When I last looked, Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill was still very carefully trying to say nothing at all about the EPA’s proposed new emission standards which are designed to reduce carbon emissions in the United States 30% by 2030. Which is actually pretty much in line with her past behavior; McCaskill has long been a disappointment to her constituents when it comes to showing leadership on the issue of climate change. She has been very careful to avoid even the appearance of pulling out the rug from under dirty coal, the producers and consumers of which are a powerful force in Missouri which currently gets 80% of its energy from fossil fuels.

McCaskill’s past arguments for rejecting stronger regulation of carbon emissions from coal-fired energy plants have revolved around: (1) the supposed potential for economic hardship for “Missouri’s families,” and, (2) the assertion that the costs would be born disproportionately by the U.S. She has noted that “it’s not going to do us any good to clean up our act as it relates to the atmosphere. It’s the same atmosphere that China shares and Japan shares and India shares. Some very big industrial countries.”

The first argument, which McCaskill shares with most Republican apologists for fossil fuels, should, by now, occasion the great hilarity that is due arguments that pit relatively minor, short-term concerns against long-term, global survival. After all, while it’s questionable that efforts to reduce carbon emissions will seriously harm those Missouri families she is so fond of citing, doing nothing about climate change is going to really hurt Missourians over the next thirty years, particularly those dependent on agriculture. A recent report stipulates that “higher temperatures will reduce Midwest crop yields by 19 percent by midcentury and by 63 percent by the year 2100.” McCaskill’s position also ignores the hidden costs of fossil fuel dependence, such as the personal and economic aspects of its effect on public health.  

A new report, the 2014 Low Carbon Economy Index (LCEI), demonstrates the emptiness of McCaskill’s international rationale for delaying action on carbon emisions. According to the LCEI:

… . China could be viewed as the poster child for developing countries, with a 2013 national decarbonisation rate of 4%. China improved its energy intensity by 3% in 2013, the third highest amongst the G20, and has a flourishing renewable energy sector 2. China also launched seven regional emissions trading schemes over the last year, although these are unlikely to have a dramatic impact on emissions in the short term. …

And:

While coal use in China rose by 3.7% in 2013, it is at a much slower rate than in previous years. China has made public efforts to curb coal use to manage its air pollution problems, for example a limit on coal use to 65% of its energy mix, and more recently a proposed ban on coal-fired power in Beijing by 2020. …  

China lowered its carbon emissions by 3.5%, a full percentage point more than the US where:

A revival of coal […], driven by a combination of falling coal prices and rising gas prices, has also been a major factor in the low US position in the G20 decarbonisation league table. Coal in the US has regained some market share from natural gas in the generation mix  ince its low in April 2012, causing an increase in emissions, and dispelling the myth that a shale gas revolution will necessarily result in emissions reductions. …

Don’t these numbers make it clear that we can no longer allow our politicans to point to the other guy in order to excuse inaction on carbon emissions? Certainly we should not allow Senator McCaskill to do so when the time comes when she will have to make her position on the new EPA regulations known. While the reduction in carbon emissions that these regulations would achieve is still not enough to stop potentially catastrophic global warming, they would still move us significantly forward in that direction:

If the rule goes forward as it is currently conceived, this proposal, combined with the reductions to date and those that will be driven by prior executive actions addressing the transportation sector, would, in approximate terms, put the US on a path to achieve Obama’s 17% by 2020 pledge. However, putting the proposed rule in context of the global de-carbonization challenge, it will achieve a small portion of the reductions required to stay within 2°C carbon budget. The EPA estimates it will result in reductions from the business as usual case of 545 MM tonnes of CO2 in 2030*. This plan would contribute a cumulative 5.9% reduction in US carbon intensity or an average annual additional intensity reduction of 0.39%

.

Isn’t it time for the US to start to play the leadership role when it comes to climate change that those advocates of “American exceptionalism” expect us to play when the question involves military action? Let’s ask Senator McCaskill why China should have to do all the heavy lifting – particularly since it’s clear that no nation can do it alone. And while we’re at it, let’s ask the Senator why she can’t manage to play more of a leadership role when it comes to helping our state make the transition from dirty energy sources – surely she can manage to stop concentrating on keeping her balance on the center line that runs down that rightward veering highway she’s been traveling in order to help determine the outcome of what will probably be the defining issue of our time.

Update:  Via Washington Monthly’s Ed Kilgore, Paul Krugman writes today on false economic arguments of the fossil fuel advocates:

I’ve just been reading two new reports on the economics of fighting climate change: a big study by a blue-ribbon international group, the New Climate Economy Project, and a working paper from the International Monetary Fund. Both claim that strong measures to limit carbon emissions would have hardly any negative effect on economic growth, and might actually lead to faster growth. This may sound too good to be true, but it isn’t. These are serious, careful analyses.

But you know that such assessments will be met with claims that it’s impossible to break the link between economic growth and ever-rising emissions of greenhouse gases, a position I think of as “climate despair.” The most dangerous proponents of climate despair are on the anti-environmentalist right. But they receive aid and comfort from other groups, including some on the left, who have their own reasons for getting it wrong.

Their own reasons …. hmmm. Locally, could that be Peabody Coal? Along with all the voting Missourians who get all their information from Fox News? How do you balance them beans against climate apocalypse?

From 2012:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): the black helicopters will be dropping microchip infested toasters on us (April 8, 2012)

[….]

….Question: …It’s an honor to talk to you. Uh, my concern, one of the concerns, is China. We’re buying military parts for our military from China. We’re buying military parts that do not work. We have closed factories in this country and that’s moved one of the big companies that we’re buying, [inaudible] countries that we’re buying from. [inaudible] We’re buying this stuff, we’re putting it in planes, we’re putting it in our material and it does not work. And they [inaudible].

There are a lot of people in this country that are getting fed up with this. I mean, fed up [inaudible] [Representative Hartzler: “Right.”] And something had better be done. I’m not threatening anybody. What I’m saying is something, I, I know, I follow this, and I know, I know what, I believe I know what I’m talking about.

There’s a line in this country. And I’m on one side of that line, a lot of people are. And there are people [inaudible] on the other side. I don’t know what’s gonna happen. If things don’t change it’s not going to be good. It’s going to be bad. I really believe that.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): Okay. Excellent. Excellent point. You’re, you’re spot on. I, I joined the, the name of the caucus is China caucus which I wish we’d change, change the name. But basically it’s a watch China caucus. It’s a, it’s a bunch of us who are concerned about China. And on a regular basis we get reports [inaudible] watching what they’re doing.

And I am concerned. They are shipping all the, I’m concerned about the microchips. That they are in many, many of the things that we own. And some of those are embedded, I believe, with, with detection and, uh, capabilities or tracking capabilities. Things that we don’t know. I, I read a report the other day talking how China is the number one spy network in the world. And I thought, we need to have a new, uh, double oh seven James Bond movie, you know, with China as the bad guys, as the spies, because really, it’s true, those movies always portray, uh, Russia or something. But China has the largest spy network, they’re stealing our intelligence from our co, corporations. The article talked about how it’s the largest industrial, um, uh, espionage and, uh, stealing, uh, theft in, in history. And yet, how many people are talking about it, how they’re accessing our intellectual property of our corporations and it’s very concerning.

Just want you to know, it’s supposed to be illegal, uh, you’re supposed to use American products in our military equipment. But, I’m not sure that’s always the case and so I am looking in to that as well, with your concern. To make sure that they’re not using China microchips in our planes or in our tanks or anything else. So, I want to make sure that doesn’t happen. So, I will follow up on that ’cause that is a concern I have as well. So, China is very concerning….

[….]

“…And I am concerned. They are shipping all the, I’m concerned about the microchips. That they are in many, many of the things that we own. And some of those are embedded, I believe, with, with detection and, uh, capabilities or tracking capabilities. Things that we don’t know…”

Today, via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

Am just starting hearing in HASC on the 2013 Report to Congress on the U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission. Important topic. 7:06 AM – 20 Nov 13

And this response, from a constituent:

Bob Yates ‏@OldDrum

@RepHartzler I look forward to reading how the Chinese are planting their microchips in what they make in order to spy on us.7:24 AM – 20 Nov 13

And, a retort!:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

@OldDrum You’ve totally distorted the issue. Here’s what Sen. Levin (D) has to say: [….] 7:33 AM – 20 Nov 13

What Senator Carl Levin’s (D) “has to say” is something about counterfeit electronic parts in the Department of Defense supply chain coming from (mostly) China and a few other places:

Senate Armed Services Committee Releases Report on Counterfeit Electronic Parts

Monday, May 21, 2012

…China was found to be the source country for suspect counterfeit parts in an overwhelming majority of those cases, with more than 70 percent of the suspect parts traced to that country.  The next two largest source countries were the United Kingdom and Canada.  The Committee identified instances in which both countries served as resale points for suspect counterfeit electronic parts from China….

“…And I am concerned. They are shipping all the, I’m concerned about the microchips. That they are in many, many of the things that we own. And some of those are embedded, I believe, with, with detection and, uh, capabilities or tracking capabilities. Things that we don’t know…”

Uh, there doesn’t appear to be anything in Senator Levin’s (D) release and in the report [pdf] which refers to “tracking capabilities in some of the things we own.”

Actually, the report addresses substandard parts which could lead to reliability issues in a system or subsystem. That is an important issue, but it’s not “detection or tracking capabilities” embedded in consumer products.

The Department of Defense definition of counterfeit includes “both unauthorized copies and previously used parts that are made to look new, and are sold as new.”

So, the mockery directed at Representative Hartzler (r) via Twitter from the constituent stems from her eager conflation of two different and competing concepts at that town hall in Sedalia, Missouri in 2012:

…On one hand their stuff doesn’t work, and on the other hand the microchips in the stuff they sell us (that does or doesn’t work?) are spying on us…

Somebody did totally distort the issue. It wasn’t Bob Yates.

The birther business from Representative Vicky Hartzler’s (r) town hall in Sedalia, Missouri last Thursday has been making the national news rounds these past few days. There was another remarkable exchange, also mentioned in the Sedalia Democrat report, which possesses an abundance of right wingnut paranoid win.  

At 17:00 in the video:

….Question: …It’s an honor to talk to you. Uh, my concern, one of the concerns, is China. We’re buying military parts for our military from China. We’re buying military parts that do not work. We have closed factories in this country and that’s moved one of the big companies that we’re buying, [inaudible] countries that we’re buying from. [inaudible] We’re buying this stuff, we’re putting it in planes, we’re putting it in our material and it does not work. And they [inaudible].

There are a lot of people in this country that are getting fed up with this. I mean, fed up [inaudible] [Representative Hartzler: “Right.”] And something had better be done. I’m not threatening anybody. What I’m saying is something, I, I know, I follow this, and I know, I know what, I believe I know what I’m talking about.

There’s a line in this country. And I’m on one side of that line, a lot of people are. And there are people [inaudible] on the other side. I don’t know what’s gonna happen. If things don’t change it’s not going to be good. It’s going to be bad. I really believe that.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r): Okay. Excellent. Excellent point. You’re, you’re spot on. I, I joined the, the name of the caucus is China caucus which I wish we’d change, change the name. But basically it’s a watch China caucus. It’s a, it’s a bunch of us who are concerned about China. And on a regular basis we get reports [inaudible] watching what they’re doing.

And I am concerned. They are shipping all the, I’m concerned about the microchips. That they are in many, many of the things that we own. And some of those are embedded, I believe, with, with detection and, uh, capabilities or tracking capabilities. Things that we don’t know. I, I read a report the other day talking how China is the number one spy network in the world. And I thought, we need to have a new, uh, double oh seven James Bond movie, you know, with China as the bad guys, as the spies, because really, it’s true, those movies always portray, uh, Russia or something. But China has the largest spy network, they’re stealing our intelligence from our co, corporations. The article talked about how it’s the largest industrial, um, uh, espionage and, uh, stealing, uh, theft in, in history. And yet, how many people are talking about it, how they’re accessing our intellectual property of our corporations and it’s very concerning.

Just want you to know, it’s supposed to be illegal, uh, you’re supposed to use American products in our military equipment. But, I’m not sure that’s always the case and so I am looking in to that as well, with your concern. To make sure that they’re not using China microchips in our planes or in our tanks or anything else. So, I want to make sure that doesn’t happen. So, I will follow up on that ’cause that is a concern I have as well. So, China is very concerning….

“…Excellent. Excellent point. You’re, you’re spot on…”

Think about that mutual paranoia exchange for a minute. On one hand their stuff doesn’t work, and on the other hand the microchips in the stuff they sell us (that does or doesn’t work?) is are spying on us.

This is a member of Congress and the House Armed Services Committee? We’re doomed.