WP: Climate bill faces hurdles in Senate

Senate needs to take some action.

Washington Post:

The climate-change bill that has been moving slowly through the Senate will face a stark political reality when it emerges for committee debate on Tuesday: With Democrats deeply divided on the issue, unless some Republican lawmakers risk the backlash for signing on to the legislation, there is almost no hope for passage.

Like the measure adopted by the House, the legislation favors a cap-and-trade system that would issue permits for greenhouse gas emissions, gradually lower the amount of emissions allowed, and let companies buy and sell permits to meet their needs -- all without adding to the federal deficit, according to projections. But key Republicans are making their opposition clear, even as Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) has enlisted Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) as his most visible GOP ally in gathering support for the bill.

Sen. George V. Voinovich (Ohio), a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee who was initially seen as one of the few Republicans who might consider backing the majority, is helping lead the opposition.

"Why are we trying to jam down this legislation now?" he asked during a hearing last week. "Wouldn't it be smarter to take our time and do it right?"

He wrote Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson twice this summer to ask for a more detailed economic analysis of the House-passed climate legislation, and he has joined the other six Republicans on the committee in boycotting the climate bill's markup, scheduled for Tuesday.

The measure has deeply divided Democrats. With states in the Midwest, South and Rocky Mountain West dependent on fossil fuels for energy, many senators are worried about the legislation's impact on industry and consumers.

"I think at the end of the day, the people who turn the switch on at home will be disadvantaged," Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told CNBC on Friday, explaining why he did not think the bill Kerry had sponsored along with Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) could pass.

So Democratic leaders, with the support of the Obama administration, are trying to sway at least half a dozen Republicans by offering amendments to speed along their top priority: building nuclear power plants.

Graham has suggested provisions on nuclear power and offshore oil drilling that could win his support for a cap-and-trade climate bill. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) has established a bipartisan working group of 17 Senate offices that is close to producing a detailed amendment aimed at hurrying the construction of U.S. nuclear reactors.

But it remains unclear whether that approach will hold currency in the current era of political polarization. One of the top Republicans whom Democrats hope to recruit in this effort -- Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), whom Graham and Kerry recently buttonholed on the Senate floor -- has voiced skepticism about the legislation.

"A tepid nuclear title isn't enough to get her to support a bad climate bill," said Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Murkowski.

Graham and Kerry are set to meet Wednesday with Energy Secretary Steven Chu, as well as with Obama's top climate adviser, Carol M. Browner, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to discuss a possible compromise. They are also setting up meetings with colleagues on the issue.

"There is nowhere near 60 votes for a nuclear power bill on its own. There's not 60 votes for a cap-and-trade bill as it's currently constructed," Graham said in an interview. He said combining the two measures is "the only way you'll get to 60 votes."

It is what Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope calls "the old formula for bipartisanship."

"They would agree on a goal, they would not agree exactly on the means to a goal, and they'd come up with a legislative solution that takes elements from both sides," he said.

And Graham, for his part, has become a lightning rod for controversy back home. On Oct. 22, the American Energy Alliance, an advocacy group funded in part by energy companies, launched a radio, TV and online advertising campaign in South Carolina that has cost "close to $300,000" so far, according to the group's spokesman, Patrick Creighton.

Featuring a Halloween theme, the TV commercial warns of "some scary stories coming out of Washington" and says, "The latest is Senator Lindsey Graham's support for a national energy tax called cap-and-trade."

Creighton said the group questions why Graham says a deal will help offshore drilling, which Congress has already allowed.

Groups backing the climate bill came to Graham's defense last week. They aired radio and television ads that featured state Sen. John Courson, a conservative Republican who became concerned about global warming after witnessing the decline of polar bears in Churchill, Manitoba.

"Out-of-state interests are attacking our Senator Lindsey Graham," Courson says in an ad underwritten by Republicans for Environmental Protection, "because he's backing an energy plan that produces more power in America."

Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said he is optimistic that the parties can reach an accord because Americans are not divided along party lines on global warming. "Is there bipartisanship in the country? I think clearly there is," he said.

State lawmakers who came to advise the White House last week on climate saw a different picture. "We looked for any Republican, in any state legislature in the country, who supported a bill," recalled Minnesota state Rep. Jeremy Kalin. "We found not a one."

NYTimes: Disillusioned Environmentalists Turn on Obama as Compromiser

I hate to say it but..................

NYtimes:

For environmental activists like Jessica Miller, 31, the passage of a major climate bill by the House last month should have been cause for euphoria. Instead she felt cheated.

Ms. Miller, an activist with Greenpeace, had worked hard on her own time to elect Barack Obama because he directly and urgently addressed the issue nearest her heart: climate change.

But over the last few months, as the ambitious climate legislation was watered down in the House without criticism from the president, Ms. Miller became disillusioned. She worried that the bill had been rendered meaningless — or had even undermined some goals Greenpeace had fought for. And she felt that the man she had thought of as her champion seemed oddly prone to compromise.

“I voted for the president, I canvassed for him, but we just haven’t seen leadership from him,” said Ms. Miller, who rappelled down Mount Rushmore on Wednesday with colleagues to unfurl a banner protesting what they called President Obama’s acquiescence to the compromises. (They were arrested and charged with trespassing.)

While most environmental groups formally supported the House bill, the road to passage proved unsettling for the movement. Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Public Citizen opposed the bill; members of some other groups privately berated their leaders for going along with it. And some, like Ms. Miller, have shifted to open protest.

Few politicians make the transition from campaign trail to White House without sacrificing a few starry-eyed supporters along the way, of course.

And Mr. Obama’s early record on environmental issues suggests that he is more aggressive than any of his predecessors in supporting causes like combating global warming and shifting to renewable energy sources.

In an interview last month, Mr. Obama defended the House bill as “a good start.”

Referring to European leaders and others who said the bill was not strong enough, Mr. Obama said, “We don’t want to make the best the enemy of the good.”

He went on: “By putting a framework in place that is realistic, that is commonsensical, that protects consumers from huge spikes in electricity costs while setting real, meaningful targets — what we are doing is changing the political conversation and the incentive structures for businesses in this country.”

Still, the compromises that were made to win House approval by a 219-to-212 vote have left the president’s “green” base in some disarray.

For some environmental groups and individuals, the bill’s perceived shortcomings — like generous pollution allowances to coal utilities and the usurping of the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory authority over carbon emissions — were more than mere setbacks.

“This bill was worse than what we were expecting, even knowing we wouldn’t get the best bill,” said Nick Berning, a spokesman for the group Friends of the Earth.

The overriding of the E.P.A.’s regulatory authority over carbon emissions was particularly startling, Mr. Berning said.

The president clearly shares the blame, he said, adding, “He is not engaged enough.”

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama used forceful and direct language on climate change, calling carbon emissions from human activity an “immediate threat” to the climate. His environmental critics say they miss that urgent tone.

“He was far too quiet during the House debate,” said Jessy Tolkan, the executive director of the Energy Action Coalition, a youth group in Washington that campaigns for clean energy. “He needs to live up to the promises he made to us when we poured our heart and soul into electing him.”

Ms. Tolkan said that her organization was hoping to take that point home to the Democratic Party before the midterm elections. “Those who played a leadership role in weakening this bill will feel the wrath of youth political power across the country,” she said. “2010 is not that far away.”

Democratic lawmakers have also drawn fire. Jill Stein, co-founder of the Massachusetts Coalition for Healthy Communities, which usually lobbies on local environmental issues, said she felt “betrayed” by the Democratic-controlled House. “If this is a political reality, we have to change our political leaders,” Ms. Stein said.

In a statement, Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and an architect of the bill, defended the legislation. “We worked hard to craft legislation that would achieve our environmental goals while addressing the regional concerns of members of Congress,” he said. Politicians are not the only targets of dejected environmentalists.

The Clean, a collaborative grass-roots groups that encourages the use of renewable fuels, posted a critique of the climate bill on its Web site that asked at one point: “Why has this energy legislation become so bad?”

It blames “corporate polluters” for spending tens of millions of dollars on lobbying, but environmental groups, too.

“Several of the national ‘green’ groups decided to cooperate with industry and members of Congress in getting a bill through,” the Web site reads. “N.R.D.C., the Environmental Defense Fund and Pew all sat at the table and, whether or not it was their intent to do so, provided ‘cover’ for these bad policies.”

Daniel A. Lashof, director of the climate center for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group in Washington, said that if his group had not come to the table, there might not have been any climate-change legislation at all. And he pointed out that Congressional support for environmental action was at a record high.

“We are not saying this is perfect,” Mr. Lashof said, “but we cannot hope for stronger environmental champions in Congress. If not now, when?”

Climate Bill Vote is Today: Everything You Need to Know

The Democrat's climate bill is heading for a vote in the House of Representatives today. A lot has been staked on its passage: Obama's political capital. Pelosi's prestige, and, oh yeah, the future security of the world's climate. There are plenty of representatives who are undecided on how they'll vote, and the chances of the bill passing are still uncertain even in the 11th hour. Here's a quick rundown of where the bill stands now, and what you need to know in order to join the rest of us green wonks in biting our nails whilst perched on the edge of our seats . . .

Quick Climate Bill Overview

The bill is massive--currently 1,200 pages--but here are the key components of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (according to the official Budget Summary):
1. A National Renewable Energy Standard
The bill would implement a renewable energy standard for the US that would "require electric utilities to meet 20% of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources and energy efficiency by 2020." Which is a solid, if mild target.

2. Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The bill will "reduce carbon emissions from major U.S. sources by 17% by 2020 and over 80% by 2050 compared to 2005 levels." It will do so by implementing a cap and trade system that sets a 'cap' on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions a company can emit, and forcing polluting companies to have permits for each ton of pollution they create. Most of the permits will initially be given away for free, but by 2015, a permit for each ton of pollution will be $13, and by 2030, they'll cost $26 per ton.

Where the Climate Revenue WIll Go:
Money generated from the cap and trade will go to the following:
55% of the allowances will be used to protect consumers from energy price increases; 19% will be used to assist trade-vulnerable and other industries make the transition to a clean energy economy; 13% will be used to support investments in clean energy and energy efficiency; and 10% will be used for domestic adaptation, worker assistance and training, prevention of deforestation, and international adaptation. The remainder (3% of allowances) will be used to help ensure that ACES is budget neutral.
3. Clean Energy Investments
The bill will direct a lot of funding to renewable energy, and unfortunately, clean coal technology. It will

Invest in new clean energy technologies and energy efficiency, including energy efficiency and renewable energy ($90 billion in new investments by 2025), carbon capture and sequestration ($60 billion), electric and other advanced technology vehicles ($20 billion), and basic scientific research and development ($20 billion).
4. Bring on the Energy Efficiency
Through a slew of measures, the bill will "Mandate new energy-saving standards for buildings and appliances, and promote energy efficiency in industry."

Where the Climate Bill Stands Today

In short: on the fence. Though Pelosi seems confident the bill will pass, many have their doubts. Barack Obama, who's been criticized by environmentalists and some Democrats for not advocating the bill vocally enough, has come through with some so-called 11th hour support. He's been calling skeptical Democrats and urging them to vote yes, but some fear it's too little too late. But why are Democrats skeptical in the first place?
Mostly because those Democrats who represent rural areas or coal or oil heavy regions fear the repercussions of voting for the bill now, and seeing it fail in the Senate. If that happens, their political opponents would ostensibly be able to capitolize on the Dems trying to pass "what amounts to a massive tax" (that's the Republican attack line) when they come up for reelection next term.

Republicans, none of which are expected to vote in favor of the climate bill, have been stressing this idea, and it's surely wracked the nerves of some moderate Dems. But with the once-opposed Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson now on board, it may be more attractive for the more doubtful members of the party.

What Will Happen?

Well, we won't be able to say for a few hours more. But hopefully it passes--though some environmentalists are critical of the bill's watered down measures, I personally think it absolutely needs to pass. It's beyond a matter of is-it-good-enough (which it may not be), but simply passing it with the provisions it currently offers is much-needed progress. We can't sit idly by while companies continue to amp up their emissions. We need to support the clean energy economy as it finds its legs. As the most powerful nation on Earth, we can't allow climate change to progress unchecked. We need to pass this bill--it's an ethical necessity.
Head over to the Committe of Energy and Commerce website to read the full summary (or the whole thing, if you've got a spare week or five) of the climate bill.

WAXMAN-MARKEY VOTE TODAY

C-SPAN offers gavel to gavel coverage of the U.S. House of Representatives. C-SPAN also offers a variety of public affairs programming including congressional hearings, press briefings from the White House, State Department and Pentagon, campaign and election coverage, and international programming:
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN_wm.aspx

NYtimes: Refugees Join List of Climate-Change Issues

NYTimes:

With their boundless vistas of turquoise water framed by swaying coconut palms, the Carteret Islands northeast of the Papua New Guinea mainland might seem the idyllic spot to be a castaway.

But sea levels have risen so much that during the annual king tide season, November to March, the roiling ocean blocks the view from one island to the next, and residents stash their possessions in fishing nets strung between the palm trees.

“It gives you the scary feeling that you don’t know what is going to happen to you, that any minute you will be floating,” Ursula Rakova, the head of a program to relocate residents, said by telephone. The chain could well be uninhabitable by 2015, locals believe, but two previous attempts to abandon it ended badly, when residents were chased back after clashing with their new neighbors on larger islands.

This dark situation underlies the thorny debate over the world’s responsibilities to the millions of people likely to be displaced by climate change.

There could be 200 million of these climate refugees by 2050, according to a new policy paper by the International Organization for Migration, depending on the degree of climate disturbances. Aside from the South Pacific, low-lying areas likely to be battered first include Bangladesh and nations in the Indian Ocean, where the leader of the Maldives has begun seeking a safe haven for his 300,000 people. Landlocked areas may also be affected; some experts call the Darfur region of Sudan, where nomads battle villagers in a war over shrinking natural resources, the first significant conflict linked to climate change.

In the coming days, the United Nations General Assembly is expected to adopt the first resolution linking climate change to international peace and security. The hard-fought resolution, brought by 12 Pacific island states, says that climate change warrants greater attention from the United Nations as a possible source of upheaval worldwide and calls for more intense efforts to combat it. While all Pacific island states are expected to lose land, some made up entirely of atolls, like Tuvalu and Kiribati, face possible extinction.

“For the first time in history, you could actually lose countries off the face of the globe,” said Stuart Beck, the permanent representative for Palau at the United Nations. “It is a security threat to them and their populations, which will have to be relocated, which is the security threat to the places where they go, among other consequences.”

The issue has inspired intense wrangling, with some nations accusing the islanders of both exaggerating the still murky consequences of climate change and trying to expand the mandate of the Security Council by asking it to take action.

“We don’t consider climate change is an issue of security that properly belongs in the Security Council; rather, it is a development issue that has some security aspects,” said Maged A. Abdelaziz, the Egyptian ambassador. “It is an issue of how to prevent certain lands, or certain countries, from being flooded.”

The island states are seeking a response akin to the effort against terrorism after the Sept. 11 attacks. “The whole system bent itself to the task, and that is what we want,” Mr. Beck said, adding that the Council should even impose sanctions on countries that fail to act. “If you really buy into the notion that the Suburban you are driving is causing these islands to go under, there ought to be a cop.”

As it is, the compromise resolution does not mention such specific steps, one of the reasons it is expected to pass. Britain, which introduced climate change as a Security Council discussion topic two years ago, supports it along with most of Europe, while other permanent Council members — namely, the United States, China and Russia — generally backed the measure once it no longer explicitly demanded Council action.

Scientific studies distributed by the United Nations or affiliated agencies generally paint rising seas as a threat. A 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, detailing shifts expected in the South Pacific, said rising seas would worsen flooding and erosion and threaten towns as well as infrastructure. Some fresh water will turn salty, and fishing and agriculture will wither, it said.

The small island states are not alone in considering the looming threat already on the doorstep. A policy paper released this month by Australia’s Defense Ministry suggests possible violent outcomes in the Pacific. While Australia should try to mitigate the humanitarian suffering caused by global warming, if that failed and conflict erupted, the country should use its military “as an instrument to deal with any threats,” said the paper.

Australia’s previous prime minister, John Howard, was generally dismissive of the problem, saying his country was plagued with “doomsayers.” But a policy paper called “Our Drowning Neighbors,” by the now governing Labor Party, said Australia should help meld an international coalition to address it. Political debates have erupted there and in New Zealand over the idea of immigration quotas for climate refugees. New Zealand established a “Pacific Access Category” with guidelines that mirror the rules for any émigré, opening its borders to a limited annual quota of some 400 able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 45 who have no criminal records.

But its position has attracted criticism for leaving out the young and the old, who have the least ability to relocate. Australia’s policy, by contrast, is to try to mitigate the circumstances for the victims where they are, rather than serving as their lifeboat.

The sentiment among Pacific Islanders suggests that they do not want to abandon their homelands or be absorbed into cultures where indigenous people already struggle for acceptance.

“It is about much more than just finding food and shelter,” said Tarita Holm, an analyst with the Palauan Ministry of Resources and Development. “It is about your identity.”

Ms. Rakova, on the Carteret Islands, echoes that sentiment. A year ago, her proposed relocation effort attracted just three families out of a population of around 2,000 people. But after last season’s king tides — the highest of the year — she is scrounging for about $1.5 million to help some 750 people relocate before the tides come again.

Jennifer Redfearn, a documentary maker, has been filming the gradual disappearance of the Carterets for a work called “Sun Come Up.” One clan chief told her he would rather sink with the islands than leave. It now takes only about 15 minutes to walk the length of the largest island, with food and water supplies shrinking all the time.

“It destroys our food gardens, it uproots coconut trees, it even washes over the sea walls that we have built,” Ms. Rakova says on the film. “Most of our culture will have to live in memory.”

10 Reasons to support Waxman-Markey energy bill

1. The Waxman-Markey bill will create jobs by spurring investment in renewables and efficiency.
2. Boosting investments in low-carbon energy will help the United States regain the lead in the manufacture and sale of clean-energy technologies.
3. The global warming threat is growing, and we have no more time to lose.
4. The bill would cut greenhouse gas emissions enough to equal pollution from half a billion cars.
5. It would increase new building efficiency by 50 percent.
6. It limits impact from energy costs on families and would make emitters pay to pollute.
7. It provides a smooth transition for energy-intensive industries.
8. Opponents of action would continue the status quo of doing nothing, which cost the average family a $1,000 increase in energy bills over the past eight years.
9. Investments in carbon capture-and-sequestration research and development to reduce global warming pollution from coal-fired power plants.
10. The bill has critical industry support.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee today will begin consideration of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, sponsored by Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chair Edward Markey (D-MA). This bill is a huge step forward in the effort to achieve a clean-energy economy transformation and has attracted broad support from legislators and businesses nationwide.

The ACES establishes a three-part program to transition to a low-carbon economy: increase energy efficiency; invest in clean-energy resources such as the wind and sun; and reduce global warming pollution. While the original draft of the bill reduced emissions sooner and had a separate national energy efficiency resource standard, the current version represents enormous progress after eight years of stasis. Passage of the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee is an essential first step to policies that will accelerate economic recovery and achieve long-term growth.

On May 13, President Obama praised the draft legislation as “a major step forward in building the kind of clean-energy economy that will reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil.”

The bill includes many critical steps to transform the United States to a low-carbon economy. Here are 10 key reasons to support it.

1. The Waxman-Markey bill will create jobs by spurring investment in renewables and efficiency.
The bill includes a renewable electricity and efficiency standard of 20 percent by 2020. This requires utilities to provide 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. They would also have to reduce annual electricity use by 5 percent through efficiency measures. Investments in clean energy and efficiency would create jobs, particularly in struggling sectors such as manufacturing and construction, by increasing demand for steel for wind turbines and construction of energy-efficient buildings.

2. Boosting investments in low-carbon energy will help the United States regain the lead in the manufacture and sale of clean-energy technologies.
A February analysis by HSBC Global Research in Hong Kong projects that nearly 40 percent of China’s proposed $586 billion stimulus plan—$221 billion over two years—is for clean energy investments, including an advanced electric grid, low-carbon vehicles and high-speed rail. The leading global consumer of coal for electricity, China has emerged in the past two years as the world’s leading builder of more efficient coal power plants capable of capturing and storing carbon, mastering the technology and driving down the cost.

The European Union committed to 20 percent renewable energy by 2020. As of 2006, the United States had less absolute renewable power capacity than either China or the 27 EU countries. While renewable energy deployment in the United States is lagging, 66 other countries worldwide have committed to national standards.

Establishing a market price on carbon pollution would make investments in renewable energy sources and efficient technologies economically competitive. Investments in their research, development, and production would help make the United States a global leader in the export of clean energy.

3. The global warming threat is growing, and we have no more time to lose.
Global warming has major human impacts, posing health, economic, and security threats. Margaret Chan, the director-general of the World Health Organisation, states “Climate change will affect, in profoundly adverse ways, some of the most fundamental determinants of health: food, air, water.”

A recent study by the University of Washington found that higher temperatures will exacerbate asthma attacks and allergy symptoms because they will prolong pollen seasons, expanding the range of bee habitats and increasing airborne mold and other irritants. Higher health care costs and lower productivity will negatively affect the economy.

In February, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) declared a state of emergency in California because of the drought. The state faces nearly $3 billion in economic losses this year from the lack of rainfall. The dry conditions also worsen the state’s perennial wildfires. Research suggests that wildfires are a significant contributor to global warming by depleting carbon-absorbing vegetation while releasing more carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

There has also been an outpouring of new evidence that unchecked pollution has caused harmful changes. Rising temperatures have caused the 18,000-year-old Chacaltaya glacier in Bolivia to completely vanish, and scientists predict that the North Pole will have almost no summertime ice as soon as 2020. The melting of polar ice would allow the release of vast deposits of methane, a greenhouse gas 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

4. The bill would cut greenhouse gas emissions enough to equal pollution from half a billion cars.
Waxman-Markey aims to reduce U.S. global warming pollution by requiring a 17-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2020. This is like removing greenhouse gases from 500 million cars—about half the world’s cars in 2020.

This cut would reduce emissions at a faster rate than the proposal President Barack Obama made in his budget request. The cuts would increase over time to a 45-percent cut by 2030, 65 percent by 2040, and 85 percent by 2050. While the 2020 reduction is lower than first proposed, the later targets are the same as in the original draft.

5. It would increase new building efficiency by 50 percent.
Nearly half of American’s energy powers our buildings, and too much of this energy is wasted. The Waxman-Markey bill would attack this waste by requiring new buildings use 50 percent less energy by 2016.

Many studies point toward these benefits from building energy efficiency. According to a 2009 study by the Environmental Defense Fund on efficiency investments in Texas, efficiency investments in buildings can avoid over 50 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions and avoid $17 billion in electricity bills annually by 2030.

And an analysis from McKinsey and Company suggests that the United States can achieve savings of $33 billion per year by 2030 from cumulative buildings-sector efficiency improvements.

6. It limits impacts from energy costs on families and would make emitters pay to pollute.
Currently, greenhouse gas emitters can pollute the sky without paying any cost. The Waxman-Markey bill would put an end to this practice. Large emitters would have to annually purchase a permit for every ton of carbon dioxide they release into the atmosphere. Charging companies for what was once free will create an economic incentive to produce less of it.

Nearly a third of all U.S. greenhouse gas pollution comes from coal-fired electric power plants. To limit the impacts of higher energy costs from the new price on carbon, the Waxman-Markey bill would give 30 percent of the pollution permits to regulated electric companies (“local distribution companies,” or LDCs). The LDCs could sell the pollution permits on the open market to emitters, and state public utility-service commissions would be responsible for ensuring that the revenue is used to offset the higher electricity prices.

The bill would also provide allowances for consumers of natural gas and heating oil. In addition, revenue from 15 percent of the allowances would be “distributed to low- and moderate-income families to protect them from other energy cost increases. These allowances will be distributed through tax credits, direct payments, and electronic benefit payments.”

7. It provides a smooth transition for energy-intensive industries.
To smooth the transition for energy- and trade-intensive industries such as steel and cement, the Waxman-Markey bill would grant them 15 percent of all pollution permits for free starting in 2014 and with a phase-out beginning in 2025. Companies would receive allowances equal to the average emission rate for their industry. Firms that produce less pollution than average could sell their extra permits, so they have an economic incentive to clean up.

The auto industry would also receive incentives to manufacture electric and other advanced technology vehicles. The bill would give the auto industry “Three percent of allowances from 2012 through 2017, and after that will receive 1 percent of allowances through 2025.”

The bill’s “cap-and-trade” system is different than the EU’s Emissions Trading System, which distributed too many pollution permits. The companies sold their excess permits, kept the money, and raised rates anyway. After the European Commission corrected the mistake, the system functioned properly, and in 2008 carbon dioxide emissions were cut by 3.1 percent, while the economy grew by 0.8 percent. The Waxman-Markey system would avoid the early mistakes of the EU system.

8. Opponents of action would continue the status quo of doing nothing, which cost the average family a $1,000 increase in energy bills over the past eight years.
Opponents of the Waxman-Markey bill would continue the pro-big oil energy policies developed by Vice President Dick Cheney and vigorously pursued by President George W. Bush. Billions of dollars in subsidies were plowed into extremely rich big oil and energy companies, and efforts to remove these payouts were mostly blocked by conservatives. Clean-energy policies—such as a renewable electricity standard—were also blocked.

The result of these pro-industry policies? Spiraling gasoline and electricity prices for families, and a nation more dependent on coal and oil. Between 2001 and the recession that began in December 2007, the typical annual American household expenditure for energy rose by $1,130. Bill detractors may use dilatory tactics to thwart the majority’s support and retain the status quo.

In addition, Ranking Republican Joe Barton (R-TX) plans to offer a substitute energy bill from last year that would invest heavily in nuclear power while allowing oil companies to freely develop dirty, water-consuming oil leases. It is an expensive, dirty proposal that ignores global warming while enriching big oil and energy companies.

9. Investments in carbon capture-and-sequestration research and development to reduce global warming pollution from coal-fired power plants.
Technology currently exists to capture CO2 emissions from coal-fired plants—which provides half of U.S. electricity —and to sequester that CO2 in underground geologic formations. The technology is not yet commercially available, however, and widespread deployment of CCS systems will not be easy. Recognizing this, the Waxman-Markey bill provides a financing mechanism to set the stage for deployment of carbon capture-and-sequestration technology at a scale that would significantly reduce coal plant emissions.

Widespread CCS deployment—in combination with other policies to reduce CO2 emissions and diversify energy sources—could be invaluable in meeting our emission reduction goals for greenhouse gases and would encourage the export of CCS technology around the world, particularly to developing nations that depend on low-cost coal to fuel economic growth.

10. The bill has critical industry support.
Many CEOs from big energy and manufacturing companies realize that we must reduce oil use and cut greenhouse gas pollution, or face devastating economic and national security consequences. Some of these leaders have joined together with a handful of nonprofits to form the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. Their proposal to cut greenhouse gases by 14 percent to 20 percent by 2020 was the starting point for the Waxman-Markey bill.

Jim Rogers, the CEO of Duke Energy, (a U.S. Climate Action Partnership member) recently praised the Waxman-Markey bill during an Energy and Commerce Committee hearing. He said, “If we design this bill right, if we get the transitions right, it will put us in a position to be stronger. It will not weaken our economy over time.”

Another U.S. CAP member, Charles Holliday, Jr., chairman of DuPont, testified that, “I believe that this may be the single greatest opportunity to reinvent American industry, putting us on a more sustainable path forward… A federal climate program has the potential to create real economic growth through innovation.”

Despite the forward-looking outlook of these and other leaders, many of their companies belong to trade associations that are vigorously lobbying Congress to retain the status quo. Duke Energy plans to leave the National Association of Manufacturers because of NAM’s campaign to block progress. Ten thousand small businesses petitioned the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to end its multifaceted campaign to stop the Waxman Markey bill.

By Daniel J. Weiss Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy and Daniel Wagener, an Assistant Editor at American Progress, was first published on Climate Progress

Republicans flinging bullsh!t at the Climate Bill

Functioning infant Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill) had this to say about the draft climate bill now being heard in Congress:

This is the largest assault on democracy and freedom in this country that I’ve ever experienced. I’ve lived through some tough times in Congress. We’ve seen two wars, terrorist attacks. I fear this more than all of the above.

He went on to say that global warming is God's will:



From Grist.org

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) chimed in with his own analysis: “Adapting is a common natural way for people to adapt to their environment ... I believe that the earth’s climate is changing, but I think it’s changing for natural variation reasons,” he said. “And I think mankind has been adopting, or adapting to climate as long as man has walked the earth. When it rains, we find shelter. When it’s hot, we get shade. When it’s cold, we find a warm place to stay.”

(And if you think that’s bad, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told ABC on Sunday that “the idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. ... Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide.”)

The witness skepticism program

The witnesses Republicans bring to hearings are just as out of touch with climate science.

Democrats, who control Congress and thus chair its committees, schedule hearings on topics of their choosing and invite witnesses. A committee chair isn’t required to grant the minority party their pick of witnesses, but if the minority objects to the panel, they can request a second day of the hearing for which they pick all the witnesses. To avoid that messiness, chairs tend to let the minority pick at least one or two panelists.

At the March 25 hearing, Democrats’ five witnesses included the director of the National Climatic Data Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the director of natural resources and environment at the Government Accountability Office, and leaders from the National Wildlife Federation, the National Council of Churches, and Oxfam America.

The NOAA representative, Tom Karl, presented on the trends toward increased droughts and forest fires, and an uptick in the frequency and severity of coastal storms that the agency forecasts. John Stephenson from the GAO talked about the “growing understanding” at his agency that the costs of inaction could be greater than the costs of mitigating climate change. Even the witnesses who don’t work in climate science or government stuck to the topic at hand—adapting to a warmed world—without claiming expertise they don’t possess. Bishop Callon Holloway of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, speaking on behalf of the National Council of Churches, testified about the “call to be good stewards of the earth,” reflecting on the values of “stewardship and justice” that should compel us to protect the poor who would be affected by climate change.

In stark contrast, the Republicans’ witnesses challenged the very idea of climate change, and thus the whole basis for the hearing. First up was E. Calvin Beisner of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, who warned that “fear of catastrophic, man-made global warming is a mistake,” and argued that because the “biblical worldview sees the world and ecosystems as the work of a wise God,” humankind couldn’t possibly be affecting the climate. Going further, he warned that restricting the amount of carbon put into the atmosphere would harm the poor, and that Americans are “morally obligated to provide access for the poor to affordable, abundant fossil fuels.”

The minority’s second witness was Lord Christopher Monckton, aka the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a British hereditary peer who’s become a minor star in the climate-skeptic world. “The right response to the non-problem of global warming is to have the courage to do nothing,” he told the panel. He readily agreed with Rep. Shimkus: “We are a carbon-starved planet.”

Monckton argued that if Congress moved to address climate change, it would “create green jobs by the thousands and eliminate real jobs by the millions ... Green jobs are the new euphemism for vast unemployment.”

He also contended that aggressive environmental regulation in California has prompted a vast exodus from the state. “Everyone with the means to get up and go is getting up and going, and unlike their robotic governor, they won’t be back,” Monckton said—though he offered no evidence of a mass migration. (In reality, the state’s overall population continues to grow, even though the number of people moving out of California has slightly surpassed the number moving in.)

Monckton has a colorful history—journalist by training, advisor to Margaret Thatcher, business consultant, and developer of the high-selling Eternity puzzle—but no background in climate science. Nonetheless, he’s touted by climate deniers as an “expert” on the topic, and serves as chief policy adviser to the Science & Public Policy Institute, a climate-skeptic group. Republicans also trotted Monckton out as a witness at a Ways and Means Committee hearing on climate change in February, and he appeared at the climate skeptics summit sponsored by the conservative Heartland Institute in early March. (See George Monbiot, DeSmogBlog, and Deltoid for more on Monckton.)

“This was a serious hearing on a serious issue,” an aide to the Energy and Commerce Committee told Grist of the March 25 panel. “We gave the other side advance notice on the kinds of witnesses [Democratic leaders] were choosing. They chose to invite Monckton. ... If this is the witness that they want to choose, even though he’s contradicted by U.S. government scientists, then we’re going to move forward.”

Will the GOP play ball or throw sand?

Climate legislation will be highly complex, with society-wide ramifications. So far this year, there have been 11 hearings on the topic in the Energy and Environment Subcommittee alone, and there will be a number of additional hearings over the coming weeks focusing specifically on the draft climate plan from Markey and Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). Markey has said they left many specifics out of their draft because they “want to hear from all affected parties” on, for instance, how to minimize impacts on citizens and help energy-intensive businesses adapt to a new regulatory scheme.

But instead of inviting witnesses who could speak to these critical concerns, the Republican committee members have thus far preferred to invite climate skeptics.

Asked about the prospects for meaningful Republican participation in crafting a climate bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) acknowledged recently that there might not be much, if any. “We would hope to have Republican votes as we go forward on this,” she said. “Will I not put it forth unless I do? No. There’s an inevitability to this that everyone has to understand.”

The Energy and Commerce Committee will hold its first four hearings on the Waxman-Markey bill this week, starting on Tuesday. Democratic leaders aim to pass the legislation out of committee by Memorial Day, and out of the full House by July. If you want to know how seriously Republicans are taking the process, keep an eye on these hearings.

How are these really our elected officials?