Boucher: "Industry needs and wants a bill to pass"

Could Waxman and Markey have used the EPA threat more effectively? 28

Should Waxman and Markey have kicked off House climate-bill negotiations with a stronger ask?

The bill they introduced was effectively the U.S. Climate Action Partnership proposal, which already reflected years of negotiation and compromise. The idea was that the difficult work of negotiations had already been done—enviros and business both on board!—and it would be easy for conservative Dems (and a few Republicans) to sign off on it.

Of course that’s not what has happened. Republicans are balking en masse. Conservative Dems have compromised the bill down further, and by all indications will further weaken it in the Senate. Could the bill have ended up in a stronger place if it had started in a stronger place?

The counterargument is that the “green” side just didn’t have much leverage. Without sticks, all they had were carrots—more giveaways, more offsets.

One stick they did have was the threat of EPA greenhouse-gas regulations. There was a lot of talk about this when Dems first won their majorities but very little once negotiations actually got underway. Nobody is brandishing the stick.

Rick Boucher.Rep. Rick BoucherCould it have made more of a difference? Some recent comments from Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) are intriguing in this regard. In an interview with the Kingsport Times-News, Boucher was candid about his motivation for negotiating with Waxman:

Boucher stressed his interest in climate change has not been driven by a moral belief to control greenhouse gases. [Paging Times-News editors: You awake over there? What is a moral belief to control GHGs?]

What is driving his involvement, said Boucher, is the U.S. Supreme Court determined two years ago that greenhouse gases are pollutants.

“As a consequence of that decision, the Environmental Protection Agency is, for all intents and purposes, effectively required to regulate greenhouse gases,” Boucher said. “The debate about whether or not we will have regulation is over. So the only question is will EPA regulate or ... will we have congressional regulation that does balance economic effect against environmental effect? Given that choice, industry would rather have Congress do this. Industry needs and wants a bill to pass.”

“Industry needs and wants a bill to pass”—the words of the coal industry’s most dogged and effective spokesperson.

So there was leverage. It was used to get Boucher to the table. But once he was there, it went out the window. Not once in the process has industry been forced to face an ultimatum or bargain away a key position. They’ve been relentlessly wooed, but rarely challenged. They’ve been able to talk out both sides of their mouths, offering tepid, nominal support while bulldogs like the Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, and the Edison Electric Institute attack and weaken the bill.

And Boucher got just about everything he wanted for Big Coal:

The Southwest Virginia congressman said he spent more than six weeks helping to rewrite the draft bill to help coal-powered utilities and coal producers in his district.

He pointed to “four key things” inserted in the bill.

First, Boucher said, was making sure emission allowances were assigned for free and not put up for auction by the federal government.

“That helps to keep electricity prices affordable and strengthens the case for utilities to continue to use coal,” he said.

Secondly, Boucher said the bill now includes 2 billion tons of carbon offsets available to industrial emitters to help them satisfy their reduction obligations.

“That means an electric utility burning coal will not have to reduce the emissions at the plant site. It can just keep burning coal,” he explained.

The third provision is a $1 billion per year special fund to develop carbon capture and sequestration technologies for controlled disposal or storage.

In the fourth provision, there is another special fund created to deploy the carbon capture and sequestration technology.

“Carbon capture and sequestration attached to coal still makes coal the cheapest fuel,” Boucher asserted.

These are the key—some argue fatal—weaknesses of the bill. They were put in to woo an industry that “needs and wants a bill to pass.”

One other thing to note:

[Boucher] said lawmakers have “no political will” to mandate the EPA to do a cost-benefit analysis on climate change legislation.

Strictly speaking, this is false. The EPA has done detailed cost-benefit analyses of ACES. (It’s going to be cheap, they say.) If Boucher is talking about the dipshit lawsuit the Chamber of Commerce is pushing, he’s drifting into “death panel” territory.

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. ohfercleanenergy Posted 9:26 am
    01 Sep 2009

    Damn skippy right, Dave! The obvious comparison is the health care battle now. You start with single payer, fight fight fight, and then fall back to the public option. When you start with the public option you get...well, who can say, but it aint pretty and it aint progressive. (I know, the jury is still out, but what a mess so far)The same holds true with climate legislation. When your starting point is already a compromise, you have nowhere to go but more compromise. All that being said, if the senate can pass something, then you get it into committee, sign off on it, and strengthen that sucker piece by bitter piece over the coming years.

    Permalink

  2. Chris@CarrotsandSticks Posted 10:50 am
    01 Sep 2009

    John Kerry's the only elected official I've heard making this type of EPA regulation as a stick argument, but maybe it's going on more behind closed doors.What I worry about is that by not moving forward more aggressively with the EPA regulation they are effectively endorsing the idea that climate should be addressed through Congress. When Congress fails to act they'll be accused of using overreaching their authority.They have every legal and moral right to pursue carbon emissions deductions through their existing authority. It's very troubling to see them not pursing this more aggressively.  

    Permalink

  3. davescott Posted 11:39 am
    01 Sep 2009

    I usually like what you write. But I have difficulty seeing the point of this story.  We're where we are.  Why second-guess two of the most respected environment legislators in Congress about a bill that's no longer in the House?

    Permalink

    1. Chris@CarrotsandSticks Posted 12:27 pm
      01 Sep 2009

      Fair enough about not being able to go back, but was this a decision made by Congressional leaders? Am I wrong in thinking this was an Administration decision?

      Permalink

      1. davescott Posted 12:39 pm
        01 Sep 2009

        Yes I think you are mistaken if you believe that House strategy on Waxman-Markey was dictated by the \White House.  Not that I claim personal knowledge, but everything I've heard indicates that Waxman and Markey, who are very experienced and skilled legislators with great environmental records, made the decisions on strategy.  It was widely reported that the White House got involved in the final push for votes, but that was very late.

        Permalink

    2. David Roberts's avatar

      David Roberts Posted 1:45 pm
      01 Sep 2009

      Dave, I have great respect for W&M, but I think they started with an assumption of rationality and comity on the Republican side that turned out to be forlorn and false. I bet if they'd know in advance that Republicans would knife fight every step of the way, in lock step, and Blue Dog Dems would be completely running the show, they would have shifted their strategy.As for what's-the-point, one point is to remember that the side of sanity does, in fact, have some sticks. Greens (er, humans) aren't the only ones who need this bill. Big biz needs it to. There's some leverage.

      Permalink

  4. Rmoen Posted 11:54 am
    01 Sep 2009

    The American public is overwhelmingly against cap-and-trade and the EPA regulation of CO2.  Daily I read editorials, comments and letters-to-the-editor from all over the nation.  Whereas when the House passed the bill it was maybe 2-to-1 against cap and trade, opinion now seems to be at least 6-to-1 against.  An article today at chron.com discussed cap-and-trade and the EPA.  Of the 25 comments, NONE support the EPA's actions.Why don't more people agree that CO2 drives global warming? Sadly, the United States has out-sourced its scientific opinion on global warming to the United Nations. ...an organization more concerned about political influence and funding than conducting good science.The solution? We need our own objective, transparent climate commission to think-through global warming. Only then will Americans support CO2 regulation.  Provided, of course, the commission finds  CO2 drives global warming.-- Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com

    Permalink

    1. davescott Posted 11:58 am
      01 Sep 2009

      Sir, the US National Academy of Sciences issued an urgent call for governments to decarbonize their economies.  The Administration released an excellent report from various federal agencies on the effecst of climate change.  Skepticism about climate is not being caused by outsourcing.  It is being caused by a willful and well funded campaign to confuse and deceive Americans, many of whom have a poor understanding of science to begin with.

      Permalink

      1. Rmoen Posted 8:21 pm
        01 Sep 2009

        It is absolutely wrong to deny that the USA is not out-sourcing climate science to the United Nations.  The EPA heavily referenced the IPCC in their Technical Support Document that gave them the basis to declare CO2 a pollutant.  I just reviewed the actual report.  Well over half its references--hundreds--were to the IPCC's work and conclusions.  See the actual report for yourself:http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/TSD_Endangerment.pdf -- Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com

        Permalink

    2. David Roberts's avatar

      David Roberts Posted 2:23 pm
      01 Sep 2009

      Robert, sounds like you should get outside the right-wing echo chamber more often.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062403648.html"Three-quarters of Americans think the federal government should regulate the release into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases from power plants, cars and factories to reduce global warming, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, with substantial majority support from Democrats, Republicans and independents."

      Permalink

      1. Rmoen Posted 4:54 pm
        01 Sep 2009

        David-The poll you cited was taken before the House forced passage of its cap-and-trade bill without giving its members time to read it.  I live in America, not a right-wing echo chamber, and am a Democrat.  My strong impression is that for a multitude of reasons America pretty much hates the cap-and-trade bill the House presented to the Senate.  The evidence is widespread.For instance, an article today in the decidely online "green" section of the SF Chronicle says, "A poll
        released yesterday revealed that just 35% of Americans favor the
        climate bill currently languishing in the Senate. 40% oppose it."  None of the four comments to the article support cap-and-trade.  See for yourself:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/green/detail?entry_id=46652#ixzz0Ptxp8ATr-- Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com

        Permalink

  5. josullivan58 Posted 11:58 am
    01 Sep 2009

    The way things are going I think enviros should aggressively sue to get action under the Clean Air Act. The House Bill had lots of compromises and even with more compromises action seems doubtful in the Senate. To quote the old motto of the Environmental Defense Fund: sue the bastards!

    Permalink

    1. davescott Posted 12:01 pm
      01 Sep 2009

      We did sue.  We won in the US Supreme Court.  That's why EPA isssued a proposed endangerment finding and is in the process of beginning to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. 

      Permalink

  6. josullivan58 Posted 12:34 pm
    01 Sep 2009

    "We did sue" The initial lawsuit was if the EPA had the authority to regulate CO2. Once that was done an endangerment finding was required. Bush punted on that and Obama made it. The next step is to start regulating.This is where another lawsuit comes in. If the EPA goes slow waiting for legislation from Congress, that's when another lawsuit should be filed. Maybe one of the more litigatious groups like the Center for Biological Diversity can file. The regulations typically require action within deadlines. If action is not being taken enviros should sue to force compliance with the law.

    Permalink

    1. davescott Posted 12:42 pm
      01 Sep 2009

      There are media reports today that EPA is about to issue an endangerment finding.  No offense, we both want the same thing, I think, but the Obama EPA under Lisa Jackson is acting on regulating carbon. 

      Permalink

      1. Chris@CarrotsandSticks Posted 6:52 am
        02 Sep 2009

        OMB criticized the EPA over the endangerment finding. Usually when OMB criticizes an agency it's interpreted as an action taken at the behest of the White House.The silence coming EPA and the White House regarding carbon regulation is very unsettling. They could have let people know they're moving forward, but they haven't. 

        Permalink

      2. davescott Posted 7:07 am
        02 Sep 2009

        Chris,The head of OMB released a memo in May debunking this story.  Unless you are aware of something more recent, I think you have bad information.  

        Permalink

      3. Chris@CarrotsandSticks Posted 8:36 am
        02 Sep 2009

        OK, I was unaware of the thoroughness of the denial by Orzag.Main point is there is no way the White House and EPA has been pursuing this as rigorously as they could. In the spring Lisa Jackson was weighing benefits of regulation saying,""We make regulations smartly to address the threats in the best way possible and with an eye to understanding we don't want to unduly effect those who can least afford to pay," she said." The regulatory process allows us the opportunity to make those decisions and to do it but we're not at that point yet." She didn't sound that different in her more recent comments. The administration line that Congressional action is preferable, which is understandable, but it needs to be we're committed to reduce carbon emission no matter what Congress does. There's a moral imperative and it's not reflected in her comments.
        http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22434.html#ixzz0PxmAxbSk 

        Permalink

  7. josullivan58 Posted 1:42 pm
    01 Sep 2009

    EPA to declare CO2 a dangerous pollutanthttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/31/MNM219GIJD.DTL

    Permalink

  8. foodprovider's avatar

    foodprovider Posted 3:22 pm
    01 Sep 2009

    Bottom line guys...what are we willing to pay for energy?, what are we willing to pay for anything that requires energy to produce?,  what are we willing to cut our wages down to just to keep our jobs here?  The climate has changed since the beginning of time.  It is natural.  The evolutionists wuold call it evolution.  I remember when we thought we world was entering an ice age in the 70's.  Does this mean we sit back and not do the right thing?  I'm not saying that.  We need to do the smart thing.  Our largest competitors in the world (China and India) are more than happy to produce all the goods and services we need here in the grand old US of A.  We do need energy independence!  We need to be smart about it!  This bill is, in my opinion, a bad bill.  This bill will destroy middle america.  We may as well start to learn from our comrads from Russia about relying solely on one option to provide everything they need.  God help us if we allow our selves to become like that.  What will be next?  Religion?

    Permalink

  9. davescott Posted 10:31 am
    02 Sep 2009

    Many environmentalists were disappointed (or worse) by the number of offsets in the bill , which can be a fig leaf for industry to avoid needed emissions reductions and  also raise questions about whether the offsets themselves are verifiable and real.  We need dirty old coal plants to shut down, among many other things.  That said, again, second-guessing Chairman Waxman seems beside the point.  He struggled to get a bill through the House with almost zero support from an opposition party that reprehensibly refuses to take scientists' warnings seriously -- or even has the audacity to deny the science altogether.  Let's put most of the blame for the difficulty in gettting action where the blame belongs -- on John Boehner and others who have flatly shirked their responsbility as leaders. 

    Permalink

    1. Rmoen Posted 1:18 pm
      02 Sep 2009

      The Democrats did not allow the Republicans to read the amended bill before Nancy Polosi forced a vote on cap-and-trade.  It is little wonder that no Republicans voted for it. -- Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com

      Permalink

      1. davescott Posted 1:32 pm
        02 Sep 2009

        Sir, one Republican leader after another got up and denied that climate change exists. I wathched them do it.  There is nothing remotely resembling a GOP plan to address climate change and in fact, the last GOP majority made James Inhofe chair of the Senate Environment Committee.  He is a buffoon.  Who are you kidding?

        Permalink

      2. davescott Posted 1:34 pm
        02 Sep 2009

        Moreever, a few brave and responsible Republicans did vote for the bill.

        Permalink

    2. Rmoen Posted 1:51 pm
      02 Sep 2009

      Yes, I misspoke.  A few brave Republicans voted for cap-and-trade. I am a Democrat who thinks the Democrats flubbed the stimulus package (again they did not allow the Republicans to read it), flubbed cap-and-trade and are now flubbing the health plan.  We need only to look in the mirror.  I have seen the enemy and it is us.The country is over whelmingly against cap-and-trade.  Take a look at the SF Chronicle article I mentioned in my above comment to David Roberts: Seven posts against cap-and-trade and zero for it. And if you count thumbs-up vs. thumbs-down, cap-and-trade is losing by 49 to 6.It's time to quit blaming those big, bad Republicans.  At this rate in 2010 the Democrats will lose seats in Congress by double digits.  What's the game plan then?-- Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com

      Permalink

      1. davescott Posted 3:13 pm
        02 Sep 2009

        The suggestion that Republicans would have voted for W-M if they'd had more time to read it is ludicrous.  Boehner was actively lying about the bill, the science, and anything else he could think of to lie about, and promising no Republican support.  Re your comment about "outsourcing the science," many distinguished US scientists were involved in the preparation and review of the IPCC reports.  The IPCC is the world's clearinghouse on the actual science.  I should hope the EPA relied on its work. And there is plenty of good American science on the causes and dangers of global warming.

        Permalink

  10. davescott Posted 3:31 pm
    02 Sep 2009

    Mr Moen, your website states the following:Global warming is ... possibly exacerbated by carbon emissions. Unless the United States addresses these issues, our future looks bleak. The American way of life may disappear in our lifetime. ...on our watch. Listen up, America, there is a cure. And it's easy to swallow:More domestic oil and natural gas; This is just silly.  The cause of climate change is no longer in doubt among serious climate scientists and calling for more oil production exposes you as part of the problem.

    Permalink

  11. megaloptera Posted 1:20 pm
    05 Sep 2009

    Waxman Markey was a scam. Now Senators Boxer and Kerry are using it as a model for their climate bill, due to be released in mid-September. Well informed scientists and climate justice activists have joined together to Kill the Bill: it does more harm than good. We are making a four state tour to let Senators know they should vote against the bill for the right reasons.

    Our first stop is Bismarck ND on Tuesday Sept. 8 where we will be meeting with Senators Conrad and Dorgan's staffer. We're asking like minded citizens to join us. Here's our press release. Tour Contact info in North Dakota: Duff Badgley 206 619 6304 and Bill Sammons 781 799 0014

    GRASSROOTS GROUP TOURS TO DEFEAT CLIMATE BILL * Climate SOS Tours to "Kill The Bill" and push tougher laws * "Worse Than Nothing is Not Good Enough"

    Climate SOS, a grassroots network of environmentalists, scientists, and social justice activists, is launching a nationwide car-free tour to defeat the climate bill now being considered in the Senateóand to demand that any new legislation be grounded in science instead of politics. http://www.climatesos.org/ The Climate SOS Heartland Tour will feature meetings with senate staffers in North Dakota, Indiana, Arkansas, and Ohio. Climate SOS organizer Duff Badgley, traveling exclusively by bus and train, will touch down in Bismarck on September 8, in Indianapolis (September 10-11), Little Rock (September 14-15), and Cleveland (September 17-18). His message? "Kill the Bill—Worse Than Nothing is Not Good Enough!"

    Climate scientist Dr. James Hansen has personally endorsed the Climate SOS campaign. According to Hansen, if the senate climate bill is based upon the house-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA), it will be "worse for the environment than doing nothing."
    Climate SOS maintains that cap-and-trade will be ineffective in forestalling climate change, and supports EPA authority over carbon dioxide emissions. The group opposes the use of carbon offsets and believes that polluting coal plants should be phased out quickly. Climate SOS asserts that incineration technologies must not be categorized as “renewable,” and targets loopholes in the bill that allow unlimited carbon dioxide emissions from biomass and trash burners.

    Climate SOS holds that social justice concerns must be central to any climate legislation, and maintains that the federal climate bill currently under consideration would:

    • Prevent the U.S. from making its fair share of greenhouse gas reductions—reductions necessary to forge an effective global strategy on climate stabilization and to avert catastrophic climate change.
    • Lock the United States into a complex cap-and-trade scheme that benefits fossil fuel utilities, Wall Street, and agribusiness. Cap and trade will be prone to Enron-style market manipulations, while doing nothing to save the climate.
    • Use public money to subsidize the most polluting industries, drawing much needed financing away from real climate solutions.
    • Add more polluting smokestacks, especially in backyards of the poor, people of color, and indigenous communities across the U.S., by grandfathering dirty old coal plants, permitting numerous new ones, and subsidizing incinerators as a form of renewable energy
    • Trigger rainforest destruction in Africa, the Amazon, and Southeast Asia through its failure to incorporate indirect land use change provisions in the Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) for biofuels.


    Climate SOS - http://www.ClimateSOS.org No dirty climate bill, no false solutions! email : (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[27]='\"';l[28]=' 103';l[29]=' 114';l[30]=' 111';l[31]=' 46';l[32]=' 115';l[33]=' 111';l[34]=' 115';l[35]=' 101';l[36]=' 116';l[37]=' 97';l[38]=' 109';l[39]=' 105';l[40]=' 108';l[41]=' 99';l[42]=' 64';l[43]=' 116';l[44]=' 99';l[45]=' 97';l[46]=' 116';l[47]=' 110';l[48]=' 111';l[49]=' 99';l[50]=':';l[51]='o';l[52]='t';l[53]='l';l[54]='i';l[55]='a';l[56]='m';l[57]='\"';l[58]='=';l[59]='f';l[60]='e';l[61]='r';l[62]='h';l[63]='a ';l[64]='

    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