November 2011 Archives

What should negotiators seek to accomplish during this year's international climate talks?

The United Nations' annual climate change conference takes place for the next two weeks in Durban, South Africa. The United States comes mostly empty-handed to the talks: Congress has no plans to pass legislation that prices carbon pollution, and EPA regulations controlling greenhouse gas emissions are stalled. The first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, with no sign of a new treaty to replace it. Negotiators from other countries say there's no way a deal can be reached without action from the U.S. Meanwhile, newly released hacked e-mails have reignited skepticism among U.S. Republicans about climate change science.

In the face of those challenges, what is possible at this year's summit? What are the prospects, in the coming years, for any kind of new global, legally binding climate change treaty? What should be the top priorities for negotiators in Durban? What's the future of the U.N. climate change process? Can it--should it--continue without prospects for action from the United States?

12 responses: Alan Oxley, Duncan Marsh, Amy Harder, Jennifer Haverkamp, Roger Platt, Rob Stavins, Christine McEntee, Matthew Stepp, William O'Keefe, Jennifer Morgan, Craig Rucker, Dirk Forrister

As Washington seeks to slash the federal deficit and Solyndra continues to dominate the headlines, is America's clean-energy industry facing a crisis moment?

One report released earlier this month by the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way finds that venture capital investments in clean-energy technology are, indeed, facing a "crisis." Solyndra's demise has raised concerns in both parties about the important role the government plays in developing America's clean-energy technologies. But Washington's laser-focus on cutting the federal deficit is drowning out most other concerns right now.

What's contributing to the struggles facing America's renewable-energy industries like solar and wind? What can this Congress and administration do to ensure the sectors don't face even bigger challenges in the years ahead? How do these challenges affect, if at all, the traditional fossil-fuel and nuclear-power industries?

14 responses: Brian Keane, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Bill Massey, Dan Yates, Jesse Jenkins, Denise Bode, Guy Morgan, Karl Gawell, Rhone Resch, Josh Freed, Peter Lehner, Brent Erickson, Scott Sklar, William O'Keefe

Was President Obama right or wrong to delay the Keystone XL oil pipeline?

The State Department announced last week that it would take at least another 18 months to consider other routes for the pipeline, which if approved would send 700,000 barrels of oil from Canada's oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries. The decision comes after opponents of the pipeline, including Nebraska political leaders and residents, galvanized an environmental grassroots movement against the project, in large part because the proposed route would cross over Nebraska's biggest aquifer. This delay punts the final decision on the pipeline until after the 2012 election.

What factors should influence the Obama administration's consideration of new routes? Does this delay effectively kill the pipeline? What does this move say about Obama's energy and environmental policies more generally?

16 responses: Brigham McCown, Tom Wolf, Jack Gerard, Brent Erickson, Amy Harder, Bill Dickenson, Marlo Lewis, Gene Karpinski, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Kenny Bruno, David Holt, Michael Brune, Bernard L. Weinstein, Bill Snape, Charles Drevna, William O'Keefe

When considered collectively, what effect will the Obama administration's clean-air rules have on the economy, public health, and the environment?

Washington's debate over the Environmental Protection Agency's rules is never-ending and polarizing. That's because the rules are so integral to the entire country's environmental and economic well-being. Throughout this fall, House Republicans have passed bills that would roll back several major EPA rules recently finalized or slated to be finalized soon. The Senate may vote on a measure this week that would nullify a recently adopted regulation, called the "good neighbor" rule, that requires utility companies in 27 states to reduce air pollutants like sulfur dioxide that cause air-quality problems in nearby states. The debate over EPA will heat up as the agency issues draft rules aimed at slashing carbon pollution from power plants and oil refineries later this year and early next year.

Has EPA struck the right balance in rolling out its clean-air regulations? How can the agency ensure it addresses the environmental and public health concerns while also not exacerbating the still-weak economy and stubbornly high unemployment? Should EPA be significantly changed and scaled back in its organizational and regulatory authority, such as some GOP presidential candidates like Texas Gov. Rick Perry have suggested?

18 responses: Blanche Lincoln, Richard Revesz, Lance Brown, Marlo Lewis, Amy Harder, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Amy Harder, Amy Harder, Brent Erickson, Peter Iwanowicz, Margo Thorning, William O'Keefe, Josh Freed, Kathleen Sgamma, Michael Bradley, Ned Helme, Frank O’Donnell, Frances Beinecke