I've had the Lieberman-Warner climate bill proposal (PDF) printed out for a couple weeks now, but still haven't gotten around to reading it. Bad blogger! The general assessment from other quarters seems to be: eh. Medium. The big flaw is that it gives around 25% 75% of its permits away. Bad, bad, bad, but maybe necessary to get coal-state legislators on board. On the positive side, it's got a cost-containment mechanism that, unlike Bingaman's escape hatch, would hold fast to long-term environmental targets. Bill Scher has a good rundown and comes out in about the same place.
The $6 million question for climateers remains: what to do now and what to save for later?
Here's the logic as I see it: Anything Bush will sign into law is weak. It's practically axiomatic: you can't get anything good on energy past the Bush/Cheney/Exxon/ADM administration. If it's good, it doesn't get past; if it gets past, it's not good.
Bushies continue to resist a mandatory cap, and that's step one in, you know, a cap and trade system. If they can be persuaded to accept a mandatory cap, it's likely by a raft of concessions that will hobble the bill's raison d'être: discouraging GHG emissions. And Bush will probably add a signing statement: "If I ever decide I don't like your silly cap, I can pee in your corn flakes." Cheney's last, triumphant middle finger to the dirty hippies.
If a good bill can't get signed into law, what do you do? I see three options:
- Go big to highlight contrast: Put together the biggest, boldest bill possible, rally as much Democratic support as possible, and watch it get defeated by the Filibusterin' 110th Republicans. Let the American public know exactly where the two parties stand and what they can expect if they boost Dem majorities and elect a Dem president.
- Go down the center to highlight bipartisanship: Put together a moderate, bipartisan bill, and get it through Congress. Create a baseline for future legislation. Announce that climate change is a mainstream issue on which any future president will have to act. The more moderate the bill, the more extreme and discredited Bush will look by vetoing it.
- Go ... nowhere: No sense going through what the press will inevitably call a defeat. Just pass other energy bills and bide your time on cap-and-trade. Do the legwork to educate Congress and build support for some tough requirements. Rely on a Dem president and larger Dem majorities in Congress in 2009 -- an environment in which a much more ambitious bill can be passed.
There's widespread fear that this is a one-shot deal -- the best chance we'll ever have to get climate legislation right. If something weak gets locked in, we'll be stuck with it for a long while.
I tend to think that fear is somewhat exaggerated. Regardless, the incentives all run the other way. Pelosi and Reid want an accomplishment. The Republicans and their fossil friends no longer believe in their "permanent majority" -- they're feeling some pressure to act now before things get worse. There's not a lot of constituencies pushing for waiting.
So #1 may be the best case scenario. However, Congressional Dems have so internalized the fear of looking strong or "extreme" that it seems unlikely to me. No. 2 may be the best we can hope for.
Climate-news poem: Breath-catching edition
Comments View as Flat
Matt G Posted 3:39 am
14 Aug 2007
Hoping for #1
Other benefits of #1:
Permalink
sunflower Posted 4:09 am
14 Aug 2007
Sailing against tycoons
The three point rule on deck in a hurricane is always have three points of contact with the ship, two feet and a hand then one step forward with two hands holding on.
Be prepared. The White House could be swept by a freak Republican wave and further weaken Congress.
Congress sits while Al Gore talks. It is time for Congress to take to the bully pulpit -- motivate the electorate on the deep dangers and the need for for climate security. Make it absolutely clear that rich corrupt Republicans do not care that the Earth will burn up with a poisonous hydrogen sulfide atmosphere. Climate security requires that Republicans are banished from politics, forever. Crunch time. Now or never.
No more wallflowers. Be bold. Be aggressive. Communicate vision. Write legislation that enables a strong national dialog.
Damn the torpedoes. Propose a carbon tax that starts at $100 per ton.
Permalink
trock Posted 4:13 am
14 Aug 2007
go for the 2nd
This is just starting the first time around. Next year is election year, then play politics if it comes to your advantage. Working out something now is something now.
Hope and work for a change in peoples thinking because that's all that can be done to change what we have now to what we need. We are one thousandth (or less) of the way there.
Permalink
Jesse Jenkins Posted 5:01 am
14 Aug 2007
Time for #1: Articulate strong core values
I think the best option for now is for Congressional Dems to go with #1. Propose a bold plan, one that is based on science, that gets us climate security and that begings a transition to a sustainable, new energy economy.
This is the chance to articulate not only a strong policy, but much more importantly, begin to articulate a set of strong core values that tackling climate change and building a sustainable energy economy will support and extend from. Dems should be taking this chance to share a vision of a stronger, safer, richer and healthier America secure from the threats of climate change, depleting fossil fuels and petro-dictators.
A package of progressive, bold climate change and clean energy legislation should be presented not just as a way to save 'the environment', but as a way to harness American innovation to create thriving new clean energy industries and good paying jobs, strengthen America's energy independence and break our addiction to foreign oil, secure Americans from the threats of climate catastrophes like hurricanes, devastating heat waves and other 'close to home' impacts of climate change and create a healthier environment for ourselves and our children to live in.
The flip side of this is that anyone opposed to such a bold vision and the policy proposals that will get us there is therefore positioned on the side of oil dictators, against good jobs for Americans, against healthier air and water, against a safer, stronger, richer America.
That's the way to build a strong base of support behind a progressive majority and a set of policy proposals with the backing of strong, widely-held values.
Depending on the results of the '08 elections (which will no doubt be buoyed by a successful effort to present a bold vision and values), turning to a bipartisan compromise may be necessary to get a bill passed. But at that point, we'll be bargaining from a strong position, not a weak one. We'll have compromises we can afford to make, since we'll be starting with the strongest proposal. It's always easier to negotiate from a position of strength than to start from a position of compromise.
The risk of this approach is that we risk making climate change more of a partisan issue, which could hamper future attempts at bipartisan compromise. But I would argue that articulating such a bold position puts the ball solidly in Republican's courts as to whether or not it should be a partisan issue: if Rs don't stand opposed to this vision, they can easily take away any partisan thunder by simply agreeing that this is the best course for America. There's no reason why Rs should be opposed to a stronger, safer, richer, healthier America, and if they are, then we shouldn't feel bad about making them explain and defend their position, even if it heightens partisanship.
It's time for Dems to not just show backbone, but to show leadership and vision. Time for them to present a vision of an America worth striving for.
-Jesse Jenkins
http://watthead.blogspot.com
Permalink
The Cunctator Posted 5:06 am
14 Aug 2007
Other issues with Lieberman-Warner
You are right that giving away 75% of the emissions credits is a central problem. The bill grossly violates the polluter pays principle.
There are others:
- The proposal only covers 80% of US emissions. That's a major loophole.
- The reduction targets are not sufficient.
- The proposal massively subsidizes the coal industry in particular
- The proposal subsidizes nuclear plant production
- The proposal allows borrowing against the future. It's an open question how much we can afford to do so.
- The proposal indicates several methods by which emissions can be increased to avoid economic harm, but it does not have methods to strengthen emissions caps to avoid environmental, economic, and societal harm
- Again, the proposal does not tie environmental or societal costs to implementation of the cap-and-trade system
- Nothing for cogeneration/decentralizing the energy grid or for renewable energy
- It's just a cap-and-trade system; in other words, one of the 10 planks of Gore's proposal. Where are any of the other nine?
- The proposal makes minimal attempts to do anything other than protect the power industry -- there's little to nothing for working people, for communities, for entrepeneurs, for job creation, for local farmers, for international efforts, for sustainable practices.
The systems Lieberman-Warner proposes establishing are reasonable, but the priorities are wrong. Just as the federal income tax can be used to benefit the wealthy on the backs of the poor, or to sustain and grow a healthy middle class, depending on its implementation, a cap-and-trade system can benefit society or establish a permanent energy plutocracy.The Lieberman-Warner proposal leans entirely too far in the latter direction for my taste.
As the Sierra Club said,
"The Warner-Lieberman proposal and others are oriented toward meeting the needs of the coal, utility and auto industries. Congress should instead focus on proposals like Boxer-Sanders and Waxman that better meet the needs of communities, families, and the environment."
Hill Heat
Permalink
The Cunctator Posted 5:10 am
14 Aug 2007
More than fear
If Democrats are to succeed, they must both make "clear that rich corrupt Republicans do not care that the Earth will burn up with a poisonous hydrogen sulfide atmosphere" and provide a positive, hopeful alternative vision of what will happen under their leadership.
Van Jones has one of the most compelling visions.
Hill Heat
Permalink
A Siegel Posted 5:48 am
14 Aug 2007
My vote ...
A. Go for broke with #1. Do the right thing, somewhere in line with www.stepitup.org calls.
B. As well, not under Global Warming legislation, pursue smart / niche concepts that help improve the energy situation and foster greater capacity for stronger measures. These should be things that George W might sign, such as the Energy Smart Community Bonds (ESCB) program we've developed at Energize America (www.ea2020.org).
And, well, a good laydown of the options. I remain fearful that the second path will be the one chosen.
Blogging regularly at Energy Smart to Energize America .
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 3:45 pm
14 Aug 2007
Fund More Concerts
Congress should fund more concerts for Global Warming. This will keep the the AGWers busy making signs and hosting booths for a few more years until rationality settles in and we decide it's all naturo-genic and beneficial to mankind.
John Bailo
Supratext:
Permalink
The Cunctator Posted 7:59 am
15 Aug 2007
Typo
You write "The big flaw is that it gives around 25% of its permits away."
No, it gives around 75% of its permits away.
Hill Heat
Permalink
Jesse Jenkins Posted 3:12 am
17 Aug 2007
Massive corporate giveaway
Cuncator is right. It only auctions 24% of the permits initially, with 76% given away for free to states, affected communities and - mostly - to industry. By my count it gives away 58% of all emissions allowances to industry polluters for free, making this proposal perhaps the largest corporate giveaway of a public good - the right to pollute our commonly-owned air and damage our climate - I can think of.
Boo!
Permalink