TPMDC
« Alaska GOP Senator Smacks Jindal: "Monitoring Volcanoes is Critically Important" | Home | It's Anybody's Guess Tonight In NY-20 »

Waxman to Unveil Climate Change Bill Today, Going Further Than Obama

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) are rolling out their proposal to cut carbon emissions today, and early leaks of the plan suggest that the duo is prepared to ensure that the Obama administration is not the most liberal player in the climate change debate.

Waxman and Markey's bill will set targets of a 20% reduction in emissions by 2020, compared with Obama's proposed 15% cut, and an 83% reduction by 2050, a more ambitious goal than Obama's planned 80% trimming. This is more than just a numbers game: By moving the goalposts further left than the White House, the two House Democrats set the stage for a meaningful compromise on climate change ... but can it happen this year?

It's a decidedly open question, particularly as health care reform moves on the budget-reconciliation fast track and the mainstream media (falsely) depicts Congress as facing an either-or choice between legislating on health and legislating on emissions.

Senate Republicans are already gearing up to ensure that climate change stalls on their end of the Capitol this year. Two GOP amendments to the Senate budget, slated for debate today, would prohibit Democrats from using reconciliation to cap carbon emissions and bar any climate change bill that resulted in an electricity or gas price hike for consumers.

(For a closer look at some of the forces dedicating to keeping the skies clogged with carbon emissions, check out TPM's new slideshow of notable climate change deniers.)

If Waxman and Markey's bill doesn't succeed in pushing climate change over the finish line this year, however, Congress may find itself cut out of the debate entirely. The Environmental Protection Agency is laying the groundwork to give the White House regulatory authority to limit emissions under the Clean Air Act -- thus giving President Obama the option of sidestepping congressional inaction, if he decides to use that stick.

Late Update: Here's early reaction to the Waxman-Markey plan from Joe Mendelson, global warming policy director at the National Wildlife Federation:

The Waxman-Markey proposal puts Congress on course to answer the President's call for comprehensive energy legislation. The plan recognizes our dependency on fossil fuels is a triple-threat to our economy, energy security and environment. We applaud Chairman Waxman and Chairman Markey for providing the leadership to keep Congress on an ambitious timetable to achieve a clean energy future. Repowering America with clean energy solutions will create jobs, end our dependence on oil, and help avoid the worst consequences of global warming.

8 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic
Two GOP amendments to the Senate budget, slated for debate today, would prohibit Democrats from using reconciliation to cap carbon emissions and bar any climate change bill that resulted in an electricity or gas price hike for consumers.

I think that any and all climate change bills will result in higher energy pricing. That's how it works: if it costs more then people are more inclined to use less or find alternatives.

If we were to increase funding for research to make solar, wind, or biodiesel competitive with oil, that could eventually work without directly raising energy's cost. But this would take a lot of money that would have to be raised somewhere (i.e. taxes). It seems to me that if energy costs go up then the competitive advantage of oil goes down, and everyone has a lot more incentive to use/research/improve wind and solar.

These two Senate amendments are just a ploy to keep things as they are: Meaning that they want to keep radically changing the composition of our atmosphere.

user-pic
If we were to increase funding for research to make solar, wind, or biodiesel competitive with oil, that could eventually work without directly raising energy's cost. But this would take a lot of money that would have to be raised somewhere (i.e. taxes). It seems to me that if energy costs go up then the competitive advantage of oil goes down, and everyone has a lot more incentive to use/research/improve wind and solar.

That's not quite how I see it. The point of either a cap and trade system or a carbon tax is that energy derived from fossil fuels has a hidden cost which is currently not being paid. The cost of energy, in terms of dollars, will go up but that only reflects the true cost of energy in terms of future health problems and damage from climate change that we would otherwise have to pay. And I think I read somewhere that if carbon was priced correctly, solar and wind power would already be competitively priced.

user-pic

I agree, with the caveat that no matter what we do, it will be perceived as increasing energy costs, because the reductions in other costs of using fossil fuels that are currently not priced in are diffuse and hard to connect.

The big difference between raising some taxes to subsidize/promote renewable energy and instituting a mechanism to (cap and trade or a carbon tax) to price in the cost of carbon emissions is that the tax and grant approach would require the government to pick winners, which is not inherently bad, but has its problems (ethanol anyone?) Setting up market rules to reflect the true costs lets people judge for themselves, and on the scale we're talking about, that's more likely to shake out the best results. Though market-worshipers are wrong about so-called "free markets" always being better and more efficient, for purposes like this, where the actual purpose is to allocate capital to the most productive technologies (as opposed to, say, allocating health care that everyone needs) they can do the best job.

user-pic

That's true--these types of policies put a price on pollution that's currently ignored. (Another tragedy of the commons.) But the end result, as Redshift says, is an increase in the price for the user. As easy to reach oil grows scarce the price of oil/gas should rise, which makes solar/wind/ethanol/nuclear more viable. (of course nuclear energy has a ton of caveats attached to it too)

user-pic

We need a lot of folks to go "further than Obama" on a panopoly of issues.

user-pic
user-pic

Waxman is my Congressman. God bless him! Obama's been co-opted by the banks so far. Let's hope he doesn't fall under the sway of the energy vampires.

user-pic

It's ambitious, and good news to hear, but I am not sure it's a drastic improvement. 5% is a good step up from Obama's plan, but it seems like the 3% increase from Obama's plan over a 40-some year span could be increased even more. Either way, it sounds like progress....just has to be put into action now.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Matt
Cooper

Bio

Eric
Kleefeld

Bio


Latest Videos




Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address