Should Congressional Democrats, led by Barbara Boxer, try to get a global warming bill passed this year, even if it's the relatively moderate (and modest) Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act?
That's the matter currently dividing the environmental community, and the dilemma I address in my latest DeSmogBlog item. The answer, I would say, is that it's complicated--and where you come down really depends on how much you trust this Congress and whether you'd prefer to see a strong bill enacted later, or a weaker bill enacted sooner.
My perspective on all of this is sort of in the middle. For as I write:
1. Who cares whether the bill we pass now cuts domestic emissions by 65 or 70 or 80 percent by 2050? The difference is not going to save the planet on its own, not when we also have to worry about what nations like India and China end up doing. Moreover, once we get a bill in place we will have literally four decades to strengthen it, even as we watch non-carbon energy sources proliferate and become cheaper.
2. A 100 percent auction would be really, really nice. It is the right thing to do, without a doubt. But the people I've been talking to in Washington think this is just a nonstarter, and will continue to be one well past 2009. According to an analysis (PDF) by Friends of the Earth, the current Lieberman-Warner bill gives away 79 percent of the initial pollution permits at first, but gradually decreases that to 31 percent in 2050. Perhaps in 2009 we could get a bill that's stronger, where the respective percentages have moved to, say, 60-40 giveaways versus auctioned permits. I don't know. But I really question whether we can afford to hold out for 100-0.
3. However, I do think the political "climate" will be better for a climate bill in 2009, especially in light of the way things are shaping up politically right now. We're going to have a presidential race between John McCain and either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Any of them would be better on global warming than George W. Bush; and any of them would be more likely to sign a serious climate bill into law. And as for changes in Congress--given the current momentum for global warming action, it is hard for me to see how we would get a new set of reps who are less inclined towards action than the current ones. In fact, congressional climate bad guy number one--Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe--may even be gone in 2009.
So what will Boxer do, and should we support her?
Well, see here for my answer.
- Log in to post comments
Nice summary of the "what ifs" surrounding Leiberman-Warner.
I can almost guarantee that Senate Majority Leader Reid will try to bring Lieberman-Warner to a vote. The main questions are 1. when and 2. will there be a filibuster against it? If there is a filibuster, Reid may not be able to come up with the 60 votes he needs to break it--most notably because Sen. John McCain appears to be skipping every environmentally-important vote that comes up this year. (His reasons for this could be the subject of an entirely different blog post, so I won't speculate now.)
If the bill passes in the Senate, it still has to run the gauntlet in the House. House Energy and Commerce committee Chair John Dingell and his right-hand man, Rep. Rick Boucher, are taking their time. The bill they eventually produce may not necessarily look much like L-W. And whether it will pass the House...and then what the conference committee will look like...and then whether the President will sign it...there are a whole lot of what-ifs still to come.
I give it only a 25 percent chance that a climate change bill will come before the current president.
There's also an issue that you didn't bring up-- the bill is massive corporate welfare for coal companies (certainly not good for the environment). If one is against corporate welfare in general, or against corporate welfare for companies that pollute in massive amounts, one must oppose this bill.