Breaking: Senate panel won’t take up climate bill until September

Climate Progress reported that the Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer plans to delay until September the markup of the climate bill that recently passed the House.  The change in plans is reportedly due to senators’ current focus on healthcare reform legislation.

Boxer intends to have the bill ready by September 28, with Democrats still hoping to pass it in time for December’s U.N. climate negotiations.  Sponsors face a difficult struggle to win over 60 votes, considering opposition from Republicans and conservative to moderate Democrats.

UPDATE: Environmental groups have expressed support for Boxer’s decision:

“We don’t think that this is a problem at all,” said Josh Dorner, spokesman for Sierra Club. “In fact, we think it’s a good thing. It’s a huge organizing opportunity, both here in D.C. and in the field. It also shows they are taking the time to make some meaningful, positive changes to the bill.”

“From our perspective, this is the right decision,” said Tony Kreindler, media director for climate at EDF. “It gives senators more time to review and understand the historic bill just passed by the House. It signals a serious intent to seek agreements on key issues going forward.  And it gives Boxer and her colleagues on both sides of the aisle more time to reach those agreements. After all, the chairman has the ability to move forward today if the goal were simply to push any bill through.”

House passes climate change bill

The House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (Waxman-Markey) by a vote of 219 to 212, with forty-four Democrats voting against the measure and eight Republicans voting yes (Only seven Republicans voted for the stimulus).

The bill’s success can be attributed to the efforts key figures, such as former VP Al Gore, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the president himself.  Unfortunately, a number of compromises were made along the way.  ACES’s sponsors, Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA), reduced carbon cap goals and added favors for polluting industries, in the form of free offsets.

In its current form, the ACES sets a goal of 17 percent GHG reduction by 2020 and an 83 percent reduction by 2050. It also continues the process begun by Obama’s stimulus — switching to alternative energy and cleaner technologies, as well as introducing more efficient building standards.

Some environmental voices, such as Greenpeace, have opposed the bill (or at least voiced concerns) because of its giveaways to big industries and its support for carbon capture and storage.  In addition, the goal of 17 percent GHG cut by 2020 is not as strong as it should be.

Waxman-Markey is far from perfect, but it is definitely better than nothing.  It needs to be strengthened, but if something resembling it doesn’t pass in the next few months, we won’t get another chance before December.  And if the U.S. doesn’t have strong energy regulations by the Copenhagen talks, it will be harder to convince China and India to pass their own.

In order to stabilize CO2 levels, we need a WWII-scale effort from everybody, not just lawmakers.  Clean, sustainable society is a vision we can achieve — and must achieve in the next few decades.  Waxman-Markey is a first step (and it still needs to pass the Senate), but we still have a long way to go.

How much will the House climate bill cost you?

Over the last few months, we have seen a momentous struggle: climate versus economy.  While scientists warn that we must accept the “inconvenient truth” of global warming and cut emissions, whatever the cost is, others are unsure.  The economy is certainly not at its most robust right now, and the risk of troubling it further makes voters and representatives hesitate.

Thus, economic impact has been the GOP’s main argument against the Democrats’ plan to cut GHG emissions.  This is one of the talking points for the Republican American Energy Act:

The Democrats’ answer to the worst recession in decades is a national energy tax that will lead to higher energy prices and further job losses.

Joe Boehner and and Michelle Bachmann even projected a cost of $3,128 to $4,000 per household (a figure produced through a 10 times inflation from ignoring offsetting credits).  But two new reports reveal drastically lower economic impacts.

On June 19th, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report estimating that the average yearly cost of the Waxman-Markey climate bill would be $175 per household, with a increase of $245 for the highest income bracket and $40 savings for the poorest 20%.

A recent EPA analysis estimated that the bill would actually lower household energy costs by 2020:

As a result of energy efficiency measures, consumer spending on utility bills would be roughly 7% lower in 2020 as a result of the legislation.

An entry on Climate Progress puts it well:

We don’t have to just wish we were there — we can have a clean energy economy for the cost of a postcard stamp a day. And the EPA’s analysis does not “take into account the benefits of reducing global warming.”

This news will hopefully smooth the way for the ACES to pass the House this Friday.  If you live in the U.S., please consider asking your representative to support the bill.  As for the rest of the world, keep your fingers crossed, because American green politics affects you as well.

The facts on the House GOP’s energy plan

While I’m a strong proponent of individual and community action, I also realize the importance of new national energy policy.  That is why I’ve been writing and thinking quite a bit about Waxman-Markey lately.  It’s gone farther in Congress than any similar legislation, despite the GOP’s objections.

Whenever I see a Republican congressman criticizing Waxman-Markey, I want to say, “Okay, so you don’t like the idea of a carbon cap.  Fair enough, but where is your plan to confront climate change?”  Well, here it is: the American Energy Act.

The Facts

The House Republicans’ energy plan, called an “All-of-the-Above Solution for Energy Independence” is based on the following:

• More offshore drilling
• More oil refineries
• More nuclear power plants
• More production of oil shale
• More drilling in arctic

To be fair, the plan does include funding for renewable energy, via an Alternative Energy Trust Fund, which would, according to the two-page summary, “encourage the development of renewable, alternative and unconventional fuels, and new energy sources, using receipts from the new federal and oil gas [sic] leasing in the Arctic Coastal Plain and Outer Continental Shelf [emphasis mine].”  It should also be noted that oil shale, tar sands, and coal are included under “renewable and unconventional energy sources.”

At this point, it looks unsettlingly similar to the Bush energy policy.

The plan also includes tax incentives for energy efficiency, as well as prizes for 100-MPG cars and other new technologies.  But, notably absent is any goal for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.  In fact, these are the only references to greenhouse gases in the full text:

Section 302(g) of the Clean Air

Act (42 U.S.C. 7602(g)) is amended by adding the following at the end thereof: ‘‘The term ‘air pollutant’ shall not include carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride.’’….

…. Nothing in the Clean Air Act shall be treated as authorizing or requiring the regulation of climate change or global warming….

….The impact of greenhouse gas on any species of fish or wildlife or plant shall not be considered for any purpose in the implementation of this [Endangered Species] Act.

*face-palm*  And that isn’t all.  The “Legal Reform” section openly intends to make it more difficult for environmental groups to challenge drilling leases in the Outer Continental Shelf, because

Congress finds that expedited judicial review is necessary to prevent this gross abuse of the United States judicial system.

My Opinion

While there are some provisions for responsible Arctic drilling, the plan as a whole isn’t environmentally sound.  The weight of dirty fuel funding is enough to sink the bill, even without the outspoken attempts to fight GHG reduction.  The efficiency incentives are fine, but fuel efficiency is not enough.  What we need is a bold and comprehensive plan to switch to true clean energy and cut emissions.  I can somewhat understand the Republicans’ concerns about a cap-and-trade, but so far, they haven’t come up with a suitable alternative.

Another perspective on Waxman-Markey

A few days ago, I wrote about Greenpeace’s opposition to the American Climate and Energy Security Act. Environmentalists are concerned that the bill sets an inadequate GHG reduction goal, gives away free offsets to polluters, and includes funding for new coal plants.  Greenpeace, and others, are calling on Congress and the President to create a stronger bill.  In my post, I made the point that we could not expect other nations to enact drastic climate legislation if we did not have a plan of our own.

Meanwhile, ClimateProgress made a similar point from a different perspective:

On the other hand, if Waxman-Markey fails to get out of committee or fails to make it through both houses of Congress over the next 12 months or so, don’t expect any US climate action for a long time — the political mavens will not take failure as a sign to pursue a stronger bill.  And failure would mean the international negotiation process would be dead.  Equally important, why would China agree to a target if we don’t?

It is quite possible that Congress has one chance to pass a climate bill, and one chance to get it right.  If a carbon cap is the right answer, then Waxman-Markey does more good than harm.  And there’s a good chance that today’s legislation choices are “take it” or “leave it.”  If this is the best we’re going to get, should we support the bill despite its unsavory provisions?

What do you think?