Sunday, June 28, 2009

Senate split on follow-up to House climate bill

What now? The House narrowly (219-212) passed a cap-and-trade bill Friday that aims to curb greenhouse gas emissions 17% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. (If you want to see how your rep voted, go to www.clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll477.xml) The lobbying was intense, with the Obama administration, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), environmental groups and key sponsors twisting arms till the last minute to overcome the heavy spending of the old “dirty” energy industry and GOP. They squeaked through with one vote to spare.

Attention has now turned to the Senate. President Obama set aside a Health Care message and used his Saturday radio broadcast to push for Senate approval of a similar bill. Both sides are again gearing up for a fight.

Two bills or one?
House Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he and six committee heads will craft a comprehensive bill for this fall.

Energy Chair Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) has jumped out front and already passed a bill out of committee, with bipartisan support, that would establish a Renewable Energy Standard (RES) of 15% by 2021, though a third of that percentage could be earned through energy efficiency. The heavily flawed compromise bill also would allow offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico within 45 miles of Florida (as opposed to the 100-235 mile buffer established in 2006).

Environmental groups oppose this bill in the current form, but note new numbers for a more stringent RES (25% by 2025) can be added on the floor with just 51 votes. Another problem is that it protects dirty Canadian oil sands from a 2007 law keeping the federal government from buying fuels with higher greenhouse gases than conventional fuels.(Yes, you read it right -- oil sands produce more GHG than traditional fuels. But, hey, Canada is our friend. Translation: they're not Arab.)

Meanwhile Environment Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is marking up a cap-and-trade bill modeled on the House bill, which she hopes to have out of her committee before the August recess.

Some say there should be two bills, giving the energy portion a better chance to pass if cap-and-trade can’t get the requisite 60 votes to avoid filibuster (Al Franken, we need you, and we need you now). However, Reid wants to bundle the package together. He also wants to add a provision that wasn’t in the House bill, for a national “smart grid.”

What do Republicans want?
The Republican Western Caucus released a bill last week, which emphasizes oil, gas and nukes. They gave it the warm and fuzzy name of “Clean, Affordable, Reliable Energy Act” or CARE. The goal is to increase domestic fuel production to reduce dependence on foreign oil, while keeping energy prices down. It calls for opening oil reserves on the outer continental shelf and ANWR in Alaska and removing environmental barriers to drilling. Their bill does include incentives for alternative energy sources and plug-in vehicles and investment in infrastructure, but it also wants to reduce barriers to nuclear development and oil shale exploration.

What do people think of all this?
Three-quarters of the public think the federal government should regulate greenhouse gases from power plants, factories and cars to reduce global warming, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. But some of those either don’t understand or don’t like the concept of cap-and-trade. A slim majority (52%) approves it, while 43% opposes. About 6 in 10 said they’d favor restrictions even if other countries did nothing, and the same number said they’d pay more, though that percentage varies depending on how much more.

Age was a big differentiator, as you might imagine. Two-thirds of those under 30 favor cap-and-trade, while only 40% of seniors do. Half of senior said there should be some federal regulation, though.

Cap-and-trade is not an easy concept to understand. Proponents need to do a better job of selling it to the public. It may not be the ideal solution, but a carbon tax is never going to fly politically.

We need to make sure the senators are listening to the public as well as to the entrenched interests. Otherwise they’ll be able to block this legislation or turn it to their advantage, and we’ll be back to square one on climate change.

(Sources: E&D Daily, E&E PM, Washington Post, AP, New York Times)

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Cynthia:
The Republican opposition could well keep Al Franken sequested until the next election in MN for this particular seat. Don't count on him soon.

Toronto realtor said...

Part of the congressmen voted against it cos it does too little.

Other part voted against if cos it does too much.

Who actually profit from it? It's not as clear all of a sudden. Not even the Greenpeace likes it...

Elli

EarthlingAngst said...

It's true this bill doesn't go far enough. But it's a first step and unlikely anything better can be passed in the near future. Greenpeace doesn't like it but the Sierra Club, NRDC and League of Conservation Voters backed it in the end and hope to strengthen it in the Senate (unlikely, in my opinion).
Note to Anonymous above: We lucked out on Franken!