THE SENATE’S CLIMATE CHANGE BILL: DRESS REHEARSAL

Because global climate change is such a "hot" topic, most Senators rightly believe they will get voters' attention by taking it on. Beyond that agreement, the usual partisan bickering sets in. It is exacerbated by election year tensions and stratagems.

Because it is widely assumed no climate change legislation will succeed until after the November election and the assumption of power by the new president and new Congress, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-No. Dakota) dubbed the process a “dress rehearsal.” The real fight will be next year. It would be more accurate, however, to describe this week's debate as a preliminary negotiation.

Senators are putting forward positions on controversial topics (like funding for ‘clean’ coal and nuclear waste storage in Yucca Mountain). They know political forces will eventually harden positions but, for now, they are testing each other and feeling each other out, looking for openings. By learning where the battle lines are now, they can avoid a complete breakdown in the process later when the chips are on the line.

Paul Bledsoe, communications/strategy director, National Commission on Energy Policy: “[I]f you have an economy-wide cap-and-trade system with some basic cost containment provision and incentives for developing country action, you have a fairly broad constituency for that approach. It’s when you have to get to the next level of detail that you alienate people all over the spectrum. That’s probably the danger here.”

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif), who has tirelessly led the politicking on behalf of the act, accepts the difficulties of coalition-building and sees the possibility of getting the act through: "They need a certain amount to stay on it. I need a certain amount not to get off it. We're looking for that sweet spot."

The presidential race could be affected by this debate if Senator McCain sides with the minority opposition despite his past advocacy of climate change legislation. Such a position could seriously compromise his reputation as a maverick and an environmentalist.

The Democrats and Senator Obama believe public sentiment will come down stongly on the side of taking action against climate change.

Early in the week, the minority responded to the inevitability of the debate by characterinzing the bill as a tax. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.): “…the largest tax increase in the history of the nation.” Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn): "…[the] mother of all earmarks."

Senator Boxer took these idealogues on by flatly rejecting their characterization of cap and trade as a government-dominated taxation: "To call it command-and-control is rather a joke…We specifically rejected a carbon tax and we allow the free market to set a price on carbon."

On Tuesday, Senator Reid (D-Nev) said he had obtained an email describing a strategy to emphasize the act’s negative impact on gas prices.

Senator Reid's accusation was substantiated by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky) remark: "Climate change is an issue that all of us are concerned about, but there's a right way and a wrong way to tackle the problem. And driving the price of gasoline even higher is clearly not the way to go…"

On Wednesday, the act’s opponents’ brought Senate business to a standstill by demanding lengthy amendments be read on the floor word-for-word and then complaining because other Senate business was not being handled. A procedural vote late Wednesday night failed to end that agony. What comes Thursday should be interesting.

The act’s advocates are steadfast to their purpose and in their belief it is urgent to take action. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif): "Scientists tell us we can make a difference to impact how much the Earth will warm. We can't stop warming, but we can slow it down…But if we are going to do even that, we have to act soon and we have to act decisively."

The bad news: Climatologists’ reports on global climate change only get more grim, making action more urgent. November will show whether voters believe the opposition's silly arguments against acting. As a friend of NewEnergyNews likes to say, "The American public may be slow, but they're not stupid."

The good news: If this is dress rehearsal, the show next year is going to be great politics. And January 2009 isn't far off.

click to enlarge

Climate Bill’s Dress Rehearsal
Steve Mufson, June 3, 2008 (Washington Post)
and
Economic Risks Imperil Climate Bill; In the Senate, opponents focus on pump prices and tax consequences.
Gail Russell Chaddock, June 5, 2008 (Christian Science Monitor)
and
GOP tries to scuttle climate-change bill
Zachary Coile, June 4, 2008 (San Francisco Chronicle)

WHO
Members of the U.S. Senate: Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev), Joe Liberman (I-Conn), John Warner (R-Vir), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif), Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), Byron Dorgan (D-No. Dakota), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), James Inhofe (R-Okla), Jim DeMint (R-So. Car.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn); Steve Mufson, blogger/energy writer, Washington Post; Robert Samuelson, economist/columnist, Washington Post

Senators Lieberman, Warner and Boxer have led on this climate change legislation. (click to enlarge)

WHAT
The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 (S.2191) would cap U.S. greenhouse gas emissions at 19% below present levels by 2020 and at 71% below present levels by 2050. (Pew Center on Global Climate Change analysis. EPA analysis.) It would institute an emissions trading system in the U.S. to put a price on emissions and allow the marketplace to find its way to the emissions reduction goals. While the goal of global climate change mitigation is widely accepted, specifics of implementation are divisive.

WHEN
- The Senate took up debate on the act June 2. Debate fell prey to obstructive parliamentary tactics June 4.
- Unlike the 2003 and 2005 debates, this one is substantive and largely unsullied by Luddite claims that global climate change is a hoax.

click to enlarge

WHERE
- The debate is on the Senate floor and CSPAN is broadcasting it live but the minority move on June 4 to tie the majority up by demanding the reading of every word of every amendment makes the process even more tedious than the normal blowhard blather.
- Senator Cantwell is worried too much money will go to “clean” coal and leave her state of Washington with little benefit.
- Senator Dorgan is worried not enough money will go to “clean’ coal to sustain his state of North Dakota.

WHY
- The key elements of the act are the caps and the trading system. The details are extensive.
- Major detail: Caps set for 2020 (19% below present levels) and 2050 71% below present levels).
- Major detail: Funding for “clean” coal R & D.
- Major detail: Funding to advance the “nuclear renaissance” including building the waste storage site under Yucca Mountain.
- Major detail: Funding New Energy R & D.
- Major detail: The auctioning of allowances to large energy consumers/greenhouse gas emitters. The act provides auctioning of too many allowances for coal and utility industry advocates and provides too few for New Energy advocates and climate change activists.
- Major detail: Rebating revenues from the auctions to those most seriously harmed by rising energy costs associated with the cap and trade system.
- Major detail: Should states with their own, more stringent caps be able to opt out and take federal subsidies instead?

From the Center for American Progress. (click to enlarge)

QUOTES
- Steve Mufson, blogger/energy writer, Washington Post: “Will climate legislation circa 2009 meet the same fate as the failed Clinton-backed health care legislation circa 1993? Both bills have good intentions. Both address problems that won’t go away. Both are immensely complicated. Both try to include something for almost everyone, but may wind up simply making sure that there is something for almost everyone to dislike.”
- Robert J. Samuelson, economist/columnist, Washington Post: “The chief political virtue of cap-and-trade -- a complex scheme to reduce greenhouse gases -- is its complexity…This is mostly make-believe. If we suppress emissions, we also suppress today's energy sources, and because the economy needs energy, we suppress the economy…As "allowances" became scarcer, their price would rise, and the extra cost would be passed along to customers. Meanwhile, government would expand enormously…if we're going to try to stimulate new technologies through price, let's do it honestly. A straightforward tax on carbon would favor alternative fuels and conservation just as much as cap-and-trade but without the rigid emission limits. A tax is more visible and understandable…let's call it by its proper name: cap-and-tax.”
- Senator Inhofe (R-Okla): "Unless we have the technology to make a steep and quick emissions cut that the sponsors want, this bill will do nothing but add $6.7 trillion, a tax increase on American families and workers…"
- Majority Leader Reid (D-Nev): "Hundreds of thousands of new jobs in renewable energy have already been created by foresighted investors who see the need for clean energy that does not contribute to global warming…"
- Senator DeMint (R-So. Car.): "It's time we begin the nuclear renaissance in America and Yucca Mountain is a vital step…If Congress is serious about reducing carbon emission, nonemitting nuclear energy must play an even larger role than it does today."
- Majority Leader Reid (D-Nev): "Yucca Mountain is as close to being dead as any piece of legislation could be…"