Washblog

The Waxman-Markey bill (H.R. 2454), also known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), will serve as the starting point for the climate debate in the Senate. The House approved the bill on June 26, 2009, by a vote of 219 to 212, and just as with health care reform, a Democratic majority was no guarantee of passage, with no less than 44 Democrats, including many from coal-producing states, voting `No'. Passage would not have been possible without eight Republicans who voted in favor of the bill.

Local Note to Reichert Watchers: Dave Reichert (R. WA-8) was one of the 8 House Republicans who voted for H.R. 2454. But before you give the ex-sheriff kudos for his political bravery and dedication to environmental protection, you should know that before the bill passed, Reichert voted for an amendment to kill the bill by replacing it in its entirety with H.R. 513, aka the New Manhattan Project for Energy Independence, a series of multi-million dollar prizes for energy-related inventions. Seems like Dave was against the bill before he was for it.

The Waxman bill does get some things right, but it misses the mark on others. The long-term emissions limit (cap greenhouse gas emissions at 83% below 2005 levels by 2050) agrees with limits suggested by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), but the short term limits are not aggressive enough to make the long term goals achievable. UCS calls for a cap at 35% below 2005 levels by 2020 while the bill targets only 17%.

Emissions reductions are to be accomplished by implementing a cap and trade policy. Under such a policy, the government sets overall caps on carbon, and then sells allowances to industries that produce greenhouse gas emissions. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The bill provides that funds collected by the government be used to provide rebates to economically disadvantaged consumers to protect them from the increased cost of re-tooling necessary to achieve lower emissions. Unfortunately, this provision of the bill has been severely weakened by literally giving away as much as 85% of the allowances to coal and oil industries for the first decade, deincentivizing carbon reduction. This is not cap and trade any more than a public insurance option is a single payer health care system. And just as a weak public option is worse than no health care reform, a weak cap and trade policy is worse than no carbon emission control program. This is true because passage of these kinds of half measures allow politicians to claim victory and stop working for real change.

Among other concessions to the coal industry, allowances for carbon capture and sequestration are made available, despite the fact that this technology is unproven and likely to be economically unfeasible. And while new power plants must meet more stringent standards for emissions, modifications to existing coal-fired plants that would result in increased emissions might not be subject to the same limitations. For no apparent reason, this bill removes the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate carbon as a pollutant. Strong regulatory powers must be identified in any Senate bill closing loopholes such as these and ensuring that polluting industries are not able to game the system just as we should insist on accountability and oversight of the financial and insurance markets.

Waxman-Markey does provide for a 20% renewable energy standard, mandating that at least 20% of the electricity generated in the U.S. come from renewable sources (the UCS calls for 25%), making possible loans and loan guarantees for development of new businesses and the new jobs they will create. Here again, concessions are being made, classifying trash incineration as "renewable" energy ignoring the fact that it contributes many types of harmful emissions to the atmosphere. Instead, we should include only truly clean renewable energy resources such as solar, wind, geothermal, and plant and animal waste. Taking the lead in these markets is crucial for our economy, as we can be certain that other countries will take advantage of our failure to act, just as the Japanese car makers have benefited from the failure of U.S. automakers to produce fuel efficient cars.

Implementing a strong policy to limit the effects of heat-trapping gases will put the U.S. in a much stronger position in the negotiations to be held at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December. If we do not give away the entire cap and trade auction revenue to King Coal, we can allocate more of those funds for the preservation of tropical rainforests, and there is no other single step that will have more global benefits in the overall reduction of greenhouse gases than preserving the rainforests.

As with health care reform, we will have to combat lies and the lying liars who tell them (apologies to our newest Senator). The New American calls ACES "yet another massive intrusion into the everyday lives of Americans and the profitable operation of American businesses" and warns conservatives that campaigns by "environmental extremists are being joined with the machinations of the Washington elites in a pincer movement that threatens what remains of our economy." Getting the facts will dispel these rumors. The EPA points out in their report that the cap and trade policy proposed by Waxman-Markey will have a relatively modest impact on U.S. consumers since the bulk of revenues from the program are returned to households. Not all environmentalists are enthusiastic (or extremist) about the bill, and it does have support from a broad range of people and organizations, including Al Gore, the United Auto Workers, General Electric, Dow Chemical Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and DuPont. With respect to the impact on the economy, Paul Krugman points out that "a commitment to greenhouse gas reduction would, in the short-to-medium run, have the same economic effects as a major technological innovation: It would give businesses a reason to invest in new equipment and facilities." And new investment in clean energy means new sources of profits for American businesses.

When Congress is back for the fall session, the Senate must correct the failings of the Waxman bill and enact legislation that will provide genuine incentives for development of a new, green economy. Senators will have to look beyond the walls of the Senate chamber and listen to their constituents, not just to the vested interests of corporations making billions from dirty fossil fuels. As with health care, you and I must make our voices heard by calling and emailing our Senators and holding rallies in support of policies that move us toward a future where we use clean, renewable sources of energy, creating jobs for the coming generations and ensuring nothing less than the survival of life on Planet Earth.