At least August should be quiet

In a year when one of the worst environmental disasters in US history has occurred, and in a year on track to be the warmest on record, legislation to address climate change and clean energy gets "shelved". Amazing.

You would think everyone would try just a little bit harder to get this done.

You'd be amazed what you can do if you try

I recently wrote about how proponents of comprehensive climate change and clean energy legislation need to come up with a simpler and clearer narrative. But such a narrative obviously needs more detail as the conversation gets further into the weeds. I've written a lot about the need for action based on the science. In addition I've had a few posts on the economic and national security cases for acting urgently. One angle I really haven't delved into as much I would have liked is the technology aspect of this debate. The technology is obviously available to us and we are starting to see that with the right policies we can deploy these resources on a much larger scale that will result in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and an increase in new jobs.

So this begs the question, why aren't we trying harder?

So, what your saying is, I've still got a chance?

But not really. The White House held its long awaited meeting with a bipartisan group of Senators on Tuesday to discuss the prospects of climate legislation. By all accounts, it turned out to be a somewhat lackluster affair. And today we heard a speech from the President on immigration policy which suggests the next legislative priority remains up for grabs.

What continues to surprise me in all this back and forth is the lack of a coherent narrative for those who support comprehensive climate change and clean energy legislation. We have to come up with a very simple, straightforward argument for passing a bill now, not next year, or 2012, or 2013. Here's my shot at it.

We need to take action now because the science demands it, the economy needs it, technology exists to enable it, and our national security depends on it.

Let me know what you think.

"Climategate" a farce of global proportions

Emails were stolen from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) last November. While thousands of emails were taken, only a handful provided fodder for those who reject the science underpinning climate change and muddied the waters for those who don't follow the issue closely. While this controversy stoked a lot of emotion, and high profile skeptics began ringing the death knell for climate change and clean energy policy, we are shown once again that "Climategate" and all its accompanying furor was in fact built on a house of cards.

I highly recommend this article from the Ecocentric blog hosted by Time. It provides some critical background and sets the record straight. Now let's move on and address the problem instead of pretending there isn't one.

Gotta act, gotta act, gotta act right now

I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Julia Slingo from the UK's Met Office this week. She was in Washington for a couple of days on business. I participated in only a couple of her meetings but walked away with a renewed sense of purpose. It's always good to talk with an expert who can communicate lastest developments in climate science so effectively. It's also a reminder that, despite all the political distractions and white noise that tends to consume an outsized portion of the policy debate, we need to act urgently before we reach a breaking point.

More on pricing carbon

So the week started with a speech by the President and ended with an apology to BP. It felt like the Twilight Zone. But after all the hoopla, it still looks as if the Senate has no interest in putting a price on carbon. I've written about the need to do so here and here. One more time can't hurt. This is another great primer on what it means to charge for something that has, to date, been free. I'm not a fan of his analogy about capping how many miles you can drive, but that's just a personal preference. Better to stick with the open bar reference.

So what happens if we don't do anything?

The debate around climate change and clean energy has focused largely on the cost of taking action. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released its analysis of a bill introduced by Sens. Kerry (D-MA) and Lieberman (I-CT). It found the cost to average consumers to be fairly negligible. But as the Economist points out, the analysis misses a critical element - the cost of inaction.

More and more we are seeing the real time impacts of climate change. Companies are already being encouraged to adopt relevant adaptation policies they will need in order to cope with an unpredictable and shifting climate in the coming decades. It's absolutely critical that while we debate various policy options moving forward we never lose sight of the fact that the cost of inaction will far outweigh the cost of action.

As many of you will know I'm a big fan of placing a price on carbon. Right now we get to emit greenhouse gases (GHGs) for free when we know their effect on the environment comes with a cost. Ezra Klein recently posted an excellent piece which focused on pricing externalities. In this case it was specific to oil but you only need to replace that term with CO2 or GHGs and you've got a strong argument for taking into account the full cost of carbon.

Without doing something now, we place ourselves at much greater risk to weather extremes. We're already committed to a certain amount of exposure, but why push the envelope further?