Stop Global Warming

Climate-Energy Bill Seems Poised to Move

Published June 04, 2009 @ 08:26AM PT

President Barack Obama and Energy and Environment Cabinet Secretaries stand with their hands on chairs before meeting in the Cabinet Room 2/23/09. The Waxman-Markey clean energy-and-climate action bill, which was voted out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on May 21, may have gotten some wind under its wings.

Although the bill seemed destined to become mired in eight other House committees with some say over its provisions, yesterday Environment & Energy Daily ($ req'd) reporter Darren Samuelsohn reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave the committtee chairs a June 19 deadline to move the legislation:

Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Education and Labor Chairman George Miller (D-Calif.) both confirmed that Pelosi wants them to act within the next 15 days on the comprehensive measure.

"We're under the hammer," Rangel told reporters following an hourlong meeting in the Capitol with more than two dozen of his Democratic committee members.

Pelosi yesterday told reporters that she had not set a schedule for the committee leaders. "I'm not putting any deadline on it," she said. "It'll go to the floor when we are ready. They will pass bills out of their committees when they are ready."

But Rangel, Miller and other Democrats said that the speaker has indeed established a very small window for any changes to the 946-page bill (H.R. 2454) ...

..."I think the speaker's trip to China made her a little more interested in moving it," said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.). "So we'll hear a little bit more talk about it. Maybe some shifting away from health care for a moment."

On Tuesday, a report emerged that President Barack Obama "is prepared to stake his own political prestige on getting climate change legislation through Congress, and would be willing to intervene directly to ensure passage of America's first law to reduce the carbon emissions that cause global warming."

This according to Suzanne Goldenberg, a US reporter for the UK's Guardian newspaper, who interviewed Nancy Sutley, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality:

The house energy committee, which is weighed heavily towards coal and oil state Democrats, was the first major obstacle for the climate change bill, and Obama drew on his political capital help get it passed.

The president invited key members of Congress to the White House to make a personal appeal for the bill. Those at the meeting say the pitch was crucial to securing the support of wavering Democrats.

Obama would be ready to take further gambles on his personal popularity, Sutley said.

She said he was unlikely to intervene in the near future to shore up targets for emission reductions - already criticised by some environmentalists as failing to go as far as dictated by the science to prevent a catastrophic rise in temperature. However, the president may feel compelled to step in to shield consumers from higher electricity bills. "He has talked about the idea that we have to think about consumers," she said.

Of all the House players, both articles identify the House Agriculture Committee and its chair Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), as a key figure in the bill's fate. Mr. Peterson met for 45 minutes with Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) yesterday, according to E&E Daily,

...to run through his issues with the legislation, which include oversight of the offset market, free emission allowances for rural electric cooperatives and the definition of biomass in a renewable fuel standard.

"We're not trying to stop this bill," Peterson told reporters. "We're trying to make it so we believe it's workable. That's where we're coming from. We're going to have a bill, something from the standpoint of agriculture, that's going to work. That makes sense. That's what we're trying to accomplish here."

As a bookend, this article from last Saturday's Washington Post details how, during the presidential campaign, Barack Obama brought himself up to speed on the intersections of national security, energy, climate change, and the economy.

In early July 2008, oil prices were approaching their all-time high, and the Republican presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, was settling on offshore oil drilling as a primary solution to spiking energy costs. (It's not.)

Then-candidate Obama met in Chicago with round table of experts from all quarters -- "including top executives from three utilities and two oil companies, the chief energy economist of an investment bank, a climate scientist, a California energy and environment expert, an oil consultant-historian, and several campaign staffers," report Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin:

While Obama had held a similar session early in his Senate career, the Chicago meeting marked a turning point in his thinking. He knew there was a moral case for addressing the nation's dependence on fossil fuels, but this time, he realized he could make a political and economic case for it. And top advisers say internal polling showed that with gasoline prices at more than $4 a gallon, the American public was open to an energy platform based on economic competitiveness and national security.

...Now, four months into his presidency, Obama has elevated energy and climate issues to near the top of his agenda; he's made them pop by packaging them as ways to create "green" jobs and reduce U.S. dependence on imports of foreign oil. Favoring pragmatism over moral suasion, the president is attempting to make a sharp shift in national policy on an issue that many voters have yet to embrace as a priority, advisers and lawmakers say.

While the president has at times appeared willing to put climate action in a backwater in the current session of Congress in favor of health care reform, sources tell the Post team that his largely hands-off strategy is on target:

Duke Energy chief executive James E. Rogers, who promoted free allowances for local electricity firms, said Obama understands the need to protect key industries, states and consumers, and he praised energy and climate czar Carol M. Browner for marshalling congressional support without dictating terms," write the Post team.

Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) said that the president "is trusting us to work these things out internally, and he's not putting down markers."

"This is in keeping with how we have worked with Congress on a number of key issues," a senior administration official said, citing the stimulus and budget bills. "If the president draws a bright line and says, 'I have to have this,' the proposal is dead on arrival."

On May 5, as House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) was trying to cement support for the cap-and-trade bill, Obama invited 35 lawmakers to the White House. He said that it was a difficult issue but that dealing with difficult issues was the reason they were there. As the lawmakers were getting ready to leave, Obama said, "We have to do something more than symbolic here."

"It was a personal appeal," said Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), who attended the meeting. "He's demonstrated . . . he's willing to put it on the line to get a bill done. You don't do heavy lifting like this without having a president who's willing to put it on the line."

-----
Image: "President Barack Obama and Energy and Environment Cabinet Secretaries stand with their hands on chairs before meeting in the Cabinet Room 2/23/09. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza"

Share this Post

Related Posts

Comments (8)

  1. Brooks Nelson

    But is it a good bill?  When power companies get free allowances how are we adding the cost of polluting to these companies?  Next year when permits become limited the prices will go up and then they'll pay 'each other' to pollute less?  When we have a shortage and the carbon market has a spike in prices and the lobbyists come back and say we need a safety valve whille congress be able to hold them at bay?  Will we get reductions in CO2 emissions or will this end up like Europe with power companies controlling the process and gaming the system?  I think passing the bill as is will not seriously address the reductions we need and creates a questionable mechanism that is filled with loopholes and pitfalls.  It would be better to wait for a bill that will do some real good instead of a bill that feel good but do little. 

    We can pass efficiency requirements for buildings, cars, appliances, agriculture (use and waste), and industry, we can promote research and investment into smart grids, solar, and carbon sinks today without much serious opposition.  But passing this bill will let them off the hook for doing something real about emissions just for alot of cameras, signings, and pats on the back. 

    In my opinion, we need a carbon tax bill instead.  There are bills in congress already authored and cosponsored.  They offset the new carbon tax with lower payroll taxes for all americans.  They don't have safety valve issues or free allowances, everyone pays who pollutes.  They don't have a market to worry about where prices manipulated or not could rise too high to allow industry to work creating a safety valve or fall too low, as in Europe, and create no incentive to reduce emissions.  This unknown pricing mechanism will be unstable for businesses, a carbon tax is a known amount and a known increase every year.  Below are three bills in congress, one with 10 cosponsors, but we need to move very quickly if we wish to effect the bill.

    "Rep. Larson (D-Ct) introduced H.R. 1337 "America's Energy Security Trust Fund Act of 2009" (3/5/09): (10 cosponsors)

    A carbon-content tax on fossil fuels starting at $15/ton CO2. Increasing by $10 each year, but in any year that EPA-identified emission targets (based on reaching 80% below 2005 emissions by 2050) are not met, the tax would increase by $15. We have estimated the carbon-reducing impact of the Larson bill, using CTC's 4-Sector Carbon Tax Impact Model.   Projected emissions reduction trajectory would meet 80% by 2050. Upstream (at production or importation). Revenue use: 1/6 for clean energy technology research, 1/12 (declining to zero over 10 years) for affected industry transition assistance, All remaining revenue distributed to individuals: Effectively eliminates payroll taxes on the first ~$3,800 of annual earnings.  Social Security recipients receive a 10% supplement. Border Adjustments: carbon equivalency fee on carbon-intensive goods imported from non-carbon taxing nations.  Exported goods credited for carbon tax

    "Hybrid" (Dynamically-Adjusting) Carbon Tax Proposal:

    Rep. McDermott(D-Wa) introduced H.R. 1683 "Clean Environment and Stable Energy Market Act of 2009" (3/24/09):  (5 cosponsors)

    Producers and importers of "GHG emission substances" (fossil fuels, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, perfluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbon) must purchase permits for each ton of CO2 emissions or equivalent.  Permits not tradeable; effectively a carbon-content tax.  Treasury annually sets emission permits price based on declining annual total emission allocations specified in the bill.  (6835 million tons CO2 equiv. for 2011 declining to 1337 tons in 2050.) Treasury to publish price schedules every five years, may modify if allowance targets "significantly" missed within the five-year periods. If the permits sold exceed allocations for a particular year, subsequent year allocations reduced. Upstream- permit required at first point of sale or importation. Revenue use: not specified. Exports credited for permit fee.

    Rep. Stark (D-Ca) introduced H.R. 594 "Save Our Climate Act of 2009" (1/15/09): (2 cosponsors)

    A carbon-content tax on fossil fuels starting at $10/ton CO2 Increasing by $10 every year. Upstream:  Fossil fuels taxed they enter the U.S. economy (i.e., at the production or importation level). Revenue use: not specified. Exports credited for carbon tax."

    Taken from http://www.carbontax.org/progress/carbon-tax-bills/

     

    Posted by Brooks Nelson on 06/04/2009 @ 09:13AM PT

  2. Doug Paddock

    Thanks again for the A+ blog Emily.  I would just like to point out a few things that were touched on in this article, the first being this bill is not based on science it is based on politics and bi-partisanship.  It fails to meet the minimum reductions in emissions scientists and the IPCC have identified as necessary to stopping climate change.  The program is no longer a cap and trade, the allowances in the bill are essentally free giveaways and provide no incentive for polluters to stop, its more like a cap and giveaway program. The offsets are too robust, again providing no incentive for corporations to reduce their emissions.  Yes, the bill has been criticised by some environmentalists, it is also being flatly opposed by major environmenatal groups including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Public Citizen, Rainforest Action Network, and Earth Justice Network among others.  I personally think it is a good step int hee right direction andit is encouraging to see global warming being taken up at the national level, but I think this bill falls WAY SHORT of what we need to stop climate change.  Congress needs to stop playing around and get serious, fast.       

    Posted by Doug Paddock on 06/04/2009 @ 09:22AM PT

  3. Terri Robson

    Until such time as industry is made to pay for pollution instead of this bogus cap & trade and until such time as Governments take back their authority from business the environment and humanity stay in peril. It seems Gov. have given up rule of law in favour of business as usual, and the business is their collective conflicts of interest.

    Posted by Terri Robson on 06/04/2009 @ 12:49PM PT

  4. Emily Gertz

    I'm really on the fence in this go-round.  Nothing I've learned or heard so far leaves me feeling that this bill is such a disaster, or the greatest thing since sliced bread.

    The bill does appear to have been significantly weakened in the E&C Committee process, particularly on the permit give-aways.  And the 2020 target for GHGs is way too low, based on what the science indicates.

    Here are a few things the bill does do, according to the summary released by E&C:
    - Mandates new energy-savings standards for industry, buildings and appliances.  Huge victory if these survive strong.- GHGs slashed 80% of 2005 levels by 2050.  Again, unless I'm mis-remembering (possible), this puts us well within the recommendations of researchers who say emissions should have peaked by the 2020s and be on a sharp downward slide by 2050.- Tens of billions in appropriations to research, development and deployment of clean energy tech, renewable energy, and energy efficiency.

    And there are strategic considerations:
    1.  The Senate may bolster the bill.  And if it passes the Senate and then goes into House-Senate conference, the pressure will be huge to get a strong bill onto the President's desk with little delay.

    2.  Copenhagen: The US and the EU have a great poker hand going into December's "son of Kyoto" negotiations, if the legislation looks like it's on the way to passage.  This would give industrialized nations a lot of leverage with the BRIC nations -- Brazil, Russia, India and China -- to commit to lowering their emissions AND to "leapfrogging" over dirty tech into clean tech and clean energy-based industrialization.  
    This game will not be won without the BRIC nations.
    3.  Wins beget wins:  There are a lot of other dynamics in play along with this bill: state/regional standards and carbon  markets.  Investors still staking themselves on clean energy's future, green buildings, and more.  If this bill passes the entire economy is injected with a huge dose of confidence about future regulations.

    Personally, I think this last is what the Obama team, Waxman, Markey, and other strong advocates for this bill are aiming for, even more than the legislated reduction mandates: clearing the economic path for the business of decarbonization.

    Posted by Emily Gertz on 06/04/2009 @ 03:29PM PT

  5. Brooks Nelson

    Emily, the US is going to be at 4% below 1990 levels by 2020, according to mandates of this bill, that will likely make it difficult for China and India to take it seriously that they should dramatically cut their pollution in response. 

    On the third point about a wins begets wins, I would only point to the ethanol 'win'.  It was not, and did not do us good but harm.  With this bill generous allowances are already throughout, questionable foreign offsets are allowed which have already been shown to be rife with corruption in Europe.  The US barely checks our own companies for safety and health violations are we really expecting a tough regulatory regime is going to check foreign offsets?  

    I do hope you're right about the senate strengthening this bill.  Because right now I see ethanol 2 and everyone saying 'we did something!' when we haven't.  I don't think it'll do nothing I just think it won't do nearly enough. 

    Posted by Brooks Nelson on 06/05/2009 @ 05:50AM PT

  6. Emily Gertz

    Verifying offsets, and corruption in the offset market are huge problems, I agree.  Not insurmountable, but as you note, government has to commit to enforcing the laws in order for them to have any real meaning.


    I suppose one way to look at it (in a think tanky sort of way)  would be to a) assume a baseline of corruption that cannot be eradicated, and b) to measure the benefits that happen despite the corruption, and determine if they're sufficient to solve the problem.  (My guess is that given how barely adequate most carbon cap regimes are right now, corruption seriously undermines global GHG reductions.  But it's just a guess.)


    Posted by Emily Gertz on 06/05/2009 @ 07:30AM PT

  7. Terri Robson

    Kyoto......Joint Implementation (JI) Article 6..Provides for annex 1 parties to implement projects that reduce emissions or remove carbon from the atmosphere, in other annex 1 parties, in return for emission reduction units.(ERU)
    Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Article 12...Provides for parties in annex 1 to implement projects that reduce emissions in non-annex 1 parties,or absorb carbon through afforestation or reforestation activities, in return for certified emission reductions (CER,TCERs,ICERs) and assist host parties in achieving sustainbale development & contributing to the ultimate objective of the Convention.
    Emissions Trading   Article 17...Provides for annex 1 parties to acquire units from other annex 1 parties.
    Units may be in form of AAUs, removal units (RMUs,ERUs,CERs,TCERs, and ICERs.

    During the signing of NAFTA Canada and the United States signed a separate side agreement on the Environment, and have committees to oversee this.

    Posted by Terri Robson on 06/05/2009 @ 01:04PM PT

  8. Craig Nazor

    Politics is the "Art of the Possible." The way this bill is shaping up, according to science, it will not be strong enough to stop global climate change, and it includes more corporate giveaways to polluters. What we can do is call our Representatives and let them know that we know this, and that we will hold them accountable for failure on this issue - time will certainly tell. Nevertheless, while they should STRENGTHEN THIS BILL, in its current form it is better than doing nothing. 
    Barely.
    Who knows what tomorrow may bring? The earth my help us out with a little high-profile warning of its own that will finally scare people in the right direction.
    Thanks for the good reporting, Emily!

    Posted by Craig Nazor on 06/12/2009 @ 08:36AM PT

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Author

Twitter Feed

Emily Gertz

Emily is a journalist and editor covering the environment and science, and has been working in online news, community and content since 1994.

close

This user's Profile page is not public. They have restricted it to only their friends.

Already a Member?

Create an Account

You must create a Change.org account to complete this action.
If you already have an account click here.