Guest post: Conservatives for climate change? It’s true. Read on.

This guest post was written by climate advocate Joy Bergey. Joy advocates for clean air, clean energy, and clean water from her base in suburban Philadelphia. Reach her on Facebook, or on Twitter @joybergey. The opinions expressed are her own.

The big news this week about unexpected voices speaking up for action on climate change is, of course, from Pope Francis’ encyclical.  

It’s hard to find a more influential voice than that of His Holiness. And yet, I’ve been hearing an encouraging array of calls for climate action from non-traditional allies, namely, the political right. I’ll share a few.

Conservative politicians and funders

Former member of Congress Bob Inglis now heads the Energy and Enterprise Initiative based at George Mason University. A personal hero of mine, Mr. Inglis famously called for Congress to act on climate when he was running for re-election in South Carolina back in 2010 and paid a steep political price for being ahead of the curve: he was “primaried,” that is to say, he lost his bid for re-election when a Republican to the right of him beat him in the primary election. But that hasn’t slowed Mr. Inglis one bit. Watch his comments (starting at about 24 minutes into the video) at a recent World Resources Institute webinar on pricing climate.

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a declared candidate for President, is on record calling for his fellow Republicans to take action.  

Jay Faison, a Republican entrepreneur from North Carolina, recently announced he’s putting up $175 million of his own money to get this campaign message out there and put some heat on Republican candidates who haven’t yet seen the light like Sen. Graham. 

Florida Congressman Carlos Curbelo, a Republican whose district includes the Everglades and the Keys, said this: 

This is an important step for conservatives on the climate; just to have a conversation and say, ‘well even though I am not a scientist I can look at very basic data and realize that there are some challenges that we are going to be faced with.’ Scientific American also wrote about his good work. 

Defense experts

Rear Admiral David W. Titley (Ret.), whose national security bona fides and expertise on climate can be questioned by none, is founding director of the Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk at Penn State University. We Pennsylvanians are lucky to have Adm. Titley as a tremendously important voice on the national security threats of climate. We ignore his message at our enormous collective peril. 

George Schultz, who served as Secretary of State under President Reagan, has strong views on the need to act and calls for a revenue-neutral carbon tax. 

Conservative economists

Hank Paulson served as Secretary of the Treasury under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Paulson says bluntly of inaction on climate, “Doing nothing is radical risk taking.” Read more of his compelling statements, part of the Weather Channel’s exciting “Climate 25” series.

Jerry Taylor, libertarian economist of the Niskanen Center (and formerly of the Cato Institute and the American Legislative Exchange Council) is calling for a carbon tax. His reasoning? It could obviate regulations conservatives find loathsome, plus it could lower taxes.

Even the American Enterprise Institute held a seminar on April 22 (Earth Day!) called “Implementing a Carbon Tax: Practicalities and Prospects.” Read Myron Ebell’s blog post. (The Institute itself does not take policy positions.)

* * * * * * * * *

I am always hopeful that we’ll soon reach the tipping point and decide as a nation to act on climate change. But after decades of pushing for meaningful action, at this point, it’s rare that I feel optimism. And yet, right now, with the eyes of the world on the Pope, and with conservative voices increasingly speaking out, I do feel optimism that we may be nearing broad consensus to #ActOnClimate.

More good news from President Obama on climate

As we've been reporting, President Obama took a big step forward toward shrinking our national carbon footprint in November when he committed to China that we will cut our global warming pollution by up to 28 percent (compared to 2005) by 2025.

And now, on March 31, more good news from the White House:  The Administration made the November agreement more formal by submitting the terms to the United Nations. Major emitting countries were required to formally submit their plans in March, indicating how they intend to meet reductions that we hope will be formally negotiated and agreed upon in Paris in December at the next international climate conference.

Again, we urge Congress to act and put a price on carbon pollution—we know that's the best solution. But until that happy day occurs, we continue to praise President Obama for taking strong executive actions, showing the world that the White House means business, even as Congress fiddles.

Read what Politico had to say about the announcement.

Joy Bergey is PennFuture's federal policy director, based in Philadelphia. She tweets @joybergey.

What's NOT happening while Congress fiddles?

We've all heard that old chestnut about Nero fiddling while Rome burned. Seems an apt analogy for the damage being done to public health and natural resources while Congress fiddles with finger-pointing. 

• There are 401 national parks that are closed.
• There are 561 national wildlife refuges that are closed.
• The closed parks and refuges amount to 234 million acres, by the way.
• 7,825 workers with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service are on furlough. (That's 81.9 percent of the staff.)
• 36,000 waterfowl protection areas are closed.
• All these closures are costing local communities' outdoors economies $76 million dollars a day.*

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a skeleton crew working. Only 1,069 out of 16,205 EPA employees are deemed essential. Are the polluters having a field day while there's no one around to enforce regulations?


What about work on renewable energy? More bad news.

We understand that the Department of Energy has stopped all work on new renewable energy activities, including permitting applications and regulatory submittals. So no new renewable energy projects will move forward during the shutdown. And ARPA-E, the program that funds research and development of advanced energy technologies, is shut down completely.

Here's what our friends at the National Wildlife Federation have to say: 

 

"Thanks to the Budget Control Act of 2011 and sequestration, government spending is already cut by $1.2 trillion over the next 8 years. These cuts have federal agencies struggling to maintain services at national parks, enforce environmental regulations, protect endangered species, and help our nation transition to clean energy. Shutting down the government adds insult to injury and places an unreasonable strain on agencies that are already stretched too thin. And the money needed to reopen the government—the 1995 shutdown cost an estimated $1.4 billion—is money that otherwise could be used for critical conservation programs."

Come on, folks, it's time to re-open the government. We call on both chambers of Congress to pass a "clean CR," that is, a budget extension (Continuing Resolution, or CR) without strings attached ("clean") that would re-open the government immediately.

PennFuture commends the Republican House members from Pennsylvania who are putting country ahead of party and bucking their own leadership by saying they would vote for a clean CR: Rep. Charlie Dent (Pa.-15), Rep. Jim Gerlach (Pa.-6),  Rep. Mike FItzpatrick (Pa.-8), and Rep. Pat Meehan (Pa.-7). That's actual leadership, and we appreciate it.

* Source: National Wildlife Federation http://blog.nwf.org/2013/10/the-government-shutdown-and-the-great-outdoors/

Thanks to the Budget Control Act of 2011 and sequestration, government spending is already cut by $1.2 trillion over the next 8 years.  These cuts have federal agencies struggling to maintain services at national parks, enforce environmental regulations, protect endangered species, and help our nation transition to clean energy. Shutting down the government adds insult to injury and places an unreasonable strain on agencies that are already stretched too thin. And the money need to reopen the government—the 1995 shutdown cost an estimated $1.4 billion—is money that otherwise could be used for critical conservation programs. - See more at: http://blog.nwf.org/2013/10/what-the-government-shutdown-means-for-wildlife/#sthash.qnu1XDaf.dpuf

The Department of Energy will stop all work on new renewable energy activities, including permitting applications and regulatory submittals.  This means that no new renewable energy projects will move forward during the shutdown. And ARPA-E, the program that funds research and development of advanced energy technologies, would shut down completely. - See more at: http://blog.nwf.org/2013/10/what-the-government-shutdown-means-for-wildlife/#sthash.qnu1XDaf.dpuf

nly 1,069 of its 16,205 employees will be kept working during the shutdown, meaning that these and other important rules could be delayed. - See more at: http://blog.nwf.org/2013/10/what-the-government-shutdown-means-for-wildlife/#sthash.qnu1XDaf.dpuf

Only 1,069 of its 16,205 employees will be kept working during the shutdown, meaning that these and other important rules could be delayed. - See more at: http://blog.nwf.org/2013/10/what-the-government-shutdown-means-for-wildlife/#sthash.qnu1XDaf.dpuf

Only 1,069 of its 16,205 employees will be kept working during the shutdown, meaning that these and other important rules could be delayed. - See more at: http://blog.nwf.org/2013/10/what-the-government-shutdown-means-for-wildlife/#sthash.qnu1XDaf.dpuf

Only 1,069 of its 16,205 employees will be kept working during the shutdown, meaning that these and other important rules could be delayed. - See more at: http://blog.nwf.org/2013/10/what-the-government-shutdown-means-for-wildlife/#sthash.qnu1XDaf.dpuf

Only 1,069 of its 16,205 employees will be kept working during the shutdown, meaning that these and other important rules could be delayed. - See more at: http://blog.nwf.org/2013/10/what-the-government-shutdown-means-for-wildlife/#sthash.qnu1XDaf.dpuf

Finally, we'll see limits on carbon pollution from new power plants

The country got great news last Friday from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): a proposed standard that will limit the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted from any not-yet-built power plant. Since Congress has long refused to do its job to limit global warming pollution, the Obama Administration is doing their job by issuing this proposed rule. (Actually, it's a re-proposed rule. It was first proposed over a year ago but withdrawn by the EPA since it was felt the rule as first written wouldn't withstand the inevitable court challenges from the fossil fuels industry.)

Ah, yes, speaking of the fossil fuels industry: If you've driven along the Pennsylvania Turnpike recently, you've probably seen the numerous billboards erected by the coal industry, touting "clean coal" (or "less filthy coal," as I like to think of it) as available and affordable and just all-around wonderful. So, one might have expected the coal industry to welcome the EPA's new standard. If coal is so clean, it would have no trouble meeting the new standard, right?

Wrong. The National Mining Association said the new standard “effectively bans coal from America’s power portfolio, leaving new power plants equipped with even the most efficient and environmentally advanced technologies out in the cold.”

Huh? What did I miss?

Note that the standard as proposed would not stop all CO2 from leaving the smokestacks, just 20 to 40 percent of it. That's a good start, but just a start.

And, for now, the dirty old power plants that already exist can continue to belch their carbon pollution unabated into our skies. (Fortunately, the EPA is on track to release another standard next June that will begin to limit the carbon dioxide emitted from existing plants. Stay tuned for what will be a lollapaloozah of a fight around that rule.)

The standard proposed on September 20 isn't a done deal yet. The public can submit comments for up to 60 days. And once the standard goes into effect sometime next year, Congress could still repeal it through an arcane provision called the Congressional Review Act. PennFuture will be there to fight that battle when it invariably arises.

Right now, we're celebrating that the federal government is finally taking action to directly limit emissions from a huge source of carbon pollution.

PennFuture applauds the EPA for this critically important step to protect our health, our kids' future, our economy, and the natural world.

High time for the Obama Administration to act

Unfortunately, it's all too clear that this Congress is going to kick the climate can down the road, increasing the risks for future generations. That said, the President can choose to use his executive authority to act on climate.

As a matter of fact, and as a matter of law, the President is legally required to act on climate, and he's actually breaking the law by not having acted in April.

In a nutshell: The Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that carbon dioxide qualifies as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. By law, that ruling compelled the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to do a scientific assessment on whether CO2 is a danger to human health. This led to the 2009 EPA "endangerment finding" that CO2 is indeed a threat to public health.

These results mean that the EPA must regulate CO2, according to the Clean Air Act, an act of Congress, whether the current Congress likes it or not.

The EPA issued a strong standard last summer to address auto emissions, but it is well behind on regulating stationary sources such as power plants. By law, the EPA should have issued a standard to limit CO2 from any to-be-built power plants by April 13. This hasn't happened and, consequently, the EPA is in violation of a court order. Some national environmental groups are already on record as saying they'll sue the President if a new standard isn't issued by mid-June.

We say go for it -- it's high time the laws of the land controlled CO2 emissions. And then some.