The House Democrats who could determine the fate of the American Clean Energy & Security Act: (rear, from left) Baron Hill, Earl Pomeroy, Artur Davis, Rick Boucher; (front, from left) Mike Ross, Charlie Melancon, Jason Altmire, John Tanner, and Gene Taylor.Photo illustration by Tom Twigg / Grist
Imagine the 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives standing in a single line, from the most likely to support climate change legislation to the least likely. At the far “green” end, i.e. most inclined to vote for greenhouse gas restrictions, you’d find Seattle Democrat Jim McDermott. At the far “brown” end, Texas Republican/libertarian Ron Paul.
Predictably, most Republicans would stand nearer to Paul’s end. Most Democrats would stand closer to McDermott. In the exact center, according to recent work by two economists, are nine lawmakers. And if the Waxman-Markey climate bill receives a full House vote, any one of them could provide the 218th “yes”—the decisive vote that passes the bill.
Let’s call them the Carbon Nine: Jason Altmire (Pennsylvania), Rick Boucher (Virginia), Artur Davis (Alabama), Baron Hill (Indiana), Charlie Melancon (Louisiana), Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota), Mike Ross (Arkansas), John Tanner (Tennessee), and Gene Taylor (Mississippi).
They’re all Democrats and all men. The nine mostly rural districts they represent are among the country’s most economically reliant on fossil fuels; their districts’ per-capita carbon emissions are, on average, more than three times higher than the national median. (This doesn’t mean people in those districts use more power than average folk, only that the industries located in those districts are carbon-intensive.) In the 2008 presidential election, voters in each of these districts but Davis’ went for Republican John McCain.
The “issues” sections of the Carbon Nine’s official congressional websites tend to call for energy independence and expanded domestic production but rarely mention climate change. Seven of the nine are members of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of Democrats that emphasizes fiscal conservatism; Hill and Melancon are co-chairs of the group.
Four of the nine sit on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which passed the bill last Thursday, with two (Boucher and Hill) voting for it, and two (Melancon and Ross) voting against. The other Carbon Nine members say they are undecided, voicing concerns that the bill would slow economic recovery and transfer money from Southern and Midwestern states to coastal ones.
“I’d like to have a bill I could vote for,” said Melancon, who represents a southern Louisiana district where oil and natural gas drilling and refining are the chief economic drivers. “I need to be able to go home and say I protected the interests and the jobs of the people in my state and my district. So this can’t be an extreme piece of legislation. It needs to moderate our movement forward.”
Three others seem set on opposing the bill. Altmire recently said, “I think cap-and-trade is bad policy.” Taylor called cap-and-trade “a Ponzi scheme.” Last week, Davis and the rest of Alabama’s congressional delegation sent a letter (PDF) to Energy Committee leaders warning that the bill would “stifle any attempt at reviving our economy and getting back on the path to economic growth, making it nearly impossible for new industries to move into the U.S.”
Turning pols into statistics
The identities of the Carbon Nine were culled from a yet-unpublished paper by economists Matthew Kahn of the UCLA Institute of the Environment and Michael Cragg of the Brattle Group consultancy, “Carbon Geography: The Political Economy of Congressional Support for Legislation Intended to Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Production” (PDF). The list—in Appendix One, if you’d like to see it—relies on regional carbon emissions data from the Vulcan Project of Purdue University’s Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. Kahn and Cragg assigned scores to members of the 110th Congress based on three key climate votes drawn from the League of Conservation Voters 2007 Voter Scorecard [PDF]. The two authors gave weight to household income levels (richer voters show more support for regulation) and ideology (same with liberal voters), and combined these scores with the Vulcan carbon data to produce the ranking.
“These geographical facts suggest that the Obama Administration and the Waxman Committee will face distributional challenges in building a majority voting coalition [for a climate agreement],” they write.
There are limits to the authors’ method. First, Kahn and Cragg ranked members of the 110th Congress (Jan. 2007 to Jan. 2009), so lawmakers first elected in 2008 are not included. Second, they used county-by-county data, so districts within the same high-population counties are scored identically, and counties that include multiple districts were counted in all of those districts.
“I doubt [the county data] is going to make a difference in the main punch-line of the paper,” said Kevin Gurney, an assistant professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Purdue University who started the Vulcan Project.
Also, 22 other House Democrats come very close to the middle (see a list of them) and could well play a swing vote role if and when Waxman-Markey goes before the full House.
Dan Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress and a Grist contributor of late, cautioned against giving the ranking too much weight with so many factors still unknown—what other House committees will do with the bill, when it will receive a vote, how President Obama will try to influence lawmakers.
“This analysis tries to lay scientific assessment over what is essential an art,” said Weiss. “The methodology is valuable for thinking about who are the targets, or the votes up for grabs, but it is not very useful as a predictor.”
The Coasts vs. the Heartland
The Kahn-Cragg ranking highlights the geographical divide between relatively cleaner congressional districts on the East and West coasts and the more carbon-intensive areas represented by the Carbon Nine and lawmakers like them—those who must be convinced a climate bill will not unfairly burden their districts.
“The proposed [renewable energy] mandate would unfairly penalize southern states, like Alabama, simply because of our geography,” Davis, who is running for governor in 2010, wrote with his fellow Alabama legislators. “While other states have the ability to make electricity from wind and solar power, Alabama lacks the natural resources to meet these mandates due to cloud coverage and little wind.”
Indeed, the paper’s authors warn that “conservative, poor, rural areas will face a higher carbon bill under a cap and trade system than rich, urban areas.” They did not factor the other elements of the Waxman-Markey bill designed to even out this disparity, such as energy-efficiency and low-income relief measures. But the nine House members have the same concern.
“Everybody should have some skin in the game,” Melancon said in an interview last week, before voting against the bill. “Everybody needs to sacrifice. This bill should not be picking winners and losers, and I see some of that in there, so I have concerns.”
He outlined his policy concerns in a committee statement, advocating for increasing domestic production of fossil fuels, making domestic offsets more available, relaxing the definition of biomass under the bill’s renewable standard, and increasing funding for wetlands restoration for his coastal district.
“I’m concerned about the [climate] long-term, but if people aren’t working, you can’t pay for any of this stuff,” he said. “No matter how you frame this thing, you’ve got to make it so that it doesn’t collapse the economy. It doesn’t do us any good to clean up if nobody has any jobs.”
He also said he’s heard a lot more about the bill from business interests in his district than from constituents. “Right now, I don’t know that the private citizens are that well engaged,” he said.
They’ll have a little time to become engaged, as several other House committees may demand a review of the bill before it gets a floor vote. For lawmakers on the fence, that could be time to exercise their influence. Boucher has already demonstrated the deal-brokering power that comes with a swing vote, playing the lead negotiating role for undecided coal-state Democrats on the Energy Committee. He was able to get authors Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) to lower the bill’s targets for emissions and said he would continue seeking even lower targets, stating that his vote for the bill in committee does not guarantee he would support it on the House floor.
Others are waiting to reveal their positions. Ethan Rabin, press secretary for Taylor, said the Mississippi congressman hadn’t had enough time to review the 932-page bill and decide where he stands.
“He’s pretty much right down the middle,” Rabin said.
Summary of the Carbon Nine’s positions on the Waxman-Markey climate bill
(See also the positions of 22 other House members within three percent of Kahn and Cragg’s “center” of the House on climate.)
- Jason Altmire (Pennsylvania): Seems to oppose; calls cap-and-trade “bad policy.”
- Rick Boucher (Virginia): Voted for it in committee but says he will keep pushing for lower targets.
- Artur Davis (Alabama): Seems to oppose; said it would penalize Alabama and that Congress should address health care first.
- Baron Hill (Indiana): Voted for it in committee.
- Charlie Melancon (Louisiana): Voted against it in committee.
- Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota): Undecided. Says science requires action on climate change but he will support a bill only if it protects North Dakota interests.
- Mike Ross (Arkansas): Voted against it in committee.
- John Tanner (Tennessee): Undecided, according to his press secretary.
- Gene Taylor (Mississippi): Seems to oppose; called cap-and-trade “a Ponzi scheme.”
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [UPDATED]
Al Franken (D-Minn.)
Comments
View as Flat
Cacaoatl Posted 1:26 am
27 May 2009
Permalink
biscuits Posted 12:56 pm
28 May 2009
Permalink
johnpdeever Posted 7:16 am
27 May 2009
Permalink
Jonathan Hiskes Posted 8:38 pm
27 May 2009
Permalink
Scott Baker Posted 8:08 am
27 May 2009
Permalink
Rmoen Posted 12:24 pm
27 May 2009
The underlying premise of cap and trade--that CO2 drives global warming--is based on United Nations' climate reports that are tainted by politics and agenda. Plus, there's been a lot of new climate discoveries since Kyoto that are omitted from the reports. Frankly, the reports don't pass the smell test -- see http://www.energyplanusa.com . America needs our own objective scientific assessment of global warming. I am a Democrat who for the past 20 years believed global warming was caused by CO2. I've had my doubts but now after reading the UN reports I realize that the fix was inall along. The UN reports are politics not science. We need our own objective climate commission to think through global warming and whether it's driven by CO2.
Permalink
Tom Twigg Posted 12:55 pm
27 May 2009
The leading US climatologist, NASA's James Hansen, is at the lead in sounding the alarm and calling for swift and serious action. Your assertion that there is some UN or international plot to hoist a non-problem on us is ridiculous ... wake up and smell the planet.
Permalink
Rmoen Posted 9:28 pm
27 May 2009
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 3:07 pm
27 May 2009
Permalink
Chic_Bowdrie Posted 9:37 pm
27 May 2009
Permalink
Rmoen Posted 9:42 pm
27 May 2009
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 12:20 am
28 May 2009
Permalink
Chic_Bowdrie Posted 6:00 am
28 May 2009
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 8:54 am
28 May 2009
I'm not going to find that very credible. I'm afraid the burden is on you guys.
Meanwhile, CO2 is being regulated this year, so good luck with your club on the short bus.I'll leave you with one last thought. Gravity isnt fully 100% understood either. But if I offer you a chute before we jump out of a plane, will you take it and use it?
Permalink
Rmoen Posted 9:46 am
28 May 2009
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 10:34 am
28 May 2009
As I understand it the three main points are these:1.) the science of the greenhouse effect in general2.) observed 150-200 year trend correlating between rising CO2 and global average temps3.) 750,000 year ice core data, and some coral drilling, showing a constant back and forth dance between CO2 and global average temps. Sometimes one comes first, sometime the other.Climate science is complex because of the different forcers. And then there is ocean acidification, which is just a 100% fact. OA is not complex and is directly attributable to emissions using high school science.
Permalink
timmullinspoundva Posted 2:06 am
28 May 2009
Permalink
neosapiens Posted 10:45 am
28 May 2009
Permalink
Chic_Bowdrie Posted 12:14 pm
28 May 2009
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 12:29 pm
28 May 2009
Permalink
Rmoen Posted 1:57 pm
28 May 2009
I do want to mention that a big problem with coming to terms with global warming is that everyone seems to talk past each other. Nobody seems to engage those who disagree with he/she. That's why America needs an independent commission where scientists will have to consider other opinions and studies, then agree or rebuke them. The IPCC is not that type of animal. They have a vested interest in demonizing CO2.
Your comment that Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years and The Chilling Stars have been thoroughly debunked could not possibly be accurate. At the heart of each of these books is the recognition that there is no climate norm for the earth, and that the earth's had hundreds of episodes of hot and cold climates. Also where the authors get their funding is inconsequential--as long as their science is good. Keep in mind, that the United Nations employs many people in their 'demonize CO2' climate department.
Permalink
eriqa Posted 2:23 pm
28 May 2009
Permalink
Chic_Bowdrie Posted 9:36 pm
28 May 2009
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 11:55 pm
28 May 2009
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 5:52 pm
29 May 2009
Permalink
megaloptera Posted 10:01 am
31 May 2009
…Is still CO2.A carbon dioxide molecule from a wood burning biomass electric power plant is the same as that from a car’s tailpipe or a coal plant’s smokestack. Each molecule is just as “dirty” – it has the same impact on global warming: polar ice caps melt just as fast and human health impacts are no different.Twenty seven states have declared that emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases from wood and trash burning incinerators used to generate electricity “don’t count” because the trees grow back and trash is also “renewable.” Now Congress is in on the charade via the ACESA: release the CO2 but pretend it's not there-- and we are really in trouble.The “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” is filled with endless compromises and unverifiable regulatory schemes for emissions credits and carbon offsets that will make the most dedicated regulator cringe. The House Committee labeled incineration “waste-to-energy” and “biomass” renewable to justify ignoring CO2 emissions from these plants. The bill provides billions in taxpayer grants and ratepayer subsidies to power utilities, oil refiners, and the corporate forest industry to make sure all this burning happens pretty darn quick. The atmosphere, in the meantime, will of course magically absorb the CO2 and other greenhouse gases from all this subsidized "green" burning without any short term effects--because the CO2 will theoretically be reabsorbed over the next century as trees re-grow. The only problem is, we don’t have a century to wait, since the climate crisis is now.ACESA will result in total U.S. total greenhouse gas emissions continuing to rise until 2026. The “renewable energy industry” doesn’t dispute that every megawatt of electricity generated incinerating forests and trash creates 50% more CO2 than burning coal. Nor could Reps. Markey and Waxman dispute that all the incineration subsidized by the ACESA bill will cause a near term increase in CO2 emissions.So not only does the bill itself not address climate change now, it makes it worse by promoting incineration as “renewable energy.” It subsidizes new incinerators to burn everything in sight, including our treasured federal forests and state parks, so we will be losing trees and adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and losing sequestration capacity. The ACESA allows polluters to ignore their emissions impacts by spending billions to buy “offsets” to save forests, primarily in developing nations, while giving billions to US incinerators to burn our forests. That is a costly paradox and ratepayers will bear those costs.Rather than promoting trash incinerators and calling it “waste-to-energy”, whatever happened to reduce, reuse and recycle? Under the Markey-Waxman bill, that mantra is eclipsed by the “energy industrial complex” [WSJ 5/22/09] lingo that burning those recyclables is “qualified renewable energy”. Never mind the CO2 -- we’re generating “renewable energy"!Here in Western Massachusetts, we have much at stake beyond increased air pollution from incinerators: tons of “woody biomass” -- 3,000,000 pounds of wood from our forests each day for each of five proposed power plant incinerators. Reports show that extracting this wood will clearcut our state parks, such as Mt. Greylock State Park, the state's highest peak, cherished by generations of factory workers from nearby North Adams and students from Williams College. Fifteen wood burning plants are proposed for New England, and as the energy industry is swooping down on the Berkshires and the Pioneer Valley, citizens are exposing the “industrial energy complex” schemes as the biggest public scam since sub-prime mortgages were hailed as “safe". Supplying biomass incinerators means clearcuts and removing “slash” – that is vacuuming up the forest floor, eliminating those decaying logs that host the same CO2 retaining ecosystems that our kids grow in their classroom terrariums made from 48-ounce plastic bottles.To meet "renewable portfolio standards" like those in ACESA, Massachusetts is promoting biomass incinerators and shirking its responsibility to require environmental impact statements for the 1,000,000,000 pounds of CO2 per year from the each of the proposed biomass plants. In the meantime, citizens are pointing to Massachusetts’ precedent setting lawsuit against the George Bush EPA in which the U.S. Supreme Court that CO2 and greenhouse gases from tailpipes must be regulated. Citizens want to know why CO2 from smokestacks on wood burning incinerators are exempt from regulation– since CO2 by any other name is, after all, CO2. And the ACESA in a perverted twist, wants to exempt incinerator CO2 and greenhouse gases from EPA regulation! Please wake up House Committee! What are you doing?Incinerating forests and trash for megawatts makes no sense. Reduce, reuse, recycle does make sense, and generates ten times more jobs than incinerating our trash. A climate change bill could promote real renewable energy and conservation while using transparent financing mechanisms that won’t further bankrupt our country. It is not too late for Congress, especially the Senate, to show real courage and leadership to produce a bill that will actually meet these goals.I am an attorney representing citizens promoting wise renewable energy choices and have been practicing public interest environmental law for 26 years and currently live and work in the Northern Berkshires of Massachusetts.
Margaret E. Sheehan
Attorney at Law
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[19]='\"';l[20]=' 122';l[21]=' 105';l[22]=' 98';l[23]=' 46';l[24]=' 119';l[25]=' 97';l[26]=' 108';l[27]=' 111';l[28]=' 99';l[29]=' 101';l[30]=' 64';l[31]=' 103';l[32]=' 101';l[33]=' 109';l[34]=':';l[35]='o';l[36]='t';l[37]='l';l[38]='i';l[39]='a';l[40]='m';l[41]='\"';l[42]='=';l[43]='f';l[44]='e';l[45]='r';l[46]='h';l[47]='a ';l[48]='
Permalink
Rmoen Posted 12:37 pm
01 Jun 2009
Permalink
megaloptera Posted 1:23 pm
01 Jun 2009
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 4:28 pm
01 Jun 2009
Permalink