(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer Charles Pence.)
Weekly Angst: Prepare to turn on C-Span next week and watch the debate over the Senate global warming bill. It should be revealing.
Environment Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) came up with a “substitute” bill (S. 3036) last week, which incorporates the one by Lieberman and Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), but tries to meet some objections to garner more support. It includes, for example, a $955 billion fund (from now through 2050) to pay down the federal deficit, to make the bill budget neutral (if not carbon neutral). The debate is expected to start in the early evening June 2, with a cloture vote that even staunch opponents are likely to go along with – they want a debate too. Lieberman and Warner have signed off on Boxer’s substitute and John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Me.) are co-sponsors.
It should be a zoo. This topic elicits strong feelings because global warming is an enormous issue that threatens the planet but also has implications for industry, as it calls for a seismic shift from fossil fuels to carbon-free (or at least low-carbon) energy. The bill sets up a cap-and-trade system, which puts an ever-lowering cap on greenhouse gas emissions and auctions or gives away credits that businesses can trade depending on whether they meet their emissions targets. If they don't, they must buy credits from those who do.
All kinds of amendments planned, from one by Lieberman and Warner to include more nuclear power, to one by Republicans to return revenue from the auction of carbon credits to the taxpayers as tax cuts. Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) wants to tell the U.S. to engage in global climate negotiations for real, and a likely Republican amendment will ask for inclusion of offshore drilling for oil and gas. Dems have been alerted, too, about planned GOP amendments specifically designed to embarrass them and their likely presidential nominee, Barack Obama.
Environmental groups (2 dozen of them) released a statement late last week saying the bill still “needs to be strengthened to ensure it will meet the reductions science dictates” (at least 80% cut by 2050), which it does not. Boxer did not increase the target, which is 71% by 2050, but really only 66% because it does not include all greenhouse gas emissions. It's not clear to me if there’s been any change in the percent of credits auctioned off, which start as 26.5% in 2012, going up to 79% in 2031. Bur since there’s been no mention of it, I assume it hasn’t changed much. That percentage is deemed too low by most environmentalists, because it means more free credits to polluters and less money bolster renewable energy. Many want 100% auctioned.
Where the revenue will go
The Boxer version of the bill lists specific payoffs to different segments from the bill’s revenues, which will come from auction of credits:
• $911 billion for consumers for help with increased energy costs and energy efficiency projects. Most ($850B) would help with energy costs.
• $231B in assistance to steel, glass, aluminum, rubber and paper companies to make needed changes -- they're seen as the industries that will have the most trouble adjusting.
• $566B for states to deal with GHG cuts.
• $307B for electric utilities to revamp.
• $150B for renewable energy companies.
• $68B to the auto industry to retool for hybrids, plug-ins, electric and fuel-cell vehicles.
• $250B for adaptation to climate change, largely for coastal states.
• $288B for wildlife adaptation.
• $560B for a fund states can access if they switch over from their own emissions programs to the federal one.
(All these amounts are spread over 40 years)
Free credits for fossil fuels have shrunk in the new version but more credits will be given for capture and storage of carbon dioxide. But if I’m reading this right, there is WAY too little going to renewable energy like wind, solar and geothermal. We need to be virtually switched over to them from fossil fuels by 2050. So why so stingy? Could it be that the lobbyists for these fledgling industries don't have the money to spread around that oil, gas and other mature industries have? You betcha.
It looks like nuclear energy will be one of the winners in this new version. The bill now provides $92 million in incentives, on top of what the nuclear power industry already gets from the government. And a successful Lieberman-Warner amendment would bring them even more. Nuclear, which now provides 8% of U.S. power, is a huge bone of contention with many environmentalists who don’t like the radiation involved and say "no nukes, no way." Even those who think some nuclear plants might be necessary to wean us off fossil fuels -- if safety and disposal problems can be solved -- would far rather see money go to really clean sources like wind, solar, geothermal and wave action.
Even if this bill should pass the Senate, it's unlikely the House will act before the end of the year. And this president would not sign a bill that would satisfy anyone who sees a need for urgent change. So the debate is probably just the first salvo in a battle that may be more successful with the next Congress and next president. But it still should be interesting to watch it unfold.
(Sources: Greenwire, ClimateWire, E&E News PM)
Take action: Send an e-mail to your senators.
