balloon boy.
P.S. This is not fooling anyone.
Here is the chapter everyone is so upset about:
A new U.S. EPA analysis requested by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) is spawning a lobbying frenzy among Midwestern utilities that claim the document shows they will be treated unfairly under federal climate legislation.They say the assessment reveals that states like California will receive a financial windfall under a global warming bill, while states like Wisconsin will not get enough help and will have to spike electricity rates as a result.
…
Some environmentalists are counterattacking that the three-page report is flawed because its author relied on questionable methodology and analyzed only one part of a bill that passed the House earlier this year. They also say a Senate version of climate legislation is still being drafted and could make EPA’s statements moot.
“I have not been particularly impressed of certain aspects of EPA modeling,” said Joe Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. “It looks to me like they’ve done what is easy for them to do, but isn’t accurate.”
Many bloggers have already weighed in with their initial reactions. What follows is a round-up of these first impressions, as well as a few thoughts of my own.
Bradford Plumer has a solid summary, running down the list of they key differences between Kerry-Boxer and Waxman-Markey. Key among the differences are the preservation of the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, a “crackdown on carbon speculators” and “stricter scrutiny for biofuels.” Among (what I consider to be) the weak points in the bill, Plumer identifies increased incentives for natural gas production and use, and a voluntary mechanism for methane capture, which on first glance seems awfully short-sighted.
Brad Johnson writes that: “Incorporating the efforts of a number of senators, the Kerry-Boxer legislation has strengthened a number of provisions.” Among these, Johnson highlights the stronger emissions limits, funding for green transportation, and the preservation of EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which the House bill foolishly gutted. Johnson also mentions a few Senators who have already attacked the bill, including Democrat Kent Conrad and Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison.
Kate Sheppard makes an interesting observation: “Noticeably missing from both the bill and their rhetoric was any reference to cap and trade. Instead, they’re calling it a ‘Global Warming Pollution Reduction and Investment’ program — and they’re promoting the energy and national security benefits rather than the emissions reductions goals.” Sheppard also observes that, as of yesterday’s unveiling, there was no Republican support for the bill whatsoever.
Elana Schor laments the lack of focus on transport, writing that “transportation reform groups are already strategizing about how to increase the bill’s focus on their area — which currently accounts for one-third of U.S. emissions but stands to receive far less than the 10 percent of total climate revenue that is mandated in the so-called “CLEAN TEA” legislation.” Schor also predicts that the bill will not make it to the Senate floor in advance of December’s climate negotiations in Copenhagen, but that “Senate passage next spring remains a distinct possibility.”
Steve Benen also expresses skepticism that some of the more promising measures will make it to the Senate floor. Benen writes: “So, does the bill have a realistic shot? It won’t be easy. The first step for Boxer-Kerry will probably be the easiest: it’s going to pass the Environment and Public Works Committee, perhaps by the end of the month. From there, however, it will be subjected to scrutiny in at least four other Senate committees, each of which will change the bill, probably for the worse. Some of the entirely worthwhile measures introduced yesterday are not at all likely to withstand the process.” This, of course, brings to mind the old adage that the United States Senate is where good ideas go to die. This statement is as true now as it ever was, as far as I can tell.
Brian Beutler discusses the arduous path the bill must take through various unfriendly Senate committees. In particular, Beutler mentions potential roadblocks in both the Finance and Agriculture Committees. Beutler also takes note of the bright side: “James Inhofe will spend weeks and weeks saying more and more ridiculous things about it. So that should be fun.”
Matt Yglesias raises the same concern that I will below: “Kerry-Boxer is a somewhat stronger and better measure than the American Climate and Energy Security bill that passed the House. But of course ACES passed the House whereas Kerry-Boxer will doubtless be changed many, many times.”
Joseph Romm focuses on the genuine improvement over the House bill in terms of offsets. Romm republishes a guest-post from an expert on offsets, who writes: “Probably the most important difference between the bills is that the Kerry-Boxer bill does not specify which agency would be in charge of administering and ensuring the integrity of any offset program. In the House bill, a last minute compromise switched all of the administration of biological sequestration offsets to the USDA from the EPA, a change widely criticized by environmentalists because of the belief that the USDA would not be as effective in regulation.”
A. Siegel focuses primarily on the price collar, detailing the pros and cons of the approach Senators Kerry and Boxer have used. In the end, he concludes: “From my perspective, for the next 10+ years, it seems almost certain that the floor will have more impact on actual carbon prices than the ceiling … thus, having that floor will help drive more emissions cuts than a program without a cost collar.”
David Roberts takes note of the fact that the bill is called Kerry-Boxer, rather than Boxer-Kerry as was previously expected. Roberts writes: “Word has it this decision came down from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) himself.” He also speculates that this decision was due to Senator Boxer’s “bungling” of the Lieberman-Warner bill, which was the Senate’s last attempt to address global warming.
Personally, I’m cautiously optimistic. While — as others have pointed out — the bill as it currently stands is stronger than the American Clean Energy and Security Act is several crucial ways, it has a treacherous gauntlet to run before reaching the President’s desk. The two greatest roadblocks I anticipate are in the Agriculture and Finance Committees.
In the House negotiations, Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson was able to extract several major concessions which significantly weakened the bill. Pollution-powered Senator Blanche Lincoln, who recently took over the Chairmanship of the Senate Agriculture will undoubtedly take the opportunity to do the bidding of her agribusiness benefactors. It would be a true shame for the Senate to grant devastating concessions to Senator Lincoln at the expense of the environmental integrity of the legislation.
The Finance Committee Chairman, Senator Max Baucus, is also likely to be a major thorn in liberals’ side. Baucus has been fighting behind closed-doors to have a major role in the key aspects of the bill, including the financing for cap-and-trade mechanism. Senator Baucus’ insistence on wasting months trying to secure Republican support — despite all evidence that such support would never materialize — has been a major detriment to Democrats’ ability to move healthcare legislation in a timely manner. Indeed, many progressives have now accepted that Baucus’ attempts to gain Republican support are little more than pretense for weakening the bill and delaying the process as long as possible.
A smaller but still significant concern is a group of Midwestern Democratic Senators — led by Sherrod Brown — who are intent on extracting concessions for manufacturers in their states. Senator Brown, speaking of Senators Kerry and Boxer to The Hill yesterday, gave the ultimatum: “They don’t get the votes from Midwestern industrial-state senators unless manufacturing is a major component of this.” While the Midwestern Senators do have some valid concerns, the manufacturers they are advocating on behalf of now join a long list of industries seeking favorable concessions (read: free emissions credits): Nuclear, Coal, Natural Gas, Agribusiness, Oil Refining, Electric Utilities, etc. The true test this bill faces is whether or not it can work its way through the Senate without ceding so much ground to these industries that the environmental integrity of the bill is compromised. Either way, as Steve Benen notes, “it’s a fight worth watching closely.”
