In his acceptance speech of last week, President Obama singled out Climate Change as the area that will measure his success for future generations. This seems to set a difficult, perhaps unachievable standard. Our nation is divided, there is skepticism about human influence on the environment, and passing a law, budget or even a national appointment can encounter toxic battlefields in Congress.

It may come as a surprise to many therefore that with a single stroke of the pen, a pen that the US Supreme Court has already handed out to the Executive Office in 2007, Climate Change issues can be neatly resolved in the US. No need to battle Congress. With the same stroke of the pen, in addition, the US can provide leadership in the global climate negotiations, showing the way to resolve the issue globally while helping the global economy.

This is possible because we have a number of “levers” in place, all ready to be activated by President Obama and the EPA’s with a stroke of the pen. They can put down a ‘domino’ that makes all the rest follow, enhancing economic performance, accelerating innovation, and creating jobs in the US and in developing nations, all while improving the environment. The way we measure economic progress the world over – the GDP – can in addition be made to reflect the value of a clean environment.

My suggestion is simple: it consists of enhancing in a very simple and legally sanctioned way a piece of 2012 legislation. On March 27 2012 President Obama and the EPA, with the support of a 2007 US Supreme Court resolution, set carbon emission limits on newly built power plants under the Clean Air Act. My proposal is to extend this law to encompass not just newly built but also existing power plants. It is in Obama’s power to do what he did in 2012, and it is equally within his power to do the simple extension that I am requiring now. That is it.

A skeptical reader may ask me to explain how such a simple step – one that is already in the power of the Executive branch of government, the President and the EPA – can achieve so much with so little. Let me explain how this works.

We all know that what is needed to decrease the risk of Climate Change is to reduce the carbon emissions caused by from burning fossil fuels. The largest source of carbon emissions in the US and globally – about 45% of all emissions – are power plants that burn fossil fuels to produce electricity. Once carbon emissions limits are placed on the main source of emissions – the power plants – these plants will naturally wish to establish a flexible way to comply -- such as the so called ‘carbon market’. Others call it “cap and trade”. Power plants took this same action twenty years ago when limits were placed on their SO2 emissions, and the SO2 market in the Chicago Board of Trade was created, which is widely credited with eliminating in a very efficient way the worst of acid rain in the US. The US government only sets the emissions limits – private enterprise does the rest. The process works because the carbon limits reduce the emissions from the largest source of CO2 emissions – the power plants. Without reducing power plants emissions, the climate change problem cannot be solved. This is why the solution proposed works. It may be the only solution that works.

It is clear that the carbon market is not a way to escape emissions limits – it is only a way to rearrange who emits more and who emits less, as the overall lower limits remain in place. Now dirty power plants have to pay cleaner power plants for the rights to emit, creating an economic incentive that we all know we need for cleaner plants. It creates also an economic incentive for technology innovation and for investment in the crucial energy infrastructure. We all know that US infrastructure needs renovation. More jobs are created in the process of rebuilding our power plants and building more of them, the most important source of energy that feeds the US economy. Under this proposal there are no taxes to pay to the government. The net cost can be zero – as we are simply redistributing gains from the dirty power plants to the cleaner ones. The latter receive money and the former pay money -- the net cost is zero. There is a period of transition where today’s market cost of electricity could go up, but we all know that the low costs of dirty power can be illusory. A recent MIT study shows that the real cost of gasoline paid by the US tax payer is about $15 per gallon, more than 3 times of what we pay at the pump. Similarly the US tax payer is paying today much more for dirty electricity than we appear to do, including health costs of coal plants, the scary risks of ‘fracking’ for natural gas plants that contaminate drinking water, the defense costs and the political costs from importing gasoline from unstable regions, not to mention the environmental and health risks that are widely accepted from climate change damages such as increased frequency and violence of hurricanes and typhoons, increased costs of food from droughts that scorch the earth and floods that destroy entire communities. The difference between illusory and real costs is exactly what the carbon market captures; the price of “carbon credits” evens up the computations. In any case, transitional costs of new technologies are just that – transitional. Our innovation- bent society understands that, and we invest enormous amounts of money on innovation in education and in risk capital every year for that reason. Transitional costs can also be covered by using the current subsidies to the fossil fuels to ease the transition thus avoiding all the risks and costs of fossil fuels already described. Finally, at the end of the day, as the scope of the clean technologies increases, when the built capacity of clean plants increases, the laws of innovation such as ‘learning curves’ and increasing returns to scale kick in, and clean energy costs can emulate or even improve upon existing ones. For full disclosure, the author is working on and has patented a technology that captures carbon very economically from ambient air and from industrial sources, showing that one can make money from the sale of useful CO2 from this process. This technology – called Global Thermostat™ – can make power plants carbon negative and its cost is low enough that it creates profits from the sales of the CO2 captured. At the end of the day we all know that transition to new technologies can be made to pay and pay very well. The result is innovation, new jobs and a cleaner economy.

Does the carbon market work to reduce emissions? Yes, the EU that was able to decrease its carbon emissions by about 37% since the Kyoto Protocol emission limits were imposed and the EU Emissions Trading System became international law in 2005. For full disclosure, the author designed and wrote the carbon market into the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the same carbon market that became international law in 2005. This market requires no external funding – it is self-financing – and it works well in economic terms, creating incentives for cleaner technology in industrial and developing nations. For example China received about $30Bn from the Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism to invest in clean technology, becoming since then the largest exporter of wind and solar power equipment in the world. The EU Emissions Trading System carbon market is now trading $215Bn annually, and carbon markets now exist in four continents, including Australia, Asia and the EU and in 2012 a mandatory carbon market started to trade in the largest State of the Union, California, a State that leads the rest of the nation in presenting a positive example by fully balancing its budget in 2012.

We all know that the US cannot solve the global climate change problem alone. Climate Change is a global problem at its core. For example by burning its own coal reserves Africa can produce enough carbon emissions to cause trillions of dollars of damage to the rest of the world – according to the OECD. Yet with the same stroke of the pen the US can also become a world leader in the climate negotiations. This is because the US emits 25% of the global emissions, and all carbon markets will eventually converge. Therefore the US carbon market will enhance the carbon market of the Kyoto Protocol globally. Why? This is because markets have a very interesting feature that Wall Street calls “no arbitrage”: it means that two markets side to side will end up trading at the same prices for the same commodity. Therefore the price of carbon emitted in the US carbon market will soon converge to that of the EU carbon market, the Australian and the Asian carbon markets – and all these markets will be strengthened in their mission of making money while cleaning the environment. Since US markets dominate the world economy, the US can enhance the performance of this crucial new market: the global carbon market.

A global carbon market will change the way we measure economic progress in ways that many clamor for, including the Group of 20. It will create a new global system of economic values. With the carbon market, cleaner nations become richer and their economies grow faster than dirty nations, who have to pay the former and can be left behind. A new stick is created to measure economic progress – the GDP now measures the value of all goods and services at market value but now market values includes the value of a clean atmosphere and a stable climate for humankind. We know that we must provide a cleaner environment for future generations – and President Obama has made his contribution to avert Climate Change the measuring stick of success of his second administration. The simple solution I propose is already available to him; it is legally supported by the US Supreme Court and is independent from the vagaries of bipartisan politics. There seems to be no excuse for not implementing it.

President Obama avoided global warming throughout the long presidential campaign, but it reemerged in his victory and inaugural speeches like a nasty surprise from a Trojan horse.

Just as the rest of the world is discovering the painful folly of climate politics, the President suddenly wants to go further. Alternative energy experiments have put the brakes on the economies of Spain and Germany, while becoming a growth industry for Italian organized crime.

The UN's DOHA agreement was only able to sign on about 30 countries that would keep the Kyoto protocol, mostly so that they can keep carbon trading and alternative subsidies going, but with no one realistically expecting to alter the climate. Over 130 nations said they would agree only if they were exempted from UN climate mandates and would be on the receiving side of redistributed wealth. Russia, Canada and Japan bowed out of Kyoto altogether. China and India insist on being exempted from UN restrictions and intend to expand their economies as rapidly as possible, while welcoming any competitive advantage they can obtain by reigning the rest of us in.

Our own Senate wouldn't ratify the Kyoto protocol and President Bush would not send it for further action.

President Obama could not even pass Cap & Trade when his party controlled both houses of Congress.

President Obama's alternative strategy of using the EPA and other agencies to wage a backdoor war on carbon energy through misdirection and pretext, robs the people and their elected representatives, who would not support these restrictions voluntarily, of their constitutional prerogatives. Green movement radicals have always been at their core, fundamentally anti-democratic.

Observational science just isn't there for global warming extremism. The UK's Met Office data shows no warming for the past 16 years. NOAA's data shows any warming there may have been, has been confined to only three quarters of a degree. How much (if any) of that little bit of warming is due to your over the top car driving, air traveling, warm single family home lifestyle is more than debatable.

What should Washington due about warming? Harken to Hippocrates and “first, do no harm.” From CFACT's considered perspective, Washington should find the courage to do nothing

(These comments were submitted by Dr. Pat DeLaquil, Chief Executive Officer of DecisionWare Group.)

Climate change is happening now and the early consequences are emerging much more strongly than scientists had predicted. If America is to be the leader of the global civilization on this planet, we must lead in the effort to mitigate the impacts of climate change by first changing our own course first and then take a leadership role in developing a global agreement.

The business-as-usual energy future, as projected by EIA, does not represent a least-cost development pathway for America’s energy system or its economy. It’s actually a path of least resistance rather than the smart societal choice. A 20-year plan to transition to clean energy is not only feasible, but can be done in a manner that increases jobs and economic activity in America – because the technologies are manufactured, installed, operated and maintained locally.

The goal would be to develop and implement a 20-year, regionally-based transition plan to a clean and secure energy economy. The transition plan would build on energy efficiency and the best regionally available clean energy technologies, and would be designed to create locally-based jobs and regional economic development, while maintaining adequate and reliable energy services at an affordable price.

The process for developing this transition plan includes:

· Organizing stakeholders regionally to analyze the economic benefits of a clean energy transition to their region and identify the most beneficial policies that meet the transition goals.

· Analyzing the benefits and costs of these regional policies within a national context employing a comprehensive energy-economy model that has sufficient regional detail and can trade-off supply-side and demand-side policy options and provide state-level impact assessment.

· Assemble these regional priority policies into a set of national policies and build a large regional constituency for their implementation into law.

Not everyone will believe such a transition plan is possible, but polls show there is a huge pent-up desire to see climate change addressed, and this is the kind of vision can help build a coalition of local and regional stakeholders to promote such a regionally-generated clean energy strategy rather than continuing follow our current business-as-usual energy pathway.

The climate change sound bite in the President’s Second Inaugural Address played well with the crowd, but workers and consumers around the nation soundly rejected the climate policies of the President’s first term. If America is going to compete in the 21^st century and lead in the technology and energy sectors of the future, the Obama Administration will need a new approach.

I have been a part of the climate change discussion for as long as there has been one. Over that time, I have seen ambitious, and often naïve, proposals meet their demise once the American people realize the cost. As policymakers, we must weigh policy options on a micro and macro, domestic and international scale.

I am interested to review the details of President Obama’s plan. While the Administration has been timid in offering any details, a rehashing of familiar schemes, such as the cap-and-tax plan that fizzled in the President’s first term, would be the surest way to repeat failure. If he is instead serious about cooperation, there are lessons from the past.

Any attempt to combat human influence on climate change should carefully assess the economic impact on businesses and consumers. As we continue to emerge from a terrible recession, we must be mindful of any proposals that will cause sky-rocketing energy prices. I know from meeting with businesses and constituents in my district, higher energy prices are weighing heavily on their minds, and many are fearful that they will send our economy back into a tailspin.

Additionally, the President cannot ignore the impact that China, India, and other emerging manufacturing nations are having on carbon emissions. Any proposal that does not hold all countries to the same standard should be considered dead on arrival. If emissions restrictions in the U.S. simply move emissions abroad, we would be hurting our economic growth without meeting the goal of lower emissions.

Rather than relying on the global warming community’s talking points, which result in inflexible, overreaching policy prescriptions, the President should work with businesses and other affected stakeholders to craft workable solutions. I have often said that the key to reducing emissions is new technology. The fastest path to technological development is a healthy economy free from overregulation.

We will soon see if President Obama is willing to begin climate change negotiations in a balanced, bipartisan way, or if he will overreach to please the environmentalists who so loudly applauded his stance on Inauguration Day.

President Obama’s new (or renewed) tough talk on climate change is not a harbinger of new climate legislation. Republicans opposed to cap-and-trade, EPA regulation of greenhouse gases (GHGs), and carbon taxes still control the House.

However, there is no reason to suppose Mr. Obama was merely tossing a sop to climate activists. As a second termer, the President is freer to indulge his ‘progressive’ impulses. ‘Legislating’ climate policy via administrative action has been the Obama Team's preferred M.O. More of the same is likely in the second go-round. Here are a few possibilities:

*The State Department could veto the Keystone XL pipeline — a key objective of the global warming movement.

*The EPA could issue GHG performance standards for existing (as distinct from new or modified) coal power plants, as well as standards for other industrial categories (refineries, cement production facilities, steel mills, paper mills, etc.).

*The EPA could determine (along the lines of Cornell University research) that fugitive methane emissions make fracked natural gas as carbon-intensive as coal. The agency could then modify the carbon ‘pollution’ rule to require utilities that build new natural gas generation to install carbon capture and storage technology or meet a renewable portfolio standard.

*The EPA could finally act on petitions pending from the Bush administration to set GHG emission standards for marine vessels, aircraft, and non-road vehicles.

*The EPA could finally act on a December 2009 petition by the Center for Biological Diversity and 350.Org to establish national ambient air quality standards for carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs.

*The EPA could again attempt via permitting restrictions and Clean Water Act guidelines to suppress mountaintop coal mining in Appalachia despite being twice rebuffed in court during Obama’s first term.

*The White House Council on Environmental Quality could side with opponents of coal export terminals and encourage permitting agencies to consider aggregate, life-cycle emissions from all proposed facilities together rather than just local impacts of each facility separately.

*The Fish and Wildlife Service could list species as threatened or endangered based on climate change concerns. If species are listed as endangered, then eco-litigation groups could plausibly argue that the Endangered Species Act requires industrial facilities to curb or halt CO2-emitting activities.

All such initiatives have two things in common. First, none would pass in Congress if proposed in legislation and put to a vote. In this regard, they are identical to the EPA’s previous and ongoing GHG rulemakings.

Here’s an easy way to grasp the big picture. The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill barely passed in the House and died in the Senate. It failed despite almost 20 years of global warming advocacy and provisions in the bill that would have preempted EPA regulation of GHGs under several Clean Air Act (CAA) provisions. If, instead of proposing cap-and-trade, Reps. Waxman and Markey had introduced a bill authorizing the EPA to do exactly what it is doing now – regulating GHGs via the CAA as it sees fit – the bill would have been dead on arrival.

Yes, the Supreme Court in Mass. v. EPA set the stage for the EPA’s greenhouse power grab. However, one must have a great deal of faith in judicial infallibility to see no problem in an administrative agency wielding the truly awesome power to de-carbonize the U.S. economy based on nothing more than a selective reading of the definition of “air pollutant” in a statute enacted in 1970, years before global warming emerged as a public concern.

In any event, bureaucratic lawmaking (whether self-initiated or in response to litigation) will dominate climate policy over the next two to four years.

Second, none of the potential regulatory initiatives the administration may pursue will provide any protection from “the raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms” that the President attributed to climate change in his Inaugural Address.

The science behind that linkage is quite dubious. But even if one assumes that recent extreme weather would not have occurred absent anthropogenic global warming, the costs of GHG regulation will far outweigh the public health and welfare benefits in the policy relevant future.

Chip Knappenberger of the Cato Institute succinctly explains why. The IPCC best estimate is that the ongoing rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations will increase average global temperatures 3°C by 2100 (arguably an overestimate, but let that pass). Of the 3°C warming, the U.S. contribution is projected to be about 7%, or 0.2°C. Very aggressive climate policies might cut the U.S. contribution in half, but that would avert only 0.1°C of warming by the end of century. Such a small reduction in global temperatures 87 years from now would make no discernible difference to weather patterns in the decades ahead.

“Any perceived utility” of aggressive action on climate change lies not in the domestic emission reductions, notes Knappenberger, “but in the hope that it will spur technological innovations for cheap, reliable, non-dangerous, environmentally friendly, zero-emissions energy production which would then be freely shared with, and quickly adopted by, the rest of the world. That seems wishful thinking on the time scales that matter.”

President Obama’s Inaugural Address relating to climate change last week set in motion a flurry of speculation as to how his Administration might transition from ambitious talk today to meaningful action during his second term. The divisions in Congress mean the President will have his work cut out for him if he wants to pass effective legislation. Regardless of how cooperative Congress is, however, the President can and should push the climate agenda forward over the next four years.

President Obama’s Administration should address climate change in his second term

As the President pointed out in his Inaugural Address, more frequent extreme weather events are already occurring, consistent with scientific warnings. Climate change heightens the risks of more frequent storms, droughts and wildfires that can have devastating consequences for the U.S. With the right policy signals from Washington, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions fueling these dramatic climate events can be mitigated. Effective policies can unleash a wave of new, clean energy investment across the United States. While action to mitigate and protect our economy from climate impacts has costs, inaction is not free. In the absence of the right policy signals, our businesses and communities will likely face rising costs to adapt to the impacts of a changing climate.

Furthermore, while U.S emissions have decreased in recent years, these conditions are not set in stone. As the economy recovers, emissions may rise with it. The economics that led to price-advantages for natural gas over coal may not last forever. Proactive, sensible policy-making can ensure that these emissions reductions over the past few years are permanent and economy-wide.

What options does the President have at his disposal to reduce GHG emissions?

The President has yet to detail how he might remedy the climate issues articulated in his Inaugural Address. In my view, the United State’s climate problems are best addressed through a market-based, cap-and-trade program that sets a price on carbon. A well-designed cap-and-trade program provides flexibility and cost-savings for an economy still rebounding from recession – particularly in comparison to inflexible command-and-control regulation. While it does not seem realistic – or advisable – to attempt another “economy-wide” GHG regulation, under the leadership of the President, Congress could craft more narrowly focused legislation that utilizes cap-and-trade.

For inspiration, look no further than the numerous cap-and-trade programs emerging around the world in Australia, New Zealand, the European Union, South Korea, and – yes – China. Even at home, California has taken the initiative to reduce its emissions by launching a cap-and-trade program this year. Don’t forget the nine Northeast and Atlantic states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), who have implemented an electric sector cap-and-trade program. Indeed, nations around the world are taking actions to reduce emissions, and their policy of choice is overwhelmingly market-based mechanisms.

Last week, in a letter to the President, I implored him not to allow Congressional intransigence to become his policy of inaction. In the absence of legislation, President Obama does have the option to use the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce regulations on GHG emissions sources. In his first term, EPA worked collaboratively with the auto industry to develop vehicle emission standards that are aggressive yet achievable.

Moving forward, the President could again achieve significant emission reductions through the EPA. The Agency is set to finalize performance standards for new power plants this spring, as well as performance standards for heavy-duty trucks. However, the more significant action would be to regulate emissions from existing power plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. While EPA regulations are admittedly second best to congressional legislation, the President could follow his auto industry model and collaborate with industry to develop very meaningful reductions from the power sector. Such an effort, coupled with the transportation reductions he has already achieved, would end the President’s tenure having regulated almost 65% of the country’s emissions.

How regulation is designed under Section 111(d) (and beyond) will be extremely important to the President’s legacy. It should be crafted in such a way as to enable states that have already set up climate change programs (i.e. RGGI states and California), or states that would like to join already existing state-level programs, to be able to avoid federal pre-emption so long as their programs are shown to achieve as effective (or better) results.

And while Congress may not be an option available for climate mitigation, it will have a responsibility to address the greater risks to communities from extreme weather, through adaptation measures. As Congress begins to address the growing need for infrastructure investment across the country (highways, electrical grid, water infrastructure, disaster relief, etc.) it will be integral that these investments take climate change into consideration. Business is already responding to climate risks by investing in adaptation measures, and lawmakers must follow suit to ensure public investment can withstand a shifting environment.

The President genuinely appears eager to address climate change. Whether Congress obliges or not, he has options at his disposal to achieve results. If he does so in an effective manner, taking private sector concerns into consideration, the President has the opportunity to make good on his Inauguration Speech.

It may surprise you to learn this but no scientist today predicts how climate will change in response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases! This may seem odd, so stick with me for a minute as I unpack that statement. And then I’ll delve into what this means for efforts underway to prevent or prepare for such climate change.

Scientists who warn about the consequences of climate change – brought on by the greenhouse gases (GHG) that humans emit to the atmosphere – rely (among other things) on computer models. To perform their function, the models must be told how much GHG will be in the atmosphere at any moment. Since scientists don’t know the future ‘emission pathway’ (it will depend on policy decisions made by others) they make assumptions about how emissions will grow. These assumptions may be based on current trends, or reasonable optimistic (or pessimistic) guesses.

Since the GHG pathway is hypothetical, the computer result is also. The results of such model efforts are called ‘projections’ to differentiate them from predictions such as the five-day weather forecasts that are so successful today. Those who are expert in weather forecasts attribute their success to (among other things) the careful evaluation of prediction success done after each forecast. To such experts, if you cannot demonstrate the quality of the forecast based on past experience the term ‘prediction’ should not be applied. Climate experts have adhered to this convention they inherited from their weather forecast colleagues.

So, since the computer models of what the climate will be like in (let’s say) 2050 cannot be tested in advance, they can’t be called ‘predictions,’ and a different term is needed: ‘projections.’ Projections carry no statement that one outcome (i.e. the results of one model calculation that assumes a certain emission pathway) is any more likely than another. Some think of prediction as determining the most likely outcome but since climate scientists are not able to assign relative likelihoods to any of these projections they also cannot label any one as a ‘prediction,’ i.e. most likely.

We are in the uncomfortable situation that there is good reason to believe that some climate change is imminent (based on the basic physics of CO2 that has been well-understood for a century or more) yet we cannot predict that change!

What does this mean … for policy makers, for corporations, for legislators, for the courts, for average people?

Imagine yourself a middle-level manager who is told (by his or her boss, or by some rule, regulation, or law) that you must develop a plan to adapt to climate change. What do you do with no technical background in this field? Ask the expert what to expect. Such an expert will show all of the model results you would ever care to see but will not tell you which one to use because they cannot know. There is no ‘prediction,’ only projections.

Imagine yourself an agency, such as DoD, which is charged by law to prepare for climate change. What change(s) are you going to include in your planning? What efforts will you budget? The best that experts can now provide is a range of ‘scenarios’ of possible outcomes. Again, no probabilities can be assigned.

How do you even attempt to apply well-developed standard management tools to optimize your decisions in the absence of needed input information?

The Securities and Exchange Commission recommends that companies report their risks related to climate. How can this be done correctly if science cannot assign likelihoods to outcomes? Imagine yourself in a court of law being asked whether your corporation has properly evaluated its climate liabilities. How can you defend your decisions?

You can see the problem: scientists can only provide projections, not predictions. You can see the result: decision makers cannot make rational decisions about planning, particularly in resource-constrained situations. What can be done?

Can scientists break through this seeming barrier and find a way to give us something closer to a prediction? Must decision makers develop an entirely new way to deal with a multitude of undifferentiated projections? Is there a third way?

As you can imagine, this dilemma is not unique to the US. But it is something where the US can and should lead. First, we need broad awareness of this issue in both communities (science and decision-making), and we need some careful thinkers to help us find our way. Scientists might consider alternative definitions of ‘prediction’ such as that used for earthquake hazards, and decision makers may seek other tools more appropriate to this challenge. And policy makers, beginning with the White House, must lead the way.

What if this cannot be solved? We see much confusion among people who hear all sorts of warnings and stories about what might be coming. As model results multiply (many more will appear this year and next), this confusion may grow, not subside. The confused state may contribute to inaction, the opposite of what is desired and needed. We need a better idea of what we face. Can climate change be predicted, or not?

In the next few months President Obama will receive advice from across the scientific and political spectrum on how best to deal with climate change. For the president to succeed, he must recognize that no single technology can independently slow and reverse increases in carbon emissions, and that nuclear energy is an indispensable part of that comprehensive solution.

Nuclear energy accounts for just under 10 percent of the nation’s installed electricity-generation capacity, but provides nearly 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. Nuclear energy also is the largest source of electricity that doesn’t emit greenhouse gases or other particle pollutants—more precisely, 63 percent of the emission-free electricity generation.

The long-term prospects for nuclear energy remain strong. Even with modest economic growth over the next two decades, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts a 28 percent increase in electricity demand by 2040. The United States will need some 400 new, large power plants to meet increased 24/7 electricity demand and replace closed plants. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale source of clean electricity that can be expanded widely.

Although the domestic market for new nuclear plants remains soft in the near-term with five plants under construction, there are significant opportunities in the expanding global market.

The Department of Commerce estimates that the global nuclear energy market—including fuel and services—will expand to as much as $740 billion over the next 10 years. The Commerce Department estimates that every $1 billion of exports will create 5,000 to 10,000 American jobs.

The development of clean energy technologies is critical to reducing greenhouse gases, and will provide the United States with the means to jumpstart our still-sluggish economy and make America a world leader in low-carbon energy.

Most mainstream, independent analyses of the climate change issue conclude that nuclear energy must increase to meet rising electricity demand while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. To succeed in this endeavor, the U.S. must establish a comprehensive and sustainable national policy that supports the development of technology-based, zero-carbon solutions like nuclear energy, solar and wind. This policy must be implemented in the near term and be affordable for consumers. Herein lies the value of nuclear energy.

In response to the question about what Congress and the President can do to address climate change, I suggest we think about the issue a little differently. Rather than relying solely on punitive measures (i.e. carbon tax) or complex financial scenarios (i.e. cap and trade), what if we created pure economic incentives for industry to reduce overall carbon emissions?

I’m not talking about policy incentives or tax schemes, but good old fashioned manufacturing. I’ve had the opportunity to witness this first hand in my dealings with our customers around the world. My company has developed technology to convert waste gases that contain carbon into marketable commodities like fuels and chemicals. In doing so, we reduce the overall amount of emissions in the atmosphere by “recycling” carbon into a fuel, or “burying” it in a plastic or nylon.

Here’s the interesting thing. The moment I tell my partners I want their waste, it’s no longer waste, and it’s no longer free. Through this relationship, a value has been put on carbon far more closely tied to industry than to a complex financial model. There emerges a purely economic incentive for industry to reduce emissions because the “waste” now has value.

According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, the two biggest drivers of carbon dioxide emissions are Energy (26%) and Industry (19%). Transportation, at 13%, closely follows. Because these three categories are all driven mostly by fossil fuels (coal, petroleum and natural gas), any solution that can derive value from waste carbon has the potential to change the game on climate.

Let’s face it – the world won’t ever need less energy, fewer chemicals or fewer fuels. Yet as long as we think of economic growth and environmental protection as mutually exclusive, we will continue to be at loggerheads politically and socially. We need to understand that innovation is creating new pathways to sustainable growth.

Imagine if technologies like ours and others being developed -- that can convert waste into commodities -- were deployed not just across the U.S., but globally. We could see significant reduction in emissions as fuels and chemicals created from waste are introduced into the global supply chain, helping to meet future demand without increasing emissions.

Probably the biggest thing the President and Congress could do doesn’t involve specific policy. Rather, it requires a change in thinking: to view carbon not just as waste, but as an industrial input. If they could align policies to encourage reuse of carbon rather than restrict emissions of it, we would accelerate the deployment of these new technologies.

A second, longer-term approach would be to make existing (and future) tax incentives and regulations involving biofuels or emissions-reduction technology neutral. This would accelerate true innovation by not favoring one approach versus another.

Third, we must understand that we need many tools in the toolbox to achieve the CO2 emissions reductions required to address climate change. These new technologies can’t do it all. We need to continue to focus on conservation, efficiency and effective public policy to create an environment for success.

Last, the key to creating that environment will be to enable industrial emitters to become part of the solution. We can do that by creating and commercializing technologies that align what’s best for their bottom lines with what’s also best for the planet.

(These comments were submitted by Randy T. Simmons, professor in the Department of Economics and Finance, Utah State University; and Ryan M. Yonk, professor in the Department of Political Science, Southern Utah University.)

The list of thought leaders who’ve endorsed imposing a tax on carbon emissions includes a number of diverse economic heavyweights: former Reagan adviser Art Laffer, Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw, and former Clinton Administration Commerce Undersecretary Robert Shapiro, just to name a few. In fact, they’ve formed an informal clique called the Pigou Club.

The Pigou Club, named for early 20^th century British economist Arthur Cecil Pigou, advocates for higher taxes intended to correct for what economists call “negative externalities”—costs imposed on society by individual actions (ie. the entire office smelling of fish because one of your coworkers dined on tuna fish for lunch). EPA’s Superfund is funded by Pigouvian taxes on hazardous chemicals. European taxes on water pollution also fall into this camp. In the case of climate policy, Pigou fans recommend imposing a tax on carbon emissions.

Modern Pigouvians’ enthusiasm for this tax, however, ought to be tempered by what Pigou himself had to say. He warned:

It is not sufficient to contrast the imperfect adjustments of unfettered private enterprise with the best adjustment that economists in their studies can imagine. For we cannot expect that any public authority will attain, or will even whole-heartedly seek, that ideal. Such authorities are liable alike to ignorance, to sectional pressure and to personal corruption by private interest.

Though a carbon tax may be more effective and efficient than outright regulation in theory (ie CAFE standards), Pigou was reminding economists that the world outside their models acts quite differently than the world within.

Politicians and bureaucrats are as imperfect as those they seek to regulate. The fiscal cliff bill, for example, contained provisions inserted by Senators Max Baucus (D, Montana) and Orrin Hatch (R, Utah) that allowed Amgen, the world’s largest biotechnology company, to delay complying with Medicare price cutting controls. It also contained benefits for motorsports entertainment complexes and appliance manufacturers. This isn’t unique to 21^st first century Washington. In 1932 Pigou noted:

A hostile, lax, or ignorant city council, or even a state legislature, may vary the terms of the agreement in such a manner as totally to destroy or seriously impair its value … Every public official is a potential opportunity for some form of self-interest arrayed against the common interest.

Pigou could easily have been describing recent climate change legislation. Tracking the page count of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (the infamous cap-and-trade bill) provides an indication of the exemptions, favors, and advantages needed to pass the House of Representatives. When Congress released a discussion draft, it totaled 648 pages. By the time it was introduced, the bill had grown to 932 pages. In committee it topped 1,092 pages. Then it became 1,201 pages long when it was reported out of the Rules Committee. At 3:00 a.m. on the day of the vote, Rep. Henry Waxman added a 309-page “manager’s amendment” in order to get the necessary votes to pass.

The final bill weighed in at 1,437 pages and passed the House by one vote.

Political economist Aaron Wildavsky described similar political processes:

In the 1960s America fell in love with the Rachel of social reform and found itself instead married to the Leah of big government. She was bigger, but she wasn’t better.

A carbon tax is the latest example of falling in love with Rachel and finding ourselves married to Leah. The Pigouvian allure of a simple and beautiful tax will lead to being married to a large, favor-filled, unwieldy, and inefficient one. It will have far more to do with benefitting the politically powerful than with protecting human or ecological health.

“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”

This inaugural statement and the President’s subsequent remarks on climate change encapsulate the problem. But his so-called “all of the above” approach to energy policy is entirely inconsistent with it. “All of the above” is really a recipe for “more of the same.” It’s a recipe for continued climate change, ocean acidification, more severe storms, more displaced farmers and fishermen, and the list goes on. All of that translates, following the President’s logic, into a betrayal of our children and future generations.

In today’s carbon-dominated energy landscape, “All of the Above” really means “Oil and Coal Above All.” Since current energy policy so strongly favors fossil fuels, clean energy has a challenging and uneven playing field. The simple fact is that our use of oil and gas is causing the problem and clean energy is the solution.

It will not be easy to turn our energy ship around. It has a lot of momentum and it’s carrying a valuable payload. It will take a rethinking of how we leverage our resources, what permissions we grant to energy companies on our land and water and how we train our workforce. But our energy policy for the future must be forward-thinking, not tied down by the distorted energy policy of the present.

I hope that President Obama is serious about using his second term to work with Congress to address the threat of climate change. There are certain steps that the President can take to ensure that his words are supported by action. First, the President must recognize the failure of “all of the above” for the long term, and recognize that we as a nation cannot address the threat of climate change in a meaningful way if our energy plan fails to wean us off of dirty fossil fuels.

Second, the President should introduce an energy plan for his second term that clearly lays out a strategy for transitioning the United States away from fossil fuels and toward more robust clean energy development. Such a plan would deny the proposed oil and gas exploration in the Atlantic Ocean; put an end to drilling in the Arctic; and build on the progress this administration has made on clean energy development, particularly the great progress that has been made to bring offshore wind to our shores.

Lastly, the President should set forth a strategy to work more closely with Congress to stimulate clean energy development through the use of federal tax incentives, like the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for offshore wind. As the President said on January 21^st, “We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries. We must claim its promise.” Incentivizing offshore wind development will ignite our latent manufacturing sector, boost our economy, make us more energy independent, and yes, combat global climate change. We must seize this time in history and capitalize on the momentum of the moment by letting go of the empty promises of “all of the above” and finally embracing a sustainable, renewable, clean energy future.

No one can say with certainty how the debate over climate change will evolve in the 113^th Congress. Two considerations are clear, however.

Nothing will come easy: Virtually every facet of the debate will be hotly contested. We ought to focus, therefore, on those relatively few issues on which there is broad bipartisan consensus.

The best place to start is to deepen America’s commitment to energy efficiency.

I’m not alone in championing that point of view. If you look at the congressional sponsors of bills aimed at realizing energy savings, you’ll see bipartisan partnerships. Support for energy efficiency cuts across ideological, party, and geographic lines. West coast progressives like Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Midwestern conservatives like Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) can all agree that no matter where or how America gets its energy, it’s shame to squander it. That’s why Boxer, Portman, and other members from both sides of the aisle and both sides of Capitol Hill are promoting legislation with energy efficiency – a renewed commitment to greater levels of insulation and other measures that cut back energy use and costs – as its centerpiece.

I was heartened last week by Senator Boxer’s vow to push bipartisan energy efficiency bills as a means of protecting the environment, sparking jobs, and strengthening infrastructure. In her view, the climate change debate should begin with efficiency measures, which are often called the “low-hanging fruit” of energy policy.

Senator Boxer chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which gives her a superb platform to promote bills buttressing the federal government’s commitment to insulation and energy savings. Her first bill would enhance energy efficiency in federal buildings by requiring the General Services Administration to conduct energy audits aimed at pinpointing ways to strengthen efficiency and lower costs. The goal is to make the investment pay for itself within a decade.

But it won’t take a decade for the marketplace to see the benefits of a beefed-up commitment to efficiency – those will come right away. There’s no quicker or better way to spur jobs or lower energy costs. Installing greater levels of insulation in older federal buildings alone will put thousands of construction workers and retrofitters back on the job around the country. Imagine the economic impact if more commercial buildings and homes were similarly retrofitted.

A recent Gallup poll documented the financial pain inflicted by high energy costs. Nearly eighty percent of respondents said energy prices were “hurting” them, taking first place among all family pocketbook concerns. Energy costs, in fact, were cited more often than food, taxes, or health care. A bigger commitment to energy efficiency would be a boon to millions of middle- and lower-class American families.

Congressional proponents of energy efficiency understand that it will help America regain its competitive edge. So does the White House. On January 28, the President pointed out in his remarks on climate change that efficiency projects are a key way for government to reduce its own energy consumption and environmental impact – without seeking additional funds from Congress.

CNAIMA and a broad-based private-public coalition would be honored if one of the enduring legacies of this period in Washington was the enactment of legislation that creates jobs, saves taxpayer and homeowner dollars, and protects the climate.

Kate Offringa is the CEO and President of the Council of the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (CNAIMA).

A window is opening in Washington for real climate change action just as another window is rapidly closing to avoid dire consequences from temperature increases for our children and grandchildren. Decades of dithering has already set some changes to our climate in motion, from raging wildfires to crippling drought and severe storms, making the need for immediate action greater than ever. Now is the time for Washington to forge a climate-smart, renewable energy future.

In addition to targeting emissions and mitigating climate change -- as the President has recently mentioned -- Washington must also ramp up funding to prepare local communities for the effects they are already seeing. Right now, we are actually spending money to make the problem worse, such as federal subsidies for fossil fuel production.

There are certain changes that will unfold in the coming decades no matter what we do now—a sort of hangover from decades of fossil fuel use by industrialized countries. As we have seen in New York City and New Orleans, cities and towns across America will be on the front lines of facing impacts of climate change.

Many cities are doing all that they can to both prepare themselves and to transition off of the fossil fuels of the past. Just last week, Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory said, “In Cincinnati, we have been aggressively pursuing a wide range of strategies to combat climate change and shift to renewable energy. Our electric aggregation deal allows all of our citizens to receive 100% renewable energy. Cincinnati has become a national leader in green energy and we are going to continue to lead by example.” Expanding local efforts like these is critical to ensuring that our citizens are adequately prepared for climate change.

Right now, politicians in Washington have the opportunity to follow the lead of local municipalities instead of continuing to leave them dangerously unprepared. They have the power to do right by our cities. They have the power to do right by our kids. They have the power to do right by the planet. They have the power to prepare us for a better future.

America has a powerful tool to start reducing global warming pollution right now: the Clean Air Act. Using existing authority already enacted into law by Congress—and confirmed by the Supreme Court—the EPA can dramatically reduce carbon pollution from our existing fleet of power plants. These plants account for nearly 40 percent of the U.S. carbon emissions, and cleaning them up would put our nation squarely on the path to addressing climate change.

We certainly can’t afford to wait any longer. Last year was the hottest year on record for the contiguous United States, according to NOAA. NRDC experts analyzed government weather data and found that at least 3,527 US monthly records for heat, rain, and snow were broken last year. Eleven of those events topped the $1 billion mark in losses.

Climate change is making these events more frequent and more intense. If we want to protect our communities, we must go after the pollution that is causing climate change. We know where it is. Now it’s time for the EPA to start cleaning it up.

NRDC has proposed a flexible, cost-effective plan for how the EPA can set standards that will reduce carbon pollution by 26 percent by 2020 compared to 2005 levels and generate between $25 and $60 billion in public health and climate protection benefits by 2020. Under our plan, the EPA would tailor states’ carbon reduction goals to their individual energy mix and let power companies choose the most affordable way to hit the target. Our plan would also help consumers save on their electric bills and create tens of thousands of American jobs by promoting investment in energy efficiency and wind, solar and other low-carbon sources of renewable power.

Ultimately we will need national clean energy and climate legislation to complete the job, but this Congress is not likely to deliver a new bill in the near-term. Using the EPA’s authority to reduce carbon pollution under the clean air and energy efficiency laws already on the books is the best pathway America has right now for tackling climate change. The agency is poised to move forward, and the President Obama is eager to act. It will be a tough fight—it requires going toe-to-toe with influential fossil fuel companies—but the administration has the backing of the American people.

The majority swing states residents said they want leaders who support EPA effort to reduce carbon pollution, according to a September survey by Public Policy Polling. And when the Obama Administration proposed carbon limits for new power plants last year, people sent more than 3 million comments to the EPA in favor of the standards. Americans want to shield our communities from the ravages of climate change.

Reducing carbon pollution from power plants would be a signature second-term achievement for the president, a legacy accomplishment that would mean a stronger economy, a more secure nation and a healthier, safer future for our children. Let’s get started.

President Obama’s commitment to addressing climate change is admirable. Now it must be accompanied by a similar commitment from Congress, and support from the business community, the energy industry, and other key stakeholders.

Universal, bipartisan support shouldn’t be hard to build. Climate change is already having a negative influence on our economic health, public safety, and national security. At least one-third of the U.S GDP is weather and climate sensitive; and extreme weather, from hurricanes to droughts and wildfires, threatens communities across the country. Those impacts are occurring in red and blue states from coast to coast, and they are impacting everyone, from families to Fortune 500 companies.

When it comes to policy solutions, there are a wealth of options for the Administration and Congress to work with, and they must all be considered carefully. However, the time for asking whether or not the U.S. has the appetite or political will to tackle climate change is over. The question we have to ask ourselves today is not if we can do it, but how we can work together to lead the way forward.

For much of our history, the United States has been a world leader in science and technology innovation. That leadership has brought us significant improvements in public safety and economic growth, and other countries have followed our example. A large percentage of those successes were the result of strong federal support and strategic investments in R&D.

Consider this: Federal investments in scientific R&D led to improvements of 24-hour temperature forecasts, which save U.S. electricity producers $166 million annually. However, federal investments in R&D are currently at their lowest levels in more than a decade – representing a mere 2% of the budget – and the U.S. has fallen from #1 to #8 in the world in R&D investment as a percentage of GDP. Add to that the threat non-defense discretionary R&D funding is facing in the current budget and sequestration negotiations, and the possibility for American-lead innovation in the battle against climate change – and all the benefits that would come with it – seems to be slipping away.

We want our leaders to be empowered to make decisions that will protect our economy and our families and build a foundation for future success, but to do so they need to have access to the best research available. If we continue to undermine the nation’s capacity for innovation with further cuts to R&D funding, where will the President and Congress get the information they need to evaluate the multitude of policy options and develop balanced and effective solutions?

One of the first steps Washington should take in addressing climate change is to ensure that we continue to fund strategic research that advances our understanding of climate change and its impacts.

[This piece was co-authored with Kevin Kennedy, Director of WRI’s U.S. Climate Initiative]

President Obama made it clear in his inaugural address last week that he intends to make addressing climate crisis a high priority in his second term. That is welcome news. Time is of the essence if we are going to stave off the worst impacts of climate change.

Following are three ways that the Administration can respond to climate change at home and overseas:

1) President Obama can follow through on his commitment to start a national conversation on climate change. In doing so, he could help people better identify the risks and opportunities that climate change poses to the United States.

The impacts of climate change are already being felt across the country. In Key West, Florida, sea levels have risen by 9 inches in the last century and are expected to rise by another 9 inches to 2 feet in the next 4 decades. Rising sea levels mean that coastal flooding caused by powerful storms, like Hurricane Sandy, can result in more damage to critical infrastructure, businesses, and communities. In Colorado, the mountain pine beetle is now surviving through mild winters due to climate change. As a result, pine beetle blight has already destroyed 3.3 million acres of Coloradan forests and has contributed to worsening western forest fires. These changes are destroying habitats and carry significant economic impacts.

In launching a national dialogue, President Obama can bring together leaders from communities to find common solutions and strengthen the response between local, regional and national experts.

2) The Administration should ensure that the country is on a low-emissions pathway for the near and long-term. The Administration has several tools at its disposal to reduce U.S. emissions. Especially at a moment when Congress seems unlikely to take strong action, the President has the authority to do so. The biggest opportunities are to address emissions from existing coal-fired power plants, which produce 26 percent of U.S. emissions. Sending clear, strong signals that electricity will need to shift to cleaner sources over the coming decades is critical for the country’s long-term human, environmental, and economic health. The Administration can also do more to cost-effectively reduce other non-carbon greenhouse gases—such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)— as well as address methane emissions from U.S. natural gas systems.

Next week, WRI will be releasing an updated report, “Can the U.S. Get There from Here?”, that will spell out the specific steps the administration can take to meet its commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent by 2020 (below 2005 levels) and ensure the country is on a low-emissions pathway over the long-term.

3) The President, working with the expected new Secretary of State, John Kerry, has a major opportunity to press the reset button on U.S. international climate diplomacy. Building on the domestic actions noted above, the Administration could place climate and clean energy at the heart of bilateral relations with countries like China, India, and the European Union. For instance, it could integrate climate change into its international energy strategy, including emphasizing renewable energy and efficiency. In addition, the Administration could work to craft an ambitious and equitable international climate agreement by 2015. Such an agreement would help ensure that all major economies are moving in the same direction in controlling their emissions.

By taking steps at home, the United States can demonstrate much-needed global leadership and help mobilize further action by other countries, like China. It would also increase credibility for the high-profile Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants, launched by Secretary Clinton in 2012.

The opportunities are numerous and the case for action is clear. What is needed now is for the Administration to take the necessary steps to move the United States towards a low-carbon trajectory and work with the international community to achieve a safer future.

President Obama took a bold stand on climate change in his inaugural address last week. But words are meaningless without action. The administration now needs to follow through with specific concrete steps to make a difference for our planet.

Reducing greenhouse gases is a vital part of the solution. If we can’t get carbon emissions under control, it tells the rest of the world that the United States doesn’t take the threat of climate change seriously. Now is not the time to argue about whether other nations are pulling their weight. It’s time to lead.

We must increase the use of clean energy strategically by being “smart from the start” by steering new projects into low conflict areas, thereby avoiding serious harm to important wildlife habitat and sensitive landscapes.

The administration also needs to take a long look at how climate change is already affecting our communities: hurricanes, droughts, floods and fires took a disastrous toll on the United States this past year. The only way to reduce future damage is to make proactive policy changes before the next catastrophic storm makes landfall, not after it already has. Preparing for climate impacts through preserving and improving crucial wildlife habitat such as wetlands that can protect our coastlines is vital to the safety of people and wildlife alike.

The Hurricane Sandy supplemental funding bill is a great step in the right direction. It includes provisions for reducing flooding and restoring coastal wildlife habitat for increased resilience to future storms. But it’s still just that: a single important step in a single region of the country. More work must be done to help protect regions from devastating storms such as Hurricane Sandy in the future.

President Obama has just embarked on his second term. We cannot yet know what his legacy will be. But if he follows his words with serious action to reduce carbon emissions and prepare for future climate impacts, he will undoubtedly be remembered as the first president to lead on climate change.

President Obama’s inaugural address placed climate change and clean energy where they truly belong – among the most profound challenges of our time. Our progress in addressing them over the next four years depends on how vigorously the president works to translate words into action, and whether there’s any willingness in Congress to join him in the effort.

We continue to believe that the most efficient way to reduce emissions is a market-based approach that puts a price on carbon. While there may be virtually no chance of enacting a national greenhouse cap-and-trade program at the moment (even as 10 states and a growing number of countries are pushing ahead with carbon trading), Congress should seriously consider the next best option: a carbon tax. A revenue-neutral carbon tax offsetting payroll or other taxes would help solve the nation’s mounting fiscal challenges while creating a market signal favoring clean energy and lower emissions.

Whether or not this Congress is prepared to pursue a comprehensive approach – and at the moment it appears unlikely – there is a lot the president can do on his own. Indeed, the Clean Air Act mandates it.

On the transportation front, the administration can build on its new rules doubling the fuel economy and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of passenger vehicles by adopting stronger standards through 2025 for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. On stationary sources, the administration can finalize its proposed rules for new power plants. And it can set flexible emissions standards for existing power plants, which generate a third of U.S. carbon emissions, and allow states to meet them with a range of tools, including cap-and-trade. The administration can also step up efforts to tackle short-lived climate forcers such as methane, black carbon and HFCs.

Internationally, the administration should work to ensure that a fresh round of U.N. climate negotiations now underway produces an agreement in 2015 that is ambitious yet sensible – one the United States can join. It also should continue with strategies outside the U.N., such as the new coalition addressing short-lived forcers, and work to deliver a meaningful pact to reduce emissions from aviation.

The United States’ ability to promote stronger global action, though, depends heavily on continued progress at home. Above all, the president must continue making the case for action directly to the American people. A year of record heat, drought and wildfire, capped by Hurricane Sandy, has underscored the here-and-now costs of climate change. We need a reasoned, sustained conversation about the rising risks of a warming planet – and the economic opportunities of a clean-energy transition. No one is better placed to lead that conversation than the president.

Almost a half a century ago, noted historian Daniel Boorstin wrote The Image: A Guide to Pseudo Events in America. It should be required reading for public officials and anyone interested in serious public policy. Boorstin observed then that we as a nation had reached a point where reality was judged by the image instead of the image being judged by reality. That certainly describes climate change.

President Obama and those who buy into the climate orthodoxy are engaged in creating an ever more apocalyptic image of the future. This is an attempt to set the foundation for draconian actions that will advance the liberal agenda while doing nothing about climate.

First, NASA claimed that 2012 was the hottest year on record even though that was not true globally and there are well documented data problems with land-based temperature measurements. Overlooked by the media was a report by the UK’s Met Office that confirmed that 2012 was the l6th year without significant warming.

NASA’s announcement was bolstered by a report from the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) claiming that “climate change is already affecting the American people…Certain types of weather events have become more frequent and/or intense.” More could be added from the report but when the full report is read it becomes clear that the statistical evidence does not support the alarm of its conclusions. Further, this report is not supported by drafts of the IPCC’s AR5. Roger Pielke a recognized climate expert observed, “How is it that it (GCRP) got things so wrong? Either the IPCC and the scientific literature are in error or the draft USGCRP assessment is.” There is a mountain of evidence that the human effect on climate is being exaggerated and that insufficient evidence exists to identify the size of the human finger print.

So, the answer to the question posed is that Washington should do what doctors take an oath to do—first do no harm.

In 2011, scientists from the US Solar Observatory and the US Air Force Research Laboratory discovered that the sun’s activity was declining and that we could experience the lowest solar activity since the Little Ice Age. There is a strong correlation between solar activity and temperature. In the past decade a theory has been tested to explain why. Dr. Roy Spencer has published research explaining the relationship between temperature cycles and a phenomenon known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that explains the temperature increase beginning in the 1970s and the lack of warming in the past 16 years.

As our understanding of the climate system improves, the case of the so-called skeptics gets stronger; the case of the advocates of catastrophe gets weaker.

Over the past six years, US emissions of CO2 have declined and according to the EIA will not reach the 2005 level until 2035. That was achieved mainly without a major policy initiative from Washington. It is the result of the natural gas renaissance that is taking place.

Instead of the White House and Congress pushing legislation and regulations that would simply hinder the economy and its recovery, they should look to what could be done to get our technologies adopted by the developing world which is responsible for the growth in global emissions. That would do much for development and a great deal for limiting the growth in future emissions while improving our balance of trade.

Whatever climate problem may eventually shown to exist from using fossil energy, the solution will come from innovation and technology; not from mandates that impose unnecessary costs on the economy.

It seems clear from Senator Boxer’s statement last week that she wants to use natural gas exports and Keystone XL as extortions tools to limit opposition to a carbon tax. Unless the House majority changes in 2014, that will not happen. The more likely course is that EPA will continue to impose regulatory burdens that impose costs with no climate benefits. All of this explains why Washington is so dysfunctional.

Advancing climate change solutions is America’s economic growth opportunity to lead global investment and advances in clean energy development and technological innovations. It’s also our moral obligation for the next generations’ vitality. Here are five key ways that the Obama Administration and Congress can move solutions forward:

First, Congress should extend the federal wind power production tax credit (PTC) for a reasonable period of time (with phase-down) in order for America to continue capturing the job creation, economic growth and greenhouse gas pollution reduction benefits from modern wind power development. The short-term PTC extension in the fiscal cliff deal will spur manufacturing orders and project development. However, stability and predictability is needed, as wind power blade and turbine technologies and better siting techniques improve operating capacity factors. The on-again, off-again PTC uncertainty discourages investment, costs jobs and weakens American clean energy leadership.

Second, solar PV and battery storage technological advances are energy market game changers that can accelerate greenhouse gas pollution reductions. Federal R&D and commercialization support for breakthrough renewable energy technological innovations is vital for America’s economic future and global leadership. The Federal government should not shortchange R&D that can spur solar and battery improvements, which can both modernize America’s energy grid system and be exported to developing countries to help solve global climate change problems while upgrading living conditions for many.

Third, energy efficiency is the best, fastest and cheapest solution to addressing energy needs and pollution problems. The “quiet revolution” in energy efficiency is holding down electricity demand and reducing pollution, saving residential and business consumers money on their utility bills, creating good installation jobs, and boosting local economies as people spend their energy savings at Main Street businesses across the nation. The Obama Administration and Congress should keep advancing the U.S. DOE appliance efficiency standards and the U.S. EPA’s Energy Star program, which are working well in spurring progress, along with billions of dollars of energy efficiency program investments in the states and the private sector’s efficiency technology advances. LED lighting improvements over the next few years are another energy market game changer that can significantly reduce electricity demand and carbon pollution, while saving consumers money.

Fourth, let’s seize transportation sector opportunities for climate change solutions. The federal clean car and truck standards adopted during President Obama’s first term are a big step forward. Modernizing the rail system to accelerate high-speed rail development can improve mobility, reduce greenhouse gas pollution, create jobs and spur economic growth. Modernizing public transit for urban, suburban and rural communities requires investment in Congress’ next transportation reauthorization legislation. Improving transportation mobility and accessibility can be achieved together with reducing carbon pollution.

Fifth, the U.S. EPA has proceeded thoughtfully and carefully with its responsibilities for the important greenhouse gas pollution reduction standards. It’s now more than five years since the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. It’s now time for EPA to fully move forward in advancing and accomplishing all of the necessary rulemakings in a fair, legal and balanced manner. The EPA must also have sufficient funding to effectively implement and enforce its Clean Air Act (and Clean Water Act and other statutory) responsibilities. Elections have consequences. The partisan attacks on EPA did not persuade a majority of American voters and electors. Unless Congressional opponents can muster the votes – unlikely, it seems, for now – to change the Clean Air Act or enact a replacement carbon tax mechanism, then EPA must move forward and be appropriated sufficient resources to do its job fairly, reasonably and well to achieve cleaner air, cleaner water and greenhouse gas pollution reductions for public health, safety and welfare.

The President will need to address coal, which remains the world’s cheapest and most used energy source, as well as the one most responsible for the air pollution linked to climate change. However, recent innovations in multi-pollutant emissions control technology have proven to be effective in all but eliminating the pollutants targeted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), while keeping down costs. The Administration should look at ways to promote the scaling of this technology and continue driving down costs for electric utilities that are already facing EPA regulations like the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). In addition to addressing MATS, many of these technologies can provide the flexibility to address future regulations with minimal cost and effort. The EPA has already short-listed several multi-pollutant emissions control technologies that have proven to be more effective than a series of their traditional counterparts that would be needed to eliminate the same pollutants. In many cases, it is more economical and less cumbersome to install.

The President should encourage innovations such as these and build partnerships that streamline their financing and installation. As the industry matures by addressing emissions in the United States, industry leaders can then sell their expertise and technology to other parts of the world looking for ways to combat climate change without breaking the bank. Coal is a global commodity that will continue to be used in power generation and heavy industries such as aluminum and cement production. If the United States can find ways to make its use cleaner, the President will have addressed climate change and opened up a worldwide market for U.S. technology providers

Economic analysis provides a straightforward means to deal with emissions that impose harm. Essentially, tax those emissions at a rate that reflects the costs of the harm. Thus, insofar as carbon and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impose social costs associated with climate change, impose a tax on those emissions and provide, through changed relative prices, the right incentives to economize fossil fuels and to develop new energy sources.

Pretty simple, right? In a world without politics, maybe. But not in the world in which we live. Some constituents will demand special exemptions from such a tax, others will oppose it for fear of the impact on the size and growth of government, and yet others will oppose paying any sort of new tax at all. Few politicians in the United States or most other places are willing to propose a carbon or GHG tax, no matter what economists say.

Another complication is that, even if the U.S. were to adopt such a policy, there is no assurance that others would follow. They might or might not, though governments the world over certainly know how to impose taxes. The political tendency here and elsewhere, however, is to wait for changes in technology to alleviate the underlying problem.

What policy implications follow? I draw the following:

o A carbon tax (or GHG tax) is the most efficient means to deal with the issue. It would use the price system to signal millions of individuals how much to economize fossil fuels and how quickly to develop new energy sources. If political circumstances allow, that’s the best way to go.

o Put government money into basic research and development of entirely new energy sources, e.g., solar energy from space. Private developers can and will exploit known energy technologies, but they cannot capture all of the returns from developing new ones, so there is an important role for government-sponsored R&D.

o Encourage (i.e., subsidize) adaptation to a changing climate. If the world is underinvesting in means to control damages from GHGs then we probably should overinvest in adaptation. A recent LMI book on climate change (Climate Change: What You Can Do Now) provides 35 specific adaptation recommendations, which is only a beginning. It’s time to get serious about adaptation planning and implementation.

In my view, these are means to an efficient policy outcome. It’ll be interesting to see the extent, if any, to which they are followed.

The answer to “How Should Washington Address Climate Change?” is different for the leaders of each party. President Barack Obama’s inspirational inaugural address included a pledge that the nation, “will respond to the threat of climate change.” During his February 12th State of the Union address he should describe the administration’s plans to significantly cut carbon pollution. He should commit to enforcing the Clean Air Act by setting carbon pollution reduction standards for power plants and other large emitters. He should also pledge to take additional administrative actions to reduce pollution.

The Republican Congressional leadership has two simpler tasks. First, they must finally acknowledge that climate change is real, already causing harm, and is primarily due to human activities. Second, the House majority should cease wasting tax dollars spent trying to pass legislation to remove, undermine, or delay the federal government’s ability to protect lives and livelihoods from climate change.

There is a recent avalanche of evidence providing further warnings that we must urgently begin pollution reductions to stave off the worst impacts of climate change. For instance, the National Climate Assessment draft prepared by several hundred scientists and released on January 11 reiterated that

Climate change is already affecting the American people. Certain types of weather events have become more frequent and/or intense, including heat waves, heavy downpours, and, in some regions, floods and droughts. Sea level is rising, oceans are becoming more acidic, and glaciers and arctic sea ice are melting. These changes are part of the pattern of global climate change, which is primarily driven by human activity.

In addition, the U.S. suffered from super storm Sandy and 24 other extreme weather events in 2011 and 2012 that each caused at least $1 billion in damages. Together these events caused nearly 1,200 fatalities and $174 billion in damages.

In his first term, President Obama significantly reduced carbon pollution by adopting new motor vehicle standards and doubling renewable electricity generation. As a result, the Energy Information Administration reports that we are halfway to his goal of a 17 percent carbon reduction below 2005 levels by 2020. In the State of the Union address, he should recommit to meeting the 2020 goal. He has ample tools to meet this goal by implementing existing laws or updating executive orders.

· Finalize the carbon pollution standard for new power plants under the Clean Air Act, proposed last March.

· Develop, propose, and finalize a carbon pollution reduction standard for existing power plants, oil refineries and other large emitters.

· Limit the increase in carbon pollution from tar sands oil production by rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline permit.

· Deploy wind, solar, and other clean electricity technologies on appropriate federal lands and waters.

· Require federal agencies to use an increasing portion of their electricity from renewable sources.

· Finalize an international climate protection treaty so that other nations reduce their pollution too.

In addition, the administration should identify a dedicated source of revenue to assist communities with efforts to become more resilient from the impact of future climate-related storms, floods, droughts, heat waves, and wildfires.

(For more on these proposals, see: Building on President Obama’s Clean Energy Successes)

Despite the growing evidence and urgency to act, Republican leaders continue to deny the link between fossil fuel combustion and climate change. They remain unalterably opposed to action. For example, immediately after the election, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) dismissed climate science when he asserted that “I don't think we're any closer to the answer than we were 10 years ago”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) also seems ignorant of the findings by well-respected scientific institutions, including the National Academy of Sciences. During 2012’s record heat wave, he obliviously said “I suppose over decades and maybe centuries we’ll figure this [climate change] out.”

Last week potential 2016 presidential candidate Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) belittled the threats posed by climate change to the United States and the world’s health and stability, and instead insisted that government was helpless to act.

At a minimum, these and other Republican leaders should review the National Climate Assessment draft, and end their know-nothing denial of climate science and magical thinking that it won’t harm us.

In addition, the House Republican leadership should stop wasting tax dollars spent pursuing efforts to block administration efforts to attack climate change. A report by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) determined that the previous House of Representatives cast 53 floor “votes to block actions that address climate change.” Nearly all of these measures were ignored by the Senate, and only one bill became law.

Unfortunately, it appears that Republican leaders remain dedicated to blocking administration climate change policies. House Energy and Power Subcommittee Chair Ed Whitfield (R-KY) announced that “In the House, we're going to be moving aggressively to try to find out what science they are basing this [executive action] on, the costs, the impacts and whether or not it's overkill.”

As scientists’ warnings about climate change grow ever louder, President Obama has pledged to tackle this public health, economic and security threat. His State of the Union address provides an opportunity to describe his plans in more detail. Republican Congressional leaders should lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Global emissions of carbon dioxide were at a record high in 2011 and probably grew in 2012 as well. But President Obama’s argument that we need to do more to fight climate change is off the mark. It’s places like China, India, and Western Europe, where hundreds of new coal plants are under construction, who are largely responsible for global warming, not the United States.

America’s energy supply in recent years has become more diverse and cleaner in response to market forces rather than public policies. Mainly because of fuel switching from coal to clean, inexpensive natural gas, GHG emissions in the U.S. are lower today than they were 20 years ago, even with an economy that’s a third larger. And while America declined to sign the Kyoto Protocol, we have exceeded the reductions mandated by that agreement.

Still, there are several policy initiatives the President should support if he wants to have an impact on climate change. First, he needs to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency, champing at the bit to issue new regulations on GHG emissions for automobiles, power plants and industrial boilers. Heavy industries and utilities have accelerated their use of natural gas as a boiler fuel in recent years and will continue to do so. Since 2005, 8,000 megawatts of coal-fired generation have been retired and another 15,000 megawatts will be offline by 2016. The result will be even lower carbon emissions. Similarly, the EPA needs to stay out of the hydraulic fracturing arena, where there is absolutely no evidence the states are doing a poor job of environmental oversight.

By exporting some of our abundant natural gas supplies, the U.S. can help other countries reduce their GHGs—particularly those who rely heavily on coal for power generation. But to ship American gas across the oceans it must first be liquefied. This requires huge investments in liquefaction plants, export terminals and special LNG (liquefied natural gas) carriers. To date, only one terminal and liquefaction plant has been approved by the U.S. Department of Energy—Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass facility in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. The administration should quickly approve the seven other applications currently pending.

Another way America can contribute to the fight against climate change is by reviving its nuclear power industry. Though the U.S. has 104 nuclear plants operating in 31 states, no new facilities have been ordered since the 1970s. Still, those 104 plants currently generate about one-fifth of the nation's electricity while emitting no greenhouse gases. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, nuclear power is eligible for loan guarantees since it is considered a "clean" technology that doesn't emit carbon gases. To date, Congress has authorized a maximum of $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power projects. The amount of these guarantees should be increased while the time and cost of the application process is streamlined.

Investing in new nuclear power plants is good for the economy, good for the environment, and good for energy security. Nuclear energy can be the real legacy of our nation's effort to curb global warming.

The idea that the US is somehow absolved because our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are trending down is absurd. The United States was the largest global emitter of carbon dioxide emissions until 2006 when China overtook us. The United States is 12^th on the global list of carbon emitters with 19.1 tons of carbon per capita while Japan is 9.8 and China is 4.9. The idea that the USA should hold back because the rest of the world is “doing their thing” is counter to what “American exceptionalism” is all about. We were the first country requiring seat belts for cars, banning cigarette smoking in public places, and instituting a Clean Air Act regulating sulfur, nitrous oxides and particulates. And guess what, virtually every industrialized country has followed suit as well as half the developing world. The Chinese and Indians are fully aware and concerned about global climate impacts. But if the largest, longest-term emitter and one of the world’s most advanced and richest countries doesn’t want to make the effort, their view is “why should we?”. I use the analogy of several building owners all plagued by termites, but none of them want to spend any money because their competitor may overtake them – but by doing that, none of them will “win” in the end. Just as we banded together globally to close the global ozone hole banning certain chlorofluorocarbons, the world can deal with greenhouse gases. In the US, Senators Cantwell (D_WA) and Collins (R-ME) got it right with a short less than 100-page cap-and-dividend bill only regulating the 2,000+ companies with oil & gas wells, coal mines , and carbon fuel importers at our ports – and all the money goes right back to each-and-every US taxpayer. Aside from being a short and limited bill, the elegance is that the increased cost in carbon-based fuels would be offset by lower taxes – so a net zero economic effect. Could this bipartisan approach be accepted in this atmosphere? Possibly. But frankly. The Administration has already instituted the three core actions which will have long and enduring impacts lowering US Carbon intensity. First, they increased automotive mileage standards (CAFÉ) significantly. Second, by regulating mercury under the Clean Air Act, old coal plants are beginning to be shut down. The Associated Press reported more than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants will close and another 36 plants could also be forced to shut down as a result of new EPA regulations, and some are claiming many more. In fact, coal which generated 50 percent of US electricity just five years ago, now only generate 40 percent.