legislation

On Sen. Bob Corker's 'support' for carbon legislation

A cap-and-trade program that auctions 100 percent of its pollution permits and refunds the auction revenue back to taxpayers is functionally equivalent to a refunded carbon tax -- or at least as close to a functional equivalent as carbon policy is likely to get in this world.

So when Obama unveiled a budget that contained a cap-and-trade program with 100 percent auctions and 80 percent rebates, you'd think advocates of refunded carbon taxes would have been thrilled. They could have said, "this isn't exactly what I'd advocate, but it's a step in the right direction. I welcome Obama's willingness to compromise."

So what did Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who allegedly supports a refunded carbon tax, do?

He called the proposal "sleight of hand." He said:

I guess his claim on Tuesday night that no one earning under $250,000 would pay more in taxes did not apply to this massive climate tax increase all Americans will pay.

This, remember, is from a guy who allegedly wants a carbon tax.

Moments later, Corker's office said:

Corker has worked to ensure that whatever Congress implements, be it a cap-and-trade system that acts as a tax or a transparent carbon tax, that 100 percent of the tax revenue is returned to the American people and is not used to increase the size of government.

Obama proposed an auctioned system that returns 80 percent of the revenue. Corker wants 100 percent of the revenue returned. Because he didn't get exactly what he wanted -- only 80 percent of what he wanted -- Corker is badmouthing the plan and working to destroy it.

Corker has talked his way inside the carbon policy tent and now he's trying to burn it down. He's got lots of company.

Mixing climate and energy legislation in the same bill is not a good idea

Apparently Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) has sold both Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and the White House on the strategy of having a mega-bill that combines climate and energy legislation. This post explains why I believe that is both a tactical and strategic mistake.

E&E News PM ($ub. req'd) reports:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) confirmed today that he will package energy and global warming measures together into one large bill for consideration later this year, a decision that should put to rest questions about whether Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill have different strategies for one of President Obama's top agenda items.

Reid gave only a one-word answer -- "yes" -- when asked whether he planned to wrap a cap-and-trade bill together with separate bills establishing a nationwide renewable electricity standard (RES) and promotion of a modernized grid that can improve energy efficiency, reliability and renewable energy management.

There are three reasons this is a bad idea -- two that are obvious to all, one that is apparently not. First, the climate bill is huge and complicated and uber-controversial and will be exceedingly difficult to get to Obama's desk this year according to everybody I talk to (see here). So that means we are delaying important clean energy and smart-green grid bills that could otherwise probably get passed by the end of the summer (and quickly start help Obama meet his crucial promise of doubling renewable power in his first term):

But not everyone is on the same page.

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said earlier today that he wants to mark up the energy and "smart grid" legislation next month and he still has doubts whether a cap-and-trade bill can move within the same timeframe. "I hate to see all of that sort of held hostage until we can get agreement on a cap-and-trade bill," he told reporters today.

Second, and more importantly, the climate bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation that any Congress will ever consider. You don't want to add stuff to it that will lose votes or give people an excuse to vote against it. The RES in particular may prove unpopular with people who might otherwise be inclined to vote for the climate bill -- since the whole point of a cap and trade is that you don't force everybody to do exactly the same thing, whereas the point of the RES is that every state is being mandated to adopt the same percentage of renewable power.

50 green and civic groups roll out tough climate principles

Fifty environmental and public-interest groups threw their weight behind a set of tough principles for climate legislation on Thursday. The principles are broad, but they set the stage for tension among the country’s major green groups on climate policy. Endorsers of the National Call to Action on Global Warming [PDF] include a wide range of […]

NRDC climate guy to advise the global warming select committee

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) on Friday announced that he’s added Natural Resources Defense Council’s Michael Goo to the roster at the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming. Goo, NRDC’s climate legislative director, is serving as special counsel to the committee focusing on climate legislation. Prior to joining NRDC, Goo worked for two […]

Senate votes in support of species protections

The U.S. Senate on Thursday stood up for endangered-species protections. In the waning days of the Bush presidency, the administration pushed through two species-related rules, one that scaled back scientific reviews for endangered species and another that limited protections for the polar bear specifically. The Obama administration wants to undo those rules, and congressional leaders […]

What are the chances of passing a renewable electricity standard this year?

President Obama, Democratic leaders in Congress, and environmentalists all want to get rolling on a national renewable electricity standard (RES), which would require utilities to increase the amount of power they generate from solar, wind, and other renewable sources. But getting an RES through Congress won’t be a cakewalk. In the House, the chances are […]

Reps reintroduce Clean Water Protection Act, aiming to curb mountaintop-removal mining

It's official: The first shot has been fired in the legislative battle to end the devastating practice of mountaintop-removal coal mining in central Appalachia.

With the quickly growing and extraordinary nationwide support of 117 cosponsors, including 17 members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. John Yarmuth (D) from the embattled coal state of Kentucky joined Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Rep. Dave Reichert (R-Wash.) in reintroducing the Clean Water Protection Act on Wednesday.

The act was introduced originally to challenge the outrageous executive rule change by the Bush administration to redefine "fill material" in the Clean Water Act, which has allowed coal companies to blast hundreds of mountains to bits, dump millions of tons of "excess spoil" into nearby valleys, and bury hundreds of miles of streams. An estimated 1,200 miles of waterways have been destroyed by this extreme mining process.

The end result: Toxic black waters and poisoned aquifers that have denied American citizens in the coalfields the basic right of a glass of clean water.

Congress takes a step toward regulating coal waste, but what about the EPA?

A bill aimed at reining in mountaintop-removal coal mining has been reintroduced in the House. The Clean Water Protection Act, sponsored by Reps. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), Dave Reichert (R-Wash.), and John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), would outlaw the dumping of mining waste into streams, which would make it significantly more difficult for mining companies to blast […]

One last foray into the economics discussion

The guys at Environmental Economics replied to my post on economics and climate here and here. Read if you like. I would protest that "the extreme position by some environmentalists that economics is evil" has nothing to do with me or what I wrote, and that if there is some war between Environmentalism As Such and Economics As Such I want nothing to do with it, but ... feh.

I just want to make one final point, somewhat abstracted from the details of this oh-so-illuminating back and forth. In the course of decrying the pointlessness of a battle between greens and economists, Ryan Avent defends me from Tim Haab's charge that I'm an idiot:

Roberts is very smart on these issues and has a very sophisticated, and for the most part correct (in my view), outlook on carbon pricing.

First, thanks!

Now, not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but note the evidence offered that I'm not an economic philistine: I respect carbon pricing. I don't want to make too much of a passing comment, but this strikes me as endemic to these debates: the notion that when it comes to environment and energy issues, "economics" means "market-based policy" means "pricing."

This seems like a weirdly constrained use of economics to me -- reflective of the narrow range of economics visible in America's public conversation -- and it's made for a weirdly constrained debate. Economists themselves aren't necessarily guilty -- see here -- but it's true of many people arriving newly to climate/energy policy debates. They discover that Economic Science says one thing and fuzzy headed advocates say something else, so of course they want to be Sensible and side with Economic Science (don't want to get patouli on you!). Thus you get a weird kind of zealotry around pricing from people who know very little about the specifics of environmental history or regulation or technology, whereby they wildly overstate the potential of pricing and proclaim confidently that Economic Science has discredited the alternatives. (*cough*carbon tax advocates*cough)

Seems to me, though, economic thinking could go both more micro and more macro than carbon pricing.