Unfinished business
Bulk of climate advisory group's recommendations wait for legislative approval

Perhaps coasting after 2007’s landmark energy and global warming victories, the 2008 Minnesota Legislature focused little attention on energy policies to significantly reduce global warming pollution. Of the 54 policy recommendations sent to Governor Pawlenty and the legislature by the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group (MCCAG), only a handful were passed or even discussed. MCCAG was clear that in order to meet the science-based global warming reduction goals Minnesota put into law in 2007, the state would need to enact all of its policy recommendations, starting now.

In order to prompt study and debate, a number of MCCAG members, including Fresh Energy’s J. Drake Hamilton, have issued a letter to the chairs of the Legislative Electric Energy Task Force (LEETF). The LEETF is a committee of legislators charged with studying energy sources and costs and making policy recommendations to the full legislature. The MCCAG members are urging consideration of priority recommendations during the interim to encourage the strongest possible global warming pollution reduction proposals for 2009. This group of MCCAG members also provided input to an analysis by Senate Majority Research, summarizing the actions the 2008 state legislature already took on MCCAG recommendations.

Expert opinion: invest in the future
Top scientists and economists call for swift, deep cuts in global warming pollution

More than 1,700 of the nation's most prominent scientists and economists released a joint statement calling on U.S. policymakers to require immediate, deep reductions in global warming emissions. Issued just days before the Senate began debate on America’s Climate Security Act, the statement stresses that implementing policies to achieve swift and substantial cuts is economically sound as well as necessary to limit the worst consequences of global warming. Over 50 of the experts live and work in Minnesota.
 
Columbia University economist Geoffrey Heal says the cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of addressing global warming. The costs of cutting emissions to safe levels would be between 1 and 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), while the costs of allowing global warming to proceed under a business-as-usual scenario would be 10 to 20 percent of GDP.
 
Dr. Heal sees reducing global warming emissions as an economic opportunity. "Limiting global warming emissions is a great investment," he said. "When you compare the cost of acting to the cost of not acting, cutting emissions would give the world a return of 10 to 1. That's attractive even to a venture capitalist."

What you can do
Thank Minnesota’s Senators for supporting a meaningful discussion on federal climate policy

In a debate that lasted nearly a week on the floor of the U.S. Senate, America’s Climate Security Act (S. 3036), sponsored by Senators Warner (R-VA) and Lieberman (I-CT) as amended by Senator Boxer (D-CA), made significant strides as the first bipartisan climate bill to receive serious attention by Congress.

Last month, we asked you to urge Minnesota senators Amy Klobuchar and Norm Coleman to join their colleagues supporting the Climate Security Act. A total of 54 senators supported an effort to end a filibuster and allow a meaningful debate on the bill. Of those, 48 voted to allow debate (including Klobuchar) and another 6 absent senators (including Coleman) issued statements to that effect. While the vote was unfortunately not enough to continue the discussion, it did signal growing support among federal leaders for comprehensive global warming policy.

Please call or write Senators Klobuchar and Coleman to convey your thanks and urge them to lead on stronger legislation in 2009!

Support this service! Become a member of Fresh Energy.

Fresh Energy works daily for smart energy policies and regulations that enhance our economies, protect human health and communities, restore our environment, and move us toward energy independence. www.fresh-energy.org