I’m not asking whether we should pass a serious climate bill before China acts. The answer to that question is obviously yes, as I’ve written many times (see The “China Excuse” for inaction and The U.S.-China Suicide Pact on Climate).
But as I noted in my post on Steven Chu’s confirmation hearing for energy secretary, Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) made some worrisome remarks on the subject. Our very own David Lewis transcribed the exchange in the comments (here). I’m going to repost it below because Bayh is a thoughtful moderate who certainly understands the climate issue.
First, however, let me make a few comments. We have no chance to stabilize CO2 concentrations at 450 ppm (let alone 350), if China does not agree to cap its carbon emissions by 2020 (see “Must-read IEA report explains what must be done to avoid 6°C warming”). Right now, however, China seems to be willfully pursuing planetary self-destruction (see “China announces plan to single-handedly finish off the climate”).
The international negotiation process that led to the Kyoto Protocol—and that is supposed to culminate in another deal in Copenhagen at the end of this year—is for all intents and purposes in a deep coma, even if most of the participants don’t realize that (see “Obama can’t get a global climate treaty ratified, so what should he do instead? Part 1”). Indeed, the only thing that could possibly revive it is China agreeing to a cap by no later than 2020. That alone means Obama’s top international priority this year must not be Copenhagen, but rather China. Whether or not Obama needs some action by China to get a U.S. bill passed, his entire presidency and the fate of the planet rest on whether he can in fact get a China deal (see “What will make Obama a great president, Part 2: A climate deal with China”).
Let me go further here, based in part on Bayh’s remarks. I think it is rather obvious that if China simply refuses to agree to any strong emissions constraints sometime during Obama’s (hopefully) two terms in office, than even if we had passed a climate bill in this country, the political support for the kind of carbon dioxide prices needed to achieve meaningful reductions by 2020 would just fade away. Second, I think it is even more obvious that the climate bill we could pass in this country would be considerably stronger if we could in fact negotiate a strong, bilateral GHG agreement with China (or trilateral with China and the E.U.)—though presumably the Chinese side of things would be contingent on a U.S. bill passing.
I do not want to be misunderstood here: It is more than reasonable to argue, as I have repeatedly, that the U.S. should try to pass a bill first—and such a bill may be the key to unlocking Chinese action. But Bayh’s comments in his exchange with Chu suggest that may not work politically:
Senator Bayh: I’d like to follow up on the last question that Senator Wyden asked you, about China and you know the importance and your stated belief that it’s important, indeed essential, to include developing nations, particularly China and India in any regime of CO2 reduction. And I think you said that the US will take the first step. And hopefully China will follow. You know, we’ll have to relook at it if they don’t. It’s my honest conviction that that approach will not be enacted by the US Congress. Simply trusting China to - you know, they have their own internal needs to have high rates of growth. They’ve been proven to be willing to sacrifice just about any other concern to maintain that high rate of growth, to maintain domestic political stability. And they don’t have a great track record frankly in abiding by some of the other agreements, particularly honoring intellectual property rights, other things. And so a skeptic might say, we’re going to be going through dislocations here that will affect our economy, consumers, other things. The American people would make great sacrifices. You’d have to really wonder about whether China would go along. And you know, people have to cast votes on these things. and that probably won’t be good enough to get the job done. So I would really and I’ve raised this with hopefully the secretary to be currently Senator Clinton, hopefully Secretary of State Clinton, about the need to engage in robust diplomacy, before we come to Congress with a global warming initiative, because it’s really going to - we’re going to need to buy in in the front if this thing is going to work
Dr. Chu: Actually I agree with that completely. Just so you know, perhaps this would put you more at ease with what I said. As you know I was co-chair of this report sponsored by the InterAcademy Council. That’s a council that represents over a hundred academies of science around the world. It’s a report called “Lighting the Way” and how one transitions to a sustainable energy. And in that report, we said quite clearly that all the countries, developed and developing countries, have to be part of the solution. Now, and I agree that this is a touchy diplomatic, economic, multidimensional problem. And ...
Sen. Bayh: Dr. to put you—I was not ill at ease with what you said. I simply—this is an important issue. We both believe that. So because it’s an important issue, we have to make sure it’s going to work. And without China participating, it’s not going to work, and I don’t think it will get enacted. And a skeptic viewing their past behavior would have to say that’s going to be a heavy lift. So, in a way that is, you know, verifiable and transparent. It’s just going to be very hard to get them there. And so I think we’re going to have to focus on that component early on in this process. And that’s beyond your bailiwick, but since you were asked about it and responded. I was not—I just want to emphasize that point: if we’re going to get this job done, we got to focus on that. And in my estimation, it’s going to be difficult, and frankly, I’m a little skeptical about whether they’ll ever get there in a way that is, you know, because of the political dynamic within their own country. But let’s give it a shot. Let’s see. Let’s do our best. Perhaps we can. I think its well worth the effort.”
Read it more than once. It’s a tad confusing, but, in the end, sobering stuff.
I believe the Obama administration, led by Clinton and Chinese-American Chu (and possibly a specially designated high-level envoy), should pursue a very aggressive dual track of negotiations with China and negotiations with Congress. Then they are going to have to make a very tough call some time later this year or early next year. I believe they must pass a U.S. climate bill by mid-2010—global warming is simply too important an issue to defer beyond that. If they have failed to move the Chinese—or if the Chinese refuse to make any commitments until they see U.S. action—then they have to move forward with the best bill they can pass alone.
But if the Chinese are prepared to make a serious commitment—and no doubt it would take many months of negotiations to find out how serious and then to develop a deal—then that could be crucial to getting a truly serious climate bill passed. Progressives certainly don’t want Obama to burn through all of the domestic political capital needed to achieve climate legislation merely to end up with an unserious bill like the one the now- irrelevant U.S. climate action partnership just proposed (see “CAP-and-degrade”).
Based on my conversations with Hill staffers and others—and the not-so-subtle tea leaves being published in the media—I doubt there will be a U.S. climate bill passed in 2009. Personally, I now think 2010 may be a better idea anyway, but only if the Obama administration takes a variety of specific actions in 2009. What those actions are will be the subject of part 2.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks
Comments
View as Flat
Peter B. Meyer Posted 8:05 pm
17 Jan 2009
The idea of a tariff on the carbon content of imports was floated in the EU and is still being kicked around. Adding the prospect of a US tariff of that sort to one in the EU would threaten the Chinese path of export manufacturing-based economic growth using coal-fired electricity. Such a tariff would be very difficult to administer, but the more importing countries share in its implementation, the more practical it could become. (The costs of establishing carbon contents would be spread more broadly.)
Serious US negotiations with the EU On such a scheme could bring China to the table pretty fast. A tariff scheme would also make a bill much easier to push through Congress, especially since it could be sold as protecting US manufacturing jobs (which it might actually do).
But that process is not likely to be fast enough to generate a major climate bill in 2009. Let's just maximize the "green" content of the economic stimulus package as step one.
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 8:07 pm
17 Jan 2009
The other implication of the 2012 implementation is that waiting a year to pass a bill clearly does not help the domestic economy wait out the current economic mess. All it does is decrease the lead time the economy has to prepare for when permit requirement does start up. I cannot imagine any policy reason to support delaying adoption of a strong carbon price in the US.
Max Epstein
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 8:14 pm
17 Jan 2009
EPA would use the intervening years (between passage and implementation) to estimate the embedded carbon content of primary goods (iron, papers, chemicals, etc) by subnational region (based on things like fuels used in industrial boilers, carbon intensity of local electric grid, etc), and then use that to estimate carbon content of final goods such as cars, etc, to determine permit requirements.
Max Epstein
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 10:07 pm
17 Jan 2009
pitiful
the real truth? this crowd NEVER intended any sort of nearterm cap. not 2020. not 2030
might be willing to pass something for show, with safety valve and offsets to make it meaningless
and now Mr. R starts laying the propaganda groundwork for the "wisdom" of doing nothing
spun like a top
Permalink
Billhook Posted 10:31 pm
17 Jan 2009
which is of steering a hasty bill into a form that actively disrupts the negotiation of a global treaty.
There are a range of tactics for this outcome, and I wonder if you see that the fossil fuel lobby is now running out of other options for preventing a treaty that will ordain the end of fossil fuel dependence ?
Given that the treaty is the primary requirement, not the US bill, and that it will dictate just what the US bill must fulfill, it seems a bit far-fetched to impugn the motives of those who caution prudence at this stage.
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
human power Posted 5:43 am
18 Jan 2009
Permalink
Curtis Moore Posted 5:52 am
18 Jan 2009
--Which pollutants should be addressed? As it now stands the only ones on the table are the Kyoto Six. Except for methane they have lives of 50 to 50,000 years, much too far in the future to do any good in the short or mid-term. To achieve benefits in the near requires reductions in black carbon, ozone, especially one of its precursors, methane; carbon monoxide; HFC-134a, to name but a few. In California, when the legislature considered this, it chose to address all pollutants that cause global warming
Which policies are best suited to which pollutants? For a substance like 134a, probably an outright ban is best. The Europeans are banning its use cars and truck air conditioners, effective with model year 2011, and banning it altogether in 2020. We should probably piggyback on this. For SF-6 a requirement equipment contain no more the minimum quantity necessary combined with a prohibition on releases. Perhaps trading is appropriate for carbon dioxide, though I don't believe so. A much more effective approach would be a feebate in which relatively high emitters pay into a fund, which disperses money to relatively low, or zero, polluters. The point is, the bad guys have been strategizing for ten years, while folks on the other side have been struggling to reach critical mass. The bad guys are very well organized, heavily endowed and have recruited a number of environmental organizations--NRDC and ED are the most notable, while the groups opposing trading the American Lung Association, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace are just getting up to speed and poorly coordinated.In any event, a program should be limited only to carbon dioxide, only to emissions and from large sources.
--What spefic kinds of other initiatives should accompany a global warming initiative? When California enacted AB32 in 2006, it was only one of a suite of new laws, which I have summarized below. You can see that they require technology based controls, provide subsidies and mandates for some renewable, require coal to be really--that is, clean as a natural gas IGCC plant.
I spent a professional career in the Senate working on environmental laws and issues and, believe me, this going to be a rocky road and you never, never want to lose something because you'll never get it back on the table.
Finally, the heavy lifting has to be done by Congress and the staff to handle something like this big isn't large enough or smart enough yet. What could go through are a bunch of quick and big hits to capture the public attention and start building depth and breadth of support need for some bigger stuff.
=======
California's Bold Attack on
Global Warming
AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act-
● merges controls for "global warming" and "air pollutants;"
● includes black carbon, ozone, CO, CFCs/HCFC/HFCs and other non-Kyoto pollutants as greenhouse gases;
● places the Air Resources Board in charge of implementing its requirements;
● requires California to reduce emissions of greenhouses gases to 1990 levels by 2020;
● rejects mandatory carbon cap-and-trade, but allows "market" measures;
● mandates emissions limits and control measures reflecting "maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases;"
● provides a savings provision in case 2002 law requiring controls of GHG emissions from cars and trucks is overturned by courts.
● mandates "early actions" to reduce emissions of greenhouse pollutants.
Cleaning Up Coal: SB 1368 prohibits new long-term contracts for electricity unless the emissions are at least as low those from natural gas combined cycle.
One Million Solar Roofs: SB 1 creates funding and infrastructure to install 3,000 megawatts of solar power on one million new and existing residential and commercial roofs over 10 years.
Speeding Up Renewable Energy: SB 107 requires 20 percent of the electricity provided by major investor-owned utilities to be from renewable sources by 2010.
Boosting Incentives for "Self-Generated" Electricity: AB 2778 extends to 2012 the load controls and cash incentives for self-generated electricity from fuel cells and wind.
Energy Efficiency Goals for Municipal Utilities: AB 2021 requires the Energy Commission to establishes ten-year efficiency and demand reduction targets and update them every three years.
New Cars and Trucks: AB 1012 (vetoed) would have required that starting in 2020, one-half of all new cars and light trucks sold in California be "clean alternative fuel vehicles,"defined as running on a fuel containing more than 50 percent non-petroleum constituents.
Oil Conservation, Efficiency, and Alternative Fuels: SB 757 (vetoed) would have established an across-the-board curbs on oil demand and boosts in fuel economy of cars and trucks. It would have required every state agency to "take every cost-effective and technologically feasible action to reduce the growth of petroleum demand and increase vehicle energy efficiency and the use of alternative fuels." It required lobbying in favor of doubling CAFÉ standards.
Cleaning up Ports and Ships: SB 927 (vetoed) Senate Bill 927 would have imposed a $30 fee on each shipping container entering the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, $10 each for pollution mitigation, rail improvements, and port security.
That's just the opinion of one guy, for what its worth.
Permalink
Pompey Road Posted 12:28 pm
18 Jan 2009
At any rate I think you should include the corporate lobby in the discussion. I know they may seem under the radar and not relevant here but then again if you trace this China problem back to its source 20 years ago when the Chinese lobby was spending millions in congress to get most favored nation trading status you may be able to understand the connection.
The U.S. multi-national corporation proxy manufacturing and Chinese devaluing its currency among other trading tricks has created an inclined trading field. China funding, owning so much of our debt plus threatening to divest itself of to much foreign currency "the dollar" throws the market into a tailspin each time they threaten it.
We have given away our economic plus our environmental future on the advise of lobbyist. So why not include them in the conversation now. We are obviously living in a corporacy now why not bring them into the light and the discussion?
The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.
Permalink
davedenali Posted 11:34 pm
18 Jan 2009
Permalink
retroproxy Posted 5:56 am
19 Jan 2009
Permalink
Billhook Posted 6:20 am
19 Jan 2009
1. Don't be a jerk. Nobody likes jerks.
2. Try to avoid profanity. The English language is vast and magnificent.
3. Do not direct personal attacks at a poster or fellow commenter. Substance, people. Substance.
4. Don't be a troll. (Troll: Commenter who makes outrageous or provocative statements purely in order to derail discussion.) You know who you are.
5. No spam, no solicitation, no links to porn, no internet detritus of similar ilk.
6. Seriously, don't be a jerk.
The post above this appears brazenly to violate items 1, 4, & 6,
with a bunch of tedious long-refuted denialist cant.
So to what extent will Grist's Posting Rules be enforced ?
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink