Responding to a question...

"Hey Zach, thanks for giving the presentation yesterday for 101. I just thought I would ask if you would have any advice from Copenhagen for Senator Baucus regarding the Senate Climate Bill. As you might know he was the only one who voted against it in the Environment and Public Works Committee (though no Republicans were present). Even though his nay vote had more to do with his disapproval of the legislative process (he felt he was unable to properly work on and amend the bill due to the strict timeframe) he is still a pivotal player in the bills future, sitting on the agriculture committee and chairing the finance committee. As of right now he is pushing for a 17% decrease in emissions from 2005 standards, and supports amendments to roll that up to 20% if the international community were to follow. I am writing a letter as part of a research paper advising him on the best course of action for getting Climate Change Legislation passed. He fully supports having climate change legislation pass, it just now comes down to the numbers and amendments, and I would love to have any advice you might have straight from Copenhagen to include. Thanks!"

FR: Myke Hermsmyer

Well the first thing to point out about Baucus and this whole Boxer Climate Bill business, in my opinion, is the fact that America’s proposed reduction standards are based off of 2005 emission levels. Climate scientists, including the IPCC, site the need for 80% emissions by 2050—and those reductions are compared to 2000 levels. Furthermore, most countries are using 1990 emission levels as a baseline—not 2005, which are much higher. With this in mind, realize that a 17% emission reduction from 2005 levels only equates to 1-3% reductions from 1990 levels. So, what we are currently proposing does not correlate much at all in regards to climate science. That being said, this bill would be historic for the US, and it needs to pass. Hopefully it will give our administration (and the environmental movement in general) some much needed momentum to move forward more effectively in the future.

Now on to Baucus: first of all, he needs to support the bill in all its strength. As the numbers are already fairly weak, we cannot afford to compromise the integrity of this bill any further (from the climate science perspective). As Montanans, we have the lowest constituent-to-representative ratio of any other state in America. That translates to greater access and a stronger voice from each individual Montanan, so we all need to be calling Baucus and writing letters often if this is something we care about. Emphasizing this point further, Baucus is truly a powerful man in Washington, and he will undoubtedly have quite a lot of influence on the future of this bill—he already has, in fact, as Myke pointed out.

Secondly, and more importantly, we need to find a way for Montana to transition from burning coal to generating wind power. The reason our politicians, and Baucus in particular, are so reluctant to support this legislation is because Montana as a state makes such a large revenue off of coal generation, (which is also one of our largest emission sources). Somehow, we must find a way to transition our states investments and revenue generation from coal to wind power. This seems like it makes sense both politically and economically, as wind would be a source of constant, long term revenue generation, as it will never cease to exist. We have to convince our politicians that long-term and far-sighted is the way to go. How can this be done, readers?