Today the state’s Environmental Improvement Board will decide whether to say “enough is enough” to climate change pollution in the Land of Enchantment. The Sierra Club, New Energy Economy and more than a dozen other groups in New Mexico are asking the board to place a science-based cap on greenhouse gases produced in the state.

Margaret Grey with the Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter says cutting back on carbon actually presents business opportunities for New Mexico.

“Because of their solar resources, their wind resources and even some of their biomass resources they can make a substantive contribution.”

Opponents of the cap worry about the cost of compliance and the economic impacts that could have on industry. But Gray says moving to cleaner, greener energy production and industries are important parts of fighting climate change, which is already jeopardizing water supplies in the arid Southwest. She points to the Navajo Nation’s green initiative as an example of a plan with both environmental and economic benefits.

“We feel that they have a large contribution to make to green jobs, economic security and renewable energy generation for New Mexico and the region, as well as for their own people.”

Critics of the cap also charge it could lead to higher electricity and energy costs for consumers. Mariel Nanasi, senior policy advisor for New Energy Economy, says most households should barely even notice.

“Our economists are estimating that it will cost about 50 cents a month. There has been some polling done in which people say, for a minimal increase like that, they would prefer to address carbon pollution.”

All the groups are calling for some sort of cap. One of the most specific proposals, from New Energy Economy, asks for a reduction in statewide greenhouse gas emissions from sources like power plants, factories and universities to 25 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2020.

The public hearing begins at 10 a.m. today at the the State Personnel Office Auditorium, Willie Ortiz Building, 2600 Cerrillos Rd., Santa Fe.

Listen to the New Mexico News Connection podcast by Eric Mack.

Data source: Pew Research Center

A new Pew Research Survey finds that Democrats, Independents and moderate Republicans favor a “cap and trade” program to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and set a trading program for companies producing carbon-based air pollution with incentives to reduce emissions and buy allowances to exceed the cap.

The new poll leaves just conservative Republicans opposed. Support for the environmental program to reduce acid rain continues even when researchers raised the possibility of higher consumer energy prices.

However, the report does note that geographical divisions remain:

… those on the Pacific coast (62%) and Northeast (56%) favor a cap and trade program, Americans in the South (46%), Midwest (44%) and Mountain West (42%) are far less supportive.

Source: Congressional Budget Office, The Costs of Reducing Greenhouse-Gas Emissions [PDF] Data: Energy Information Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, CRA International, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Brookings Institution, and the Congressional Budget Office.

CBO makes a critical distinction often lacking in the debate on the economic effects of the proposed cap and trade bill.

All of the models reporting macroeconomic impacts project that the emission reductions required by H.R. 2454 would slightly dampen the growth of GDP over the long term. (One model projects small increases in the early years of the program). Quantitative estimates of the losses in GDP and consumption vary among studies, depending in large part on differences in assumptions about the availability of offsets (reduced availability of offsets increases the emission reductions required in the energy sector and thus increases economic costs) and differences in assumptions about the sensitivity of energy use to changes in prices (reduced sensitivity increases the price increases required to reach emission targets and thus increases economic costs).

On the basis of those estimates and its own analysis, CBO concluded that H.R. 2454 would slightly reduce real GDP—by roughly 0.25 percent to 0.75 percent in 2020 and by between 1.0 percent and 3.5 percent in 2050. By way of comparison, CBO projects that real GDP will be roughly two-and-a-half times as large in 2050 as it is today. Losses in consumption and overall well-being would probably be smaller than losses in GDP.

Twelve ex-staffers of Montana Sen. Max Baucus now work as lobbyists with direct interest in the Senate climate bill. Guess who’s Mr. Popular?

Last week we mused about Baucus’ lone committee vote against the Senate Democrats climate change bill that would exempt agribusiness from any accountability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Was Max just being mavericky Max?

The Sunlight Foundation notes there may be a much more cynical tale to be told about that vote and future ones as Senate Finance chair:

Baucus will likely have a lot of input coming in from outside his office as twelve of his former staffers, including four former chiefs of staff, work as lobbyists for organizations with an explicit interest in climate legislation.

These twelve lobbyists represent a large cross-section of industries, from airlines to railroads and oil producers to solar energy companies. The diversity of organizations also brings a diversity in positions on the underlying climate bill. Many of the organizations represented by former staffers of Baucus are generally supportive of a climate bill, but are seeking certain provisions to be included or not removed during the committee process. Others are engaged in outward opposition.

Read the rest of the story and check out the relationship map embedded below: The Max Baucus Energy & Climate Lobbyist Complex

Natural foes in the agriculture, forestry and manufacturing sectors are becoming bosom buddies over a new U.S. Senate bill that significantly weakens carbon emission standards, known as “cap and trade.”

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), with backing from Montana Democrat Sen. Max Baucus, introduced the Clean Energy Partnerships Act (S. 2729) that among several goals exempts agribusiness from emissions caps.

You know, the guys responsible for creating one-fifth of all greenhouse gases through industrial meat production alone. And don’t even get the enviros started on the ill-effects of corn growing and synthetic nitrogen fertilizer on the atmosphere.

The Stabenow amendment was filed just as the unprecedented Senate Environment and Public Works Committee show down took place Thursday in which Republican members boycotted the hearing and where Baucus was the sole 11-1 defector against his party’s signature energy bill — Global Warming Pollution Reduction and Investment Act.

Said Stabenow in a written statement on her cap and trade amendment:

It creates a partnership between our manufacturing and agricultural industries. It will encourage and reward conservation efforts by farmers and landowners while at the same time helping manufacturers make investments in advanced technology and jobs here at home. By doing so, we can reduce costs now, creating a bridge to a clean energy economy tomorrow.

Stabenow claims that her bill, supported by forestry interests reduces incentives for clear-cutting by using forests for carbon sequestration. A noble goal but for the tinder-box forests devastated by pine bark beetles throughout the Rocky Mountain West.

Yet as Tom Philpott noted at Grist.org during the U.S. House debate on the American Clean Energy and Security Act, Big Ag’s “screw the cap but give us the trade” stance demolishes the carrot and stick argument for more sustainable farming and ranching practices:

Perhaps anticipating draconian fines if serious climate legislation passes, the agribiz lobby has rolled out its climate agenda. It’s a doozy. Honestly, I’ve seen nothing more brazen since AIG execs started stuffing their trousers with government cash after they had made the world’s biggest insurance company a ward of the state.

Theatrics surrounding the Senate’s version of the energy policy are highly anticipated but apparently mums the word on S. 2729 just introduced Nov. 4.