Reactions to the Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill
Yesterday, we reported on the unveiling of new House climate change legislation co-authored by Henry Waxman, and Ed Markey. Since then, a bit more info's trickled in, particularly from the Senate.
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) told the Washington Post "we don't have 60 votes"--that's no surprise, but it's also an important statement by the Democratic whip, at a time when the party is grappling with the question of budget reconciliation.
And Sen. Joe Lieberman, an early leader in the Senate on climate change who authored a compromise (and ultimately failed) bill with now-retired Sen. John Warner a couple years ago, said "I don't think what [Waxman] is proposing will get 60 votes in the Senate.... [The targets are] higher than the Senate will accept and higher than what we can do because they impose too much of a burden, particularly on people in states that burn a lot of coal or produce a lot of electricity."
On a conference call with reporters yesterday, Markey addressed one major point of concern among environmentalists--the issue of emissions permits. Environmentalists are fairly adamant that all permits be auctioned to polluters and that the revenues be rebated to low-income consumers and, perhaps, used to fund clean energy projects. Markey suggested, in a concession to political reality, that the final bill will ultimately hand some of those allowances out for free.
Indeed, the discussion draft summary is intentionally vague on this question. It "does not address...how to allocate the tradable emission allowances that restrict the amount of global warming pollution emitted by electric utilities, oil companies, and other sources."
The New York Times reports, though, that Rep. Jay Inslee extracted a concession from the committee leaders that would "set aside about 15 percent of the cap-and-trade program's allowances for industries considered most vulnerable to international competition, including iron and steel, aluminum, cement, glass, ceramics, chemicals and paper." So the issue may be more decided than committee leaders are willing to let on.
There are other points of contention as well. The bill would allow companies to exceed their emissions limits provided they offset the difference in other ways--including potentially very dubious ones. As Greenpeace says, "[i]f all the offsets in the bill were used, the bill's emissions reductions could be met without any reduction in fossil fuel emissions for more than 20 years." That's an issue that needs to be monitored very closely.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If the price of getting it passed is giving away 15% of the credits, that's a pretty small price.
April 1, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
If credit is given for creating offsets in the form of forest creation or methane capture that acheive the ultimate goal, reversing global warming, I'm not sure what the problem is.
Deforestation and a decrease in global carbon sinks are a part of the equation just like the amount of emissions to the atmosphere. A look at land use mapping over the last century makes this pretty obvious.
It seems the goal to punish and tax corporate America and demonizing coal and fossil fuel is blurred with the goal of improving the environment and health of the planet.
April 1, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that credits for forest creation are way out of line with their actual benefit. They just stick a bunch of twigs in the ground and claim the benefit of a whole forest, despite the fact that any actual benefits will take decades to materialize, assuming the trees themselves don't die or get cut down for a housing development. It's really a cheap dodge, which, of course, is why they like them.
"It seems the goal to punish and tax corporate America and demonizing coal and fossil fuel is blurred with the goal of improving the environment and health of the planet."
I'll give you that, but it's also true that most polluters will do anything to avoid the extra costs of actually reducing emissions. They're not going to do anything without being forced.
April 1, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The problem is that credits for forest creation are way out of line with their actual benefit. They just stick a bunch of twigs in the ground and claim the benefit of a whole forest, despite the fact that any actual benefits will take decades to materialize, assuming the trees themselves don't die or get cut down for a housing development. It's really a cheap dodge, which, of course, is why they like them."
It's pretty easy to measure and count trees to verify their growth and ability to capture CO2. In fact those measurements are a lot easier to track than most emission measurements. Deeds on land use and sustainability of the forests are just as easy to put in place for verfification. That's why offset programs like the Chicago Climate Exchange make sense and exist.
If the offsets go away, so do the credits.
And you really think it's cheap to buy the land and build a forest? Where?
Photosynthesis, it's a solution, too.
April 1, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be all for it if they did what you're suggesting. However, if they actually did that no one would use credits because there's almost no credit to be had until the tree gets a lot bigger, which is 10+ years out.
April 1, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The problem is that credits for forest creation are way out of line with their actual benefit."
This issue is easily addressed by discounting the credits, which most systems do. For example, a theoretical capture rate of 2 T/yr is only given credit to offset 1 T/yr emissions.
I am not saying emissions reductions to the 80 or 85 % level wouldn't be great, but to get 60 -70 % reduction in emissions with a set of verifiable offsets or sequestration projects that acheive the same ultimate goal, with perhaps less overall expence and more forests 50 years from now might be a good thing too.
April 1, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink