Policy & Legislation
Eight Responses to Senate Climate Change Bill
Published September 30, 2009 @ 11:38AM PT
Senators Boxer (D-Calif.) and Kerry (D-Mass.) unveiled the Senate version of a climate bill late this morning. Called the "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act of 2009," it's exciting some comment around the web even in these wee few hours since it went officially public.
Early impressions of the bill run the gamut from hope, to dismay, to pragmatic realpolitik:
Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica: "We commend Senators Boxer and Kerry for their dedication to combating the important problem of climate change but we cannot support a bill that fails to solve the problem. Overall the draft is riddled with loopholes and does not go far enough to protect the planet."
Frances Beinecke, President of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC): "This bill will help curb climate change, strengthen our economy, and make our country more secure. It will help generate jobs, reduce our reliance on foreign oil and create a healthier future for all of us. And it will put Americans back to work, making our country the world leader in the green technologies that are driving growth in the global marketplace."
Senate climate bill stricter on emissions, Washington Times: "Sen. Inhofe, an opponent of the cap-and-trade plan, said Tuesday that the bill will almost certainly pass Mrs. Boxer's committee, which is dominated by Democrats who back the approach. But he said Democrats cannot yet muster the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster threat on the Senate floor without deals that address the concerns of individual senators."
Kerry 'convinced' climate bill has a shot, The Hill: "[Sen. John] Kerry, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and coauthor of the Senate climate bill -- along with Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) -- framed the need for the legislation as a national security issue...But after a razor-thin vote to get the climate bill out of the House, some observers have expected an even steeper uphill climb for the climate bill in the Senate, a charge Kerry rejected...The Massachusetts Democrat said it was 'no accident' that former generals and other national security experts would be on hand to support the climate bill ..."
Senate Climate Bill Will Aim at 20 Percent Greenhouse Gas Cuts by 2020
Published September 29, 2009 @ 03:31PM PT
The introduction of a Senate climate bill appears to still be on track for tomorrow. The measure will target a 20 percent emissions cut below 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent by 2050 -- sharper than the House bill. It will also keep the price of carbon allowances at or below $28 per ton of carbon.
This and more from The Washington Post, which has posted what it calls a "close-to-final version of the bill." The legislation is still under revision, reports the Post, but "will make it easier for businesses to compensate for their carbon pollution by expanding the available pool of domestic offsets by 40 percent compared to the House-passed climate bill."
No specifics on how those allowances will be allocated, however; perhaps Sens. Kerry and Boxer are leaving that space open for the inevitable battle to come.
The bill will also contain provisions to protect the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gas pollution -- recently targeted for elimination by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) -- as well as getting communities of 200,000 or greater population to work toward energy-efficient transportation, by undertaking planning for public transportation and bicycle paths.
Gov't Fossil Fuel Subsidies More Than Twice Those to Clean Energy
Published September 29, 2009 @ 01:20PM PT
For every dollar that the federal government spent on renewable energies between 2002 and 2008, it put about $2.43 -- nearly two and a half times as much -- into subsidies for fossil fuels.
As detailed in a new report, "Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies to Energy Sources: 2002-2008," this enormously tilted playing field gives quite a marketplace advantage to companies that are already among the most lucrative on Earth.
These figures suck a lot of the oxygen out of the argument that renewables are "just too expensive" compared to fossil fuels. And they add some frisson to the sole, rather wonkish climate action that came out of last week's G20 Summit, where the heads of state agreed (albeit with no timeline yet established) to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.
If they follow through, it will be a move with climate benefits and more. "Fossil fuel subsidies act as a drag on the whole economy," Columbia professor Scott Barrett, an expert on natural resource economics, told me last week. "Get rid of them, and you can reallocate resources across whole economy," he said, "become more efficient, and ultimately [improve] the whole economy."
This graphic tells nearly the whole story; more detail of where those monies are going after the jump.
Breaking: GOP Senator's Polluter Protections Won't See Senate Vote
Published September 24, 2009 @ 10:59AM PT
Senate Democrats have apparently headed off a move by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to gut federal regulatory authority over greenhouse gas pollution.
Climate Progress is reporting today that there was debate, but no vote, on the Alaska senator's amendment to Department of Interior and other environment appropriations legislation. Murkowski's rider would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions any source other than automobiles until the fall of 2010.
EPA has the power to regulate carbon pollution to do under the Clean Air Act. In a letter to the Senate, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said that curbing that authority would also undercut its authority to regulate emissions from cars as well:
Perhaps the most striking impact would be to make it impossible for the Environmental Protection Agency to promulgate the light-duty vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions standards that the agency proposed on September 15,2009. Because of the way the Clean Air Act is written, promulgation of the proposed light-duty vehicle rule will automatically make carbon dioxide a pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources, as well as for light-duty vehicles. The only way that EPA could comply with the prohibition in Senator Murkowski's amendment would be to not promulgate the light-duty vehicle standards.
Murkowski defended her proposal on the floor of the Senate today, according to Climate Progress: "She is on the Senate floor right now [at 12:53 PM ET] throwing in the towel and defending her absurd proposal. Now she claims there is a “rush” to pass a Senate climate bill — after 12 years of doing nothing."
But Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) criticized Murkowski "at great length, saying 'we can’t afford to bury our heads in the sand on climate change'" and if you don’t want the EPA to take action, then the only alternative is cap-and-trade. "Global warming is real...it’s happening all over the world," said Feinstein.
Boxer, Kerry Will Introduce Senate Climate Bill Next Week
Published September 23, 2009 @ 09:20PM PT
Teresa Heinz read a message from her husband, Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), this evening at Pittsburgh's Andy Warhol Museum, that set the gala crowd to cheering: He and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) will introduce a climate bill in the Senate next Wednesday.
The bill will be backed by a strong and broad coalition according to Kerry's message, which Heinz delivered at a pre-G20 party sponsored by the US Climate Action Network, and "will take a more comprehensive approach to dwindling oil reserves than any prior legislation."
The legislation will be a "thoughtful, innovative, far-reaching solution" in four areas: the nation's energy foundation; U.S. economic competitiveness; the health of the environment; and national security.
In between sets by the cream of New Orleans jazz musicians, an upbeat Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Penn.) encouraged the crowd to stay optimistic about the prospects for a good international climate treaty to come out of December's negotiations in Denmark. "We need to get the Senate to act," said Doyle, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which produced the house energy and climate legislation.
"Let's give President Obama some arrows in his quiver to take to Copenhagen," he said, suggesting that the Pittsburgh crowd remember to call Senator Arlen Specter in the coming weeks and ask him to support the upcoming climate bill.
Fatalistic Friday: GOP Senator may protect polluters from greenhouse gas curbs
Published September 18, 2009 @ 06:10PM PT
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) wants to slice and dice the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gas pollution. Cars and trucks: okay. Power plants and factories: not so much.
Murkowski has said she hopes to introduce an amendment to the $32.1 billion fiscal 2010 appropriations legislation for the Department of the Interior, the EPA, and the Forest Service (part of the Dept. of Agriculture).
Murkowski's rider would limit EPA to creating rules to regulate greenhouse gas pollution from mobile sources only -- that is, automobiles -- while preventing the agency from devising regulations for stationary sources like factories and power plants off-limits until after September, 2010:
Effective during the 1-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, none of the funds made available for the Environmental Protection Agency under this Act may be expended to regulate or control carbon dioxide from any sources other than a mobile source as described in section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act or to treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act except for purposes of section 10 202(a) of that Act.
Murkowski, the top-ranked Republican member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is opposed to creating a cap-and-trade system for lowering greenhouse gas pollution. She supports drilling for oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf off Alaska's coast.
What Cost Delaying Climate Bill Until 2010?
Published September 16, 2009 @ 03:21PM PT
Yes, there is a certain logic behind including this image. Read on.
Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) yesterday floated the potential that the Senate might put off climate policy reform to 2010.
As I blogged last night, Mr. Reid suggested to reporters (including one for E&ENews, which broke the story) that the Senate is looking at a "busy, busy time" for the rest of this year, with the fights for health care reform and banking regulatory reform apparently sucking up all available legislative brain matter.
"And, of course, nothing terminates at the end of this year," said Mr. Reid. "We still have next year to complete things [climate and energy policy reform] if we have to."
The mop-up operation commenced promptly, with an aide to the senator backing his boss off the edge of the procrastination cliff: "Mr. Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley, says the senator is 'a long way from making a decision' on when to hold a vote on climate legislation and 'still intends to take health care reform, [financial] regulatory reform and cap-and-trade to the Senate floor by the end of the year,'" Stephen Power reported on The Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog last night,
What's at stake here?
