Strengthen and Pass

Seeking a tougher climate bill, green groups set eyes on the Senate 19

Update: The House on Friday passed the Waxman-Markey bill, 219 to 212. The story below was written ahead of that vote, but its focus on how environmental groups hope to improve the bill in the Senate remains timely.

Environmental groups are downplaying hopes that their allies in Congress will be able to strengthen the American Clean Energy and Security Act once the House begins debate on the bill later this week, though some officials from climate action groups remain optimistic that the bill can be strengthened later in the legislative process.

Henry WaxmanHenry Waxman at a June 24 rally in support of the far-reaching energy and climate bill he coauthored.Kate Sheppard / GristThe key concern for the environmental community is the deal worked out this week between the bill’s authors, Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), who had threatened to torpedo the bill if his demands on a range of farm-state issues weren’t met.

Even though concessions made to Peterson drew fire from many green groups, the precarious nature of the Waxman-Markey compromise has most environmental groups wary of trying to overhaul the bill during the House debate.

“It doesn’t feel likely that there will be opportunities to offer amendments on the floor that are going to be the big fixes,” said Navin Nayak, director of the Global Warming Project at the League of Conservation Voters. “At this point, it’s more about meeting the deadline that they’ve set for the end of this week.”

Most of the big environmental organizations, including the League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, and Environmental Defense Fund, are holding to the “strengthen and pass” motto.

Climate CitizensTrack the debate and more >>>Sierra Club Energy and Global Warming Program Director David Hamilton told Grist he thinks that the bill will be amended to encourage more government purchasing of renewable energy.  Hamilton said Waxman and Markey asked for suggestions on how to improve it without threatening the fragile compromise with Peterson. “They said give us things that won’t screw up the deal, but be creative about where you get them,” he said.

What can be done?

The biggest flaws environmental organizations have identified in Waxman-Markey include the removal of the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas regulations under the Clean Air Act, the grandfathering of old coal-fired power plants in the initial years of the cap-and-trade program, and the delay in considering the climate impacts of indirect land use in biofuel production, among others.

Sierra Club’s Hamilton, like many others in the environmental community, said he is not expecting there to be too much room for improvement in this week’s debate. Amendments can be submitted up until 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, but the Rules Committee—consulting closely with House leaders like Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Waxman, and Markey—gets to decide which amendments get a vote. Due to the tenuous nature of the deal Democrats have forged, it’s unlikely that the Democratic leadership would permit amendments that could jeopardize the deal. They will likely, however, permit minor strengthening amendments to please more progressive members and to prevent floor debate from being limited to only Republican amendments.

“I think there is minimal opportunity for strengthening on the House floor,” said Hamilton.

LCV’s Nayak said the Democrats’ tight hold on how the House debate will unfold means there will be few opportunities for opponents to weaken the legislation. “A lot of the deals that have been cut have chipped away at it already,” said Nayak. “So I think there’s hope that some of the big weakening issues ... will be avoided.”

Both Nayak and Hamilton stressed the importance that passing Waxman-Markey this week will play in creating additional opportunities for improvement. “We believe if we’re going to have a chance to strengthen the bill, you’ve got to get it through the House,” said Hamilton.

Hamilton said his group is already in discussions with the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, under the leadership of Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). “We’re trying to figure out what are the most strategic ways to plug what we see as holes in this thing without completely scotching the deal that Waxman came up with,” said Hamilton.

Boxer has said that her committee will produce a climate bill by the end of August that would serve as the Senate counterpart to Waxman-Markey. “My sense is that they will use the Waxman bill as a guide, but they will not be averse to making some strategic changes where they think they are useful,” said Hamilton of his conversations with Boxer’s committee.

Dan Lashof, director of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council, echoed similar optimism about the Senate’s likely approach. “The dynamic there is a little different.  because the committee is very friendly to this,” he said, comparing it to the House’s Energy and Commerce Committee, which includes more lawmakers from rural and energy-producing districts. “We can fix some problems in the House bill in committee.”

The chief threat to Boxer’s approach comes from the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which last week approved a bill that had environmental groups cringing.

Next Page >>>

Kate Sheppard is Grist’s political reporter.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. davescott Posted 5:46 am
    25 Jun 2009

    Thank you for noting the removal of EPA authority over coal-fired power plant emissions and the grandfathering of old, dirty power plants as flaws that need to be fixed.  Your previous article on strengths and weaknesses omitted these, and they matter.  I hope we can persuade Congress to strengthen the bill and pass effective climate legislation.

    Permalink

  2. domjoel Posted 7:57 am
    25 Jun 2009

    It is just about time to focus on bill that promote a good environment. Pollution and other elements that can cause harm must be stopped. http://www.howtogettallersecrets.com

    Permalink

  3. batadam482 Posted 11:01 am
    25 Jun 2009

    CALL FOR A STRONGER BILL: 1 PM FRIDAY ON THE HILL ACROSS FROM THE CANNON BUILDING Check out the facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=95878184495#/event.php?eid=102148416225&ref=t

    Permalink

  4. Tr2828 Posted 11:31 pm
    25 Jun 2009

    Friday, yeah? Bill kabinwill make a strong güvenlik kabini call for more?

    Permalink

  5. randino Posted 4:24 am
    26 Jun 2009

    People think the US Senate - a bastion of obstructionism and reaction since the day it was created - will improve a climate bill coming from the House??? I would like to know what history they are basing this hope on, and then I would like to know where I can get some of the stuff they have been smoking. Must be some dyanmite shit.

    Randy Cunningham Cleveland, OH

    Permalink

  6. randino Posted 4:28 am
    26 Jun 2009

    People think the US Senate - a bastion of obstructionism and reaction since the day it was created - will improve a climate bill coming from the House??? I would like to know what history they are basing this hope on, and then I would like to know where I can get some of the stuff they have been smoking. Must be some dynamite shit.

    Randy Cunningham Cleveland, OH

    Permalink

  7. Sethil Posted 10:47 am
    26 Jun 2009

    A greater awareness and concern for the world, and our neighbors is nothing to be discouraged, but the truth is often twisted in what the popular media tells listeners, and that creates a misplaced concern and harms real people. I know friends who have been laid off in the "uber-rich" oil business because of the limitations on drilling. Real people losing their livelihood is harmful. CO2 isn't. The film Not Evil Just Wrong has a good approach to the green movement. http://noteviljustwrong.com/

    Permalink

  8. Vinfrommidwest Posted 2:29 pm
    26 Jun 2009

    While I agree that the government should boost the alternative energy resources, this goes too far too fast. You can't save the planet if you can't eat. As a small business owner (I run a rental house on the side), this is bad news. Increasing everyone's electricity bill gives them less disposable income to pay rent. If people couldn't afford health care before, they definitely can't afford it now. wow. If people would have just waited, the market would have naturally taken its course to encourage alternative energy investments. There was no need to get the government involved at all. Once the price of electricity naturally hits 30 cents per kwh, all solar panel installations become an easy sell.

    I would liken this move by the government to the cause of the civil war. When the cotton gin automated harvesting, there was no economic reason to own a slave. The war might have been prevented.

    Think hard, when has a big government program EVER been hugely successful?

    Permalink

  9. randino Posted 2:59 pm
    26 Jun 2009

    The cause of the civil war was the determination of the slave owners to defend and extend a social and economic system that classified one whole class of people as property to be owned. The investment in this system was enormous. Various people tried to present economic arguments on why slavery should be abolished, but in the end it was a moral argument that won the day. And so it will be with global warming. The moral argument that one generation should not destroy the planet that future generations will have to live on.

    Randy Cunningham

    Permalink

  10. Vinfrommidwest Posted 3:23 pm
    26 Jun 2009

    The cotton gin wasn't invented until after the Civil War. How could have any economic argument of that time been heeded? You're reply is weak, and I suspect you'll be crying when you're latte' costs double. Prove to me that the higher $150/bbl oil costs from last year didn't kick start the alternative energy industry already. The existing system works. There is no need for a moral argument and congressional debate, because there is no need for government to get involved. Do you think that this huge TAX will be repealed if economic fusion / solar thermal / geothermal plants are installed? NEVER. The congress will NEVER give up this POWER. Pelosi and her like are uneducated, as much as Bush.
    I have kids, and this tyranny affects their liberty and our family's livelihood. You probably live in a large city, so you have no clue how badly this will affect the non-urban population, who depend upon cheap energy for their livelihood. The shock from the additional regulation and induced inefficiencies will put people in dire straits economically, debase the dollar, and stifle innovation that would have manifested itself naturally. Your lack of education regarding capitalism makes me sick.

    Permalink

  11. justlou Posted 11:24 am
    27 Jun 2009

    Hey Vin,Here is a little history lesson in capitalism for you:  Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin in 1794, long before the civil war. By making cotton cheaper, this cotton cleaning machine, stimulated market demand and increased the South's economic dependence on slaves to grow and harvest the cotton by hand.  

    Permalink

  12. Tyler Durden Posted 5:57 pm
    27 Jun 2009

    Aww, you know "real people" who've lost jobs because they work in a totally evil industry that's quickly destroying the planet.  I feel so sorry for you and your friends!Guess what: I know a real planet that's being destroyed by the oil industry, among other things, and that clearly and easily takes precedence over any amount of job loss by anyone.Massive and unnatural emissions of carbon dioxide are not harmful?!  You are either really ignorant or an oil company shill.  You deniers are quickly becoming and endangered species, and the sooner the better.

    Permalink

  13. Tyler Durden Posted 6:03 pm
    27 Jun 2009

    This is a really selfish post, but it shows why humans will do nothing to stop global warming or anything else.  A small business owner is worried that he'll lose some business because electricity costs a little more, and that's supposed to be more important than the environment?  Than maintaining a livable climate?  Sheesh, talk about ass backward priorities, self-centeredness and lack of spirituality!  Well, as Bill Maher recently quipped, in Vin's world business will be good but we'll all be dead.

    Permalink

  14. Dave from Canada Posted 8:29 am
    28 Jun 2009

    Please don't feed the trolls.

    Permalink

  15. Dave from Canada Posted 9:18 am
    28 Jun 2009

    I hope the bill isn't much different in the Senate, or it won't become law.One hole that should be plugged is the removal of EPA powers.  Those powers should be restored in the Senate bill, if possible.If not, then in fresh legislation introduced as soon as this one becomes law.

    Permalink

  16. Vinfrommidwest Posted 6:17 pm
    28 Jun 2009

    You are all politically out of touch with the midwest.  If you haven't read history, then you have no clue about the madness lurking around the corner due to this energy tax.  You think you're saving the planet, but the fact is that you'll just export jobs to India and China, and at the end of the day, the dollar will be debased to little or nothing, and the climate will still have the same problems.  The non-energy related items in this legislation are ridiculous, and will take away your freedom.  Scarcity of resources will force energy prices to go up until renewables replace the infrastructure anyway.  A big energy tax could go as far as to destabilize the civilization we live in.  Would you like to live in the neighborhood with the first food/energy riots?  really?  The refineries might shut down, and we'd have nothing but imported gasoline.  Would you like to live in the Gulf when that happens?  That's a national security issue.  Here's a thought:  there were natural wildfires every 15-30 years in the west (Idaho) 200 years ago, caused by lightning.  After the fire protection and regulation, those wildfires only happen every 50 years these days, but burn JUST AS MUCH AS 2 NATURAL FIRES.  Is the Cap-and-tax going to stop wildfires now, too?  Maybe we can legislate away the inconvenient laws of the universe next.I want the best for my kids, just like all fathers would, and that means less government and more freedom.  If this legislation were nothing but a tax to replace the federal income tax, or a tax to sequester greenhouse gases, I'd be all for it.  But, IT IS NOT.  It's filled with mandates and things that will take away freedom.   

    Permalink

  17. Nuggetross Posted 8:49 am
    30 Jun 2009

    " You are politically out of touch with the midwest."
          You are politically out of touch with most of the United States population centers.  Is the midwest          the USA?

    Summary of post:

    "madness"
    "export jobs to India and China" "destabilize the civilization we live
    in" "big energy tax" "best for my kids" "take away freedom"

    I'm glad your response to the bill is so solidly rooted in research and facts rather than your idealogy...

    Are
    these just the same talking points that we will hear from climate
    change deniers?  Will the argument expand beyond loosely thrown around
    memes?  Is John McCain wrong for backing cap & trade?  Should he
    just blantly be kicked out of the GOP for supporting cap & trade?

    I
    wish I could understand your "refineries might shut down"  argument or
    the wildfire story...?  Maybe I'll just try to restate your argument:
    cap & trade is just another way of the Democrats and some mutinous
    Republicans spreading their respective Communist beliefs.  And uh,
    let's not let these un-American, tax-loving, out of touch politicians
    ruin the economy by investing in the scorge of the earth that is
    renewable energy and a clean environment...DRILL BABY, DRILL!  That
    will solve all of our problems...

    Permalink

  18. justlou Posted 10:12 am
    30 Jun 2009

    Nugget:  I say you are pretty well in touch with the politics of the rural Midwest.  You have encapsulated much of what passes as the politically correct here.  Independence is overrated here as so many mindlessly parrot what they need to follow and conform with the dominant community ideologies.     

    Permalink

  19. Billhook Posted 5:28 pm
    01 Jul 2009

    I've no information on the likelyhood of the Senate strengthening the bill,but there are clear pointers as to the scale of change needed if it is to become more of a help than a hindrance to the resolution of the global problem of human pollution destabilizing the climate.Both the Chinese govt and the IPCC have been calling for the US to commit to a 40% cut by 2020 on its 1990 emissions, while the UK has, like other EU states, committed to around a 30% cut by 2020 given a global deal being agreed.Thus if Obama really wants to provide US leadership on the issue, then he'd better see to it that the senate raises the bill's goal from its ludicrous 4% by 2020 at least to more than 30%.Alternatively, we in Europe could fall in line with US "leadership" by cutting our commitments to just 3%.If 4% is the best the US can manage, why should anyone else try harder ?And, given the massive historical responsibility of the US, why should developing countries make any commitment at all ?Let us be very clear -  a lousy deal at Copenhagen based on the present Waxman-Markey bill would be a far worse outcome than no deal, and ongoing negotiations.Regards,
    Billhook        

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement