I discussed the climate-change climate in the Senate -- things are hopping. The House, of course, is a different and less friendly animal, where Dems are stepping more gingerly.
One notable development is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi rather publicly stuck her thumb in the eye of Michigan Rep. John Dingell, announcing today the formation of a select committee on climate change with the power to subpoena and hold hearings. Dingell's House Energy and Commerce Committee is considered, by Dingell, to be the natural home for climate work. He is steamed. Pelosi, to her credit, knows Dingell is an obstruction, so she's doing an end-run.
Unwisely, in my opinion, Pelosi is selling climate legislation as a subset of energy independence:
"Tomorrow, we finish our 100 hours, and I will talk about what comes next, and included in that is energy independence. Climate change is part of energy independence," [Pelosi] said. "We're asking our chairmen to have their hearings and submit their legislation...in time for us to introduce an energy independence package no later than the Fourth of July."
I'm fine with promising that climate-change legislation will enhance energy independence. But if the primary goal is energy independence, several cheap and decidedly non-climate-friendly options suggest themselves, including "clean coal" and drilling every-damn-where. The WSJ sagely notes:
The increase in domestic oil, gas and coal production likely needed to achieve energy independence would entail heightened output of greenhouse gases.
The way Dems should frame the issue is not around independence -- a chimera -- but around security. To the extent we can free ourselves from carbon-intensive fossil fuels and shift to a distributed energy system powered by renewables (+ efficiency + storage, see here), we:
- rely less on hostile foreign suppliers, thereby avoiding resource wars and "energo-fascism,"
- become less subject to the ravages of global climate instability,
- create domestic industries and jobs,
- save on health, regulatory enforcement, and clean-up costs, and
- regain some of our moral authority internationally.
Energy independence is but one of these goals. If we focus too heavily on it, we'll end up with an unbalanced strategy.
Henry Waxman’s decade-long fight to improve the Clean Air Act
Will Senate leadership crack the whip on the climate bill?
Comments
View as Flat
sunflower Posted 12:32 am
18 Jan 2007
Permalink
Benny Big Eye Posted 12:48 am
18 Jan 2007
What is meant by "so-called greenhouse gases"? Does this imply that they don't exist?
And WTF with "most scientists believe", as if there is this huge debate that is not based on science but on "beliefs"?
Benny Big Eye
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 1:33 am
18 Jan 2007
Security is a good reason for limits on greenhouse gases. Cost/benefit is another way to represent the goals and can be persuasive on its own instead of as a subset of security. Impacts on non-human species and ecosystems are yet another reason, maybe less persuasive but still relevant.
Beyond regaining some moral authority, any solution to global climate change requires the participation of the United States. Individual nations and allied blocks of nations are voluntarily taking action, but effective GHG reduction is going to require UN-level engagement, innovation, research sharing, technology distribution, and perhaps most importantly, enforcement.
Permalink
dlunn Posted 2:47 am
18 Jan 2007
If they were serious, speed limits would be 55. That could have been done yesterday, and would reduce national gasoline use, if I remember this right, by 20%. Taxes on the purchase of fuel efficient cars could already be rebated, and/or taxes raised on purchase of guzzlers. Gasoline itself would have a much higher tax on it. Tax credits for home solar installations and upgrades would be institutionalized. On and on, the relatively painless and proven effective measures that nobody in Congress seems to be pushing for.
I fear that the real action in Washington is over who will control future energy. Big oil, electric and gas utilities all have a huge stake in this, and as the status quo is damn lucrative for them, they are all trying to stop any progress, any change. They particularly fear distributed power solutions, as that strikes at the very heart of their control over future energy.
It's really a struggle for market advantage, and any meaningful measures will be opposed by whichever companies see those measures harming their market advantage.
It's a situation that cries out for an independent energy commission insulated from political and corporate pressure, but I don't see anybody in Washington calling for that either. It looks like nothing will happen until the present system breaks down altogether, and when that happens we'll all be equally screwed.
Permalink