Now that Congress is back, there's been a mini-flurry of stories about the prospects of climate legislation this year. See Politico here and here, a really superb analysis of Lieberman-Warner's chances by Darren Samuelsohn (sub rqd), and another E&E story today on trade groups panicking.
Politico's reporting is characteristically sloppy, but it does get at one interesting dynamic. Big green groups are somewhat at odds over climate legislation in the short term. On one end, Environmental Defense is pushing like gangbusters to get something done this year. They are all about bargaining and cajoling and wooing and keeping the issue alive.
On the other end are groups like the Sierra Club which -- while not, contra Politico, outright lobbying against L-W -- raising lots of questions and concerns, and openly floating the notion that it might be better to wait until 2009, when more favorable conditions will obtain. "We think 2009 is going to be a banner year for moving some of these big-ticket items through," says Sierra Club lobbyist Melinda Pierce.
I must say, I've gone back and forth on this, but I generally come down with Sierra Club. Let's tally up the benefits of getting something through at all cost vs. the dangers.
The dangers are clear: right now we've got a bill, Lieberman-Warner, that is, depending on which green you ask, either totally unacceptable or just barely acceptable. It got out of committee, which was, as far as I see, it's last chance to be substantively improved. From here on out, this year at least, every dynamic looks likely to weaken it.
Further, why is Bush hinting that he might come around? Why are trade groups coming around to getting on board this year? Because they know which way the wind is blowing. They know this is likely to be the friendliest political environment on this subject that they'll ever have.
"Warner is retiring this year, and then the question is, 'Who comes into play?'" [American Gas Association CEO David] Parker said. Potentially, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) -- who both favor greater emission limits than those in the Lieberman-Warner bill -- could lead the next attempt to pass climate change legislation under a Democratic president, he said.
"Who would you rather have writing a bill in the Senate? I might guess it may set a tone for business to fully work with the Senate this year," he said.
Further, say the bill passes Congress. If it's weak enough for Bush to sign it, it sucks, almost by definition. But say he vetoes it. All you've done is lay down a marker for the consensus climate position -- a low marker, one that would be easy to exceed next year. Why show a weak hand when you get nothing out of it?
The countervailing considerations that produce the perceived need for speed are twofold. First, time is of the essence:
“Every year we wait to get started makes it almost geometrically harder to get the reductions [in carbon emissions] we need to save the planet,” said Steve Cochran of Environmental Defense.
That's true, but you've got to calculate the atmospheric benefits of moving one year earlier vs. the benefits of a much stronger bill. I still think the latter is more compelling.
Secondly, there's this notion that if we make it clear nothing will pass this year, it will give legislators an excuse to go back to ignoring it -- halting the learning, research, bargaining process that is the necessary precursor to a bill.
There's something to this, but I'm still skeptical. This is a fairly high-profile issue, in the top three for every Dem presidential candidate. All social and political movement in the last few years has been in one direction -- greater concern, greater priority. We're supposed to think it's going to just drop off the radar if politicians wait until next year? That we won't be able to get quick action with a Democratic president with a mandate for change and a wider Dem majority? I don't get it.
I've spoken with a few ED representatives who have made the case for the need to keep this front and center, and I remain unconvinced on the merits. I suspect ED is keen to play the role of dealmaker and kingmaker. (Its [laudable] role in the SOx program has boosted its influence and fundraising for years.) It's got a better chance of playing that role in this divided gov't than it would in a more clearly progressive one.
Climate-news poem: Breath-catching edition
China blasts U.S. climate bill enabling penalties on trade partners
Southern Company dominates the climate lobbying scene
Comments View as Flat
Sean Casten Posted 7:55 am
17 Jan 2008
My guess is we won't get anything this year
Not because of the content, but simply because it's hard to pass big, complicated and contentious legislation in a presidential election year. First because the campaigners generally don't want a public vote on something that might piss off some group of supporters right before the (primary, or national) election, but second just because of timing. Particularly on bills where there is not a clear majority leaning to one side or the other, scheduling is really hard.
Realize that Pelosi and Reid set time tables for votes in part based on when they know that the yeas will outweigh the nays - or vice versa as the case may be. So trying to schedule a vote right now requires scheduling in a way that is beneficial given the travel schedules of Clinton, Obama and McCain. This gets easier over time (note that you no longer need to keep tabs on Tancredo's travel schedule), but as candidates drop out to make scheduling gets easier, the party starts rallying around a particular candidate making it harder to rally support for potentially contentious votes.
I have no intel of course - but it just seems unlikely to me that you could get something significant before 2008 at this point.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:12 pm
17 Jan 2008
Important, yes...probable, no...
...It's important that we pass legislation as soon as possible...but since any climate legislation we try to pass will most likely get vetoed at this point, we essentially have little choice but to wait and hope the next administration will be more willing to take it on.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 1:29 pm
17 Jan 2008
Bad Vs No
Think about it this way, is a bad relationship better than no relationship??
Maybe, maybe not.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 2:25 pm
17 Jan 2008
It's what everyone's thinking about...
Let's see:
Stock market meltdown
Real estate crash
Lowered growth expectations.
Uh...yea, I'd say it's time for imposing massive carbon taxes on the American people.
Go ahead, Democrats, propose a lot of taxes.
No, really...it would work. Trust me.
John A. Bailo
Inhofe 400 Wannabe
My Log
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 2:35 pm
17 Jan 2008
Dave and Sean, you guys are right...
...Sean, that we won't get anything this year, and David, that we shouldn't.
There's a good chance for both a Democratic president and a stronger Congressional Democratic majority next year (unless I just jinxed it by saying that :-) ).
There's an even better chance that any legislation we get this year will be less than half the loaf that we'll be able to get next year.
Let's push for some smaller stuff this year (renewable energy and energy efficiency incentives in an economic stimulus package, maybe an RPS), and go for the brass ring next year, when we actually have a chance at it.
That's my two cents.
Permalink
tgreen Posted 5:55 pm
17 Jan 2008
We should all go now.
Because it ultimately doesn't matter anyway. We are all consumers.
http://lickmygreenballs.com/node/72
And that won't stop! =)
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 6:41 pm
17 Jan 2008
Carbon Negative or bust.
The constant and continued whacky weather isn't enough of a signal yet. We just don't seem to get the message that we've passed the line already where the damage will continue and increase even if we emit zero GHGs in 2008 and beyond.
The arctic ice cap is two or three summers from taking it's ball and going home and leaving us to gasp like a catfish thrown up on the levee. Isn't civilization is dependent upon the majority of the crops coming in every year to continue? A shortage of just a few percent can put incredible pressure on people living on the margins and they in turn will pressure those living above them.
So the current conversations about "reduced emissions by 2050" may as well be stated as "we're collecting profits and damn those that are damaged by it." It won't work; we've passed the top of the coaster and simply feeding less power to the engines will not make us stop.
Mankind had better claw it's way back to atmospheric GHG levels that approximate something like those present in 1900 by hook or by crook. That's the system the biosphere we depend upon for survival expects.
So we should wait. This year there will be several attempts to push through fake global warming legislation designed to forestall tougher, less profitable legislation later. We need a carbon negative economy. The consequences we are dealing with now are a bit much and I'd rather not see what they are long term.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 7:46 pm
17 Jan 2008
there is no right answer
the voyage is the thing
As obsessed as we are about climate, we think that everyone must have a view. In fact, most in Congress have never committed themselves in a meaningful way: a recorded vote.
So they are still safely on the sidelines.
Next year will not necessarily be better. As the troll said, if the economy declines (likely), the politics optics of changing our pattern of economic activity changes.
Think about African villagers killing endangered elephants who invaded their crops. The action may not really help much, but it satisfies the urge to do something. Doing something in 2009 may be resisted mad dog Greens in hard times.
Besides, the main divides are not ideological; they are regional. See Dingell. See southern utilities. yadda, yadda, yadda
it is important to try to build support in 2008 for a compromise that may pass someday. Getting a first step passed, means making CO2 regs a part of "normal" American life
(Ever wonder why it is normal to build so many nuke bombs, and not normal to fund daycare? It is what the public expects)
Effective CO2 regulation will take a long time, if ever, and will likely develop only along with alternative energy industry. The idea that great legislation will pass as a magic bullet in 2009, or ever, is not realistic. Anyone who disagrees is free to send me a list of their votes, and tell me what the votes are for.
On the other hand, Dark Forces would like to gut the Warner bill, pass the meaningless measure, and call the problem addressed.
The future hangs in the balance. As usual.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 12:25 am
18 Jan 2008
Dingell's take
From E&E Daily ($ub req'd) this morning - he's basically agreeing with my earlier comment:
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:04 am
18 Jan 2008
Economic decline
Good point ce, if the economy declines, it already is in freefall, politicos will dodge the GHG issue. Bush is wanting a stimulation now. For all his favorite contractors and energy companies? Yep.
"Free" market free falling economy. As gas prices keep snuffing out any revival before it starts. And the housing industry keeps dropping off the cliff because of the (hedge fund created) mortgage crisis. As tax breaks keep on being doled for corporations to outsource jobs.
So how to get around this? Couple the energy revolution with lower gas prices, kwhs are around 75 cents for eqivalent miles per gallon of gas. make jobs in Detroit building millions of plugin hybrids for government service, federal, state, and local.
Have big energy projects like FDR did, instead of building a power dam, build a huge wind farm out on the prairie. And big conservation projects, carbon sink wetlands and prairie restoration and dangerous flamable dead wood buildup clearing (and recycling) in forests.
Link economic recovery to renewable energy and conservation. I ski past the old CCC (Civilian conservation corps) camp buiding foundations everyday. Jobs created by FDR's programs.
Hillary talks about diverting subsidies for big energy to renewables and conservation. She will do it like FDR did. With money in people's pockets, paychecks for a job well done. That is the best stimulus package. And climate disaster energy policy.
Giving more leverage over life on planet earth to hedge funds through "free" market trading of carbon or oil or the atmosphere or the oceans... is not going to be helpfull.
Think Costanza.."The Human Fund... Money for people", rather than multinational gamblers and bush kleptocrats.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:23 am
18 Jan 2008
Yeap
Nothing is going to happen this year.
It's an election year, which means that the Democratic party is paralyzed to implement tough legistlation.
However it doesn't mean that we should remain idle.
Perhaps right now we be a better time to focus on public education, and rallying together organizations.
Permalink
Tony Kreindler Posted 5:05 am
18 Jan 2008
More to come
As many Grist readers know and David's post rightly points out, Environmental Defense wants Congress to pass comprehensive climate legislation in 2008 and we're working every day to achieve that goal.
We don't want to wait around for what might or might not be the perfect political landscape in 2009, because frankly, there might never be one.
Some things are sure to change in the next Congress -- we'll have a new president, and members will come and go. But others are sure to be the same: the interest groups; the pressing need to address other national priorities like health care, the economy, and Iraq; and a 60-vote bar in the Senate.
This is clearly an important question, and we'll have more to say next week.
www.environmentaldefense.org
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:55 am
18 Jan 2008
Actually here's an issue
Here's an issue which we should push for now:
Get California their EPA waiver that allows them to regulate CO2 emissions.
From there it should line up a nice precedent towards federal legislation later.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 10:20 am
18 Jan 2008
Green Jobs?
All of those out-of-work construction guys need jobs NOW. A very simple green jobs program would put them to work and be self funded.
Simply put.
Installation of GeoExchange HVAC systems by certified contractors SHALL be funded at the prime interest rate plus 2% by local electric utilities. The utilities are allowed to recoup the loan by means of a utility bill surcharge on a 10 year payment plan that can't exceed the projected dollar savings of installed units.
The loans could be repaid by the utility customer regardless of the ownership of the building. Funds originate from the Federal Reserve Bank. Applications shall be accepted on a least square footage per unit priority. (more surface area to volume and puts poor folks first)
This would put people back to work. It would save people cash every month to spend elsewhere in the economy. It would incentivize upgrades of rental housing and small commercial properties. It would put cash in the hands of small business owners.
As George W. Bush has one of these units in his Crawford ranch house it would be hard to veto.
Then we could do the same for roofing upgrades to thermally reflective roofing. Then ditto for solar panels. Ditto for double paned windows. Airlock doors in freezing winter areas. All of the above installed on every school in the nation.
As these repairs essentially should be self funding out of utility cost savings there should be little cost other than administration/inspection and auditing of work. As we all know that business knows how best to get things done providing a funding mechanism and standing back should suffice.
Not a chance in hell that could get past our coal funded Congress.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:39 pm
18 Jan 2008
Yes
Like that Pan, more of that. Geo heat exchange has the potential GHG savings of a very large portion of 36% of total GHG emmisions. Power the circulation and heat pumps with a renwable smart grid and storage of clean solar, wind, and other clean kwh in the form of heating and cooling is added. And even more than 36% might be saved?
How so? Well the solar and wind and other renewable sources and grid installed will replace a larger and larger portion of other GHG sources as well. Plugin hybrids strategically charged to store more power, and all other grid power uses supplied by the entire, completed grid eventually.
Make sure all contractors for these projects only hire legal workers at fair wages. Those are good jobs. make all the devices here in the uSA, revive our economy just like WW 2 war production did. The anti-GHG-war to end all oil wars. That's the bumpersticker slogan.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 6:18 pm
18 Jan 2008
excellent, Pangolin
now all you need are organized lobbies to draft legislation, find the right committees, and push the bills day after day from office to office
maybe some unions, some consumer groups, and trade associations for relevant manufacturers
oh, and may be an environmental group
like Environmental Defense? Mr. Kreindler?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 6:52 pm
18 Jan 2008
Dang politics
Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
siahtam Posted 2:18 am
19 Jan 2008
Now over later
Dave, if short-term benchmarks really are what's most important as you said in a previous post then why should we be waiting? There is no guarantee that a dem president would use all their political capital in their first year for passing a lefty climate bill and it might be put on the ropes until say... 2012.
If that's the case then instead of reducing at 2-3% to meet the 2020 benchmarks, we'll have to reduce by 4-5%, and I promise you that will have a much more noticeable impact on our economy.
Though there may be reason to have beef with ED, remember that the Sierra Club has been largely inneffective for the past 25 years.
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 2:43 am
19 Jan 2008
better now than later or more to the point........
...... now or never.
25 million versus 25 billion versus 25 trillion dollars for climate change legislation this year? That is the question.
Is humanity soon to be confronted with million dollar global challenges or billion dollar global challenges, or even trillion dollar ones?
If the daunting global challenges posed to humanity by the astounding growth of the human population overspreading Earth are as huge as they appear in these early years of Century XXI, then 25 million dollars is a pitiful pittance.
Afterall, in 2006 Goldman Sachs awarded year-end bonuses to certain employees totalling more than 16 billion dollars.
How many trillion dollars will the USA alone pay for the fiasco in Iraq?
If we can spend billions of dollars to reward one corporation's economic powerbrokers for underwriting another year of soon to become unsustainable economic growth and throw away trillions of dollars to protect access to, and to control, a supply of mid-East oil, surely we can find adequate funds to deal with climate change.
As things now stand, the funds given to preserve Earth as a fit place for human habitation by our children amount literally to nothing more than "drops in the bucket."
For a moment, let's us consider that climate change is the size and has the shape of a weapon of mass destruction which has to be acknowledged, addressed and overcome. That is to say, dealing reasonably and sensibly with climate change now is the equivalent of a categorical imperative.
In the light of such circumstances, current leaders can be seen failing to respond ably to what people everywhere can see as somehow real. Current, politics-as-usual leadership appears to be primarily engaged in fools' errands, while refusing to so much as openly acknowledge, much less begin to address, the ominously looming global challenges visible, even now, on the far horizon.
Sincerely,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Permalink