legislation

Sen. Bob Corker wants a carbon tax

"I wish we would just talk about a carbon tax, 100 percent of which would be returned to the American people. So there's no net dollars that would come out of the American people's pockets."

-- Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), addressing Al Gore during a Jan. 28 hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

House passes stimulus package with more than $100 billion in green spending

Without the support of a single Republican lawmaker, the House today approved the $819 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act by a vote of 244-188.

The package would allocate more than $100 billion in direct spending for various green projects, including money for clean energy and efficiency programs, a smart grid, weatherization of low- and moderate-income homes, retrofits on public buildings and public housing, clean water infrastructure, and environmental restoration.

The measure contains $14.6 billion for public transportation, $3 billion more than originally planned thanks to an amendment that mass transit supporters were able to add during debate. There's also $37.9 billion for energy efficiency and $27.8 billion for renewable energy. On top of those amounts, the Ways and Means Committee added $20 billion in renewable-energy and energy-efficiency tax credits and related financial incentives, and inserted language to make the investment tax credit passed last year refundable.

The bill now moves to the Senate, which probably won't vote on a package until next week. Appropriators have been hashing out how they'll distribute funds, and it's looking like green projects won't fare as well in the Senate version even though senators' package is $68 billion larger. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved $365.6 billion in spending, and the Senate Finance Committee passed $522 billion in tax measures, which include incentives for renewables. There's only $8.4 billion for mass transit in the Senate package, which is even less than a previous draft of the bill called for.

House debates adjustments to the stimulus package

The House is expected to pass the stimulus bill this evening, and they're currently debating amendments. There's already some good news for greens: They just approved a $3 billion increase in funding for mass transit.

The amendment, proposed by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), brings the total for public transit to $14.6 billion. It was cosponsored by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.), Rep. Michael McMahon (D-N.Y.), Rep. Keith Ellison (D, Minn.). Greater Greater Washington reports that Nadler said in his floor speech today that $1.5 billion of the funds will go to the transit capital formula program and $1.5 billion to the new starts program.

An amendment [PDF] from Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to remove all funding for Amtrak from the bill failed.

In addition to the transit funding, the package has $37.9 billion for energy efficiency and $27.8 billion for renewable energy.

Rep. James Oberstar, the chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Comittee, is also pushing for an amendment that would mandate that funds for aviation, highway, rail, and transit come with a "use-it-or-lose-it" provisions, requiring that 50 percent of the funds be obligated within 90 days.

OpenCongress has a complete list of the amendments to be considered.

UPDATE: Oberstar's amendment passed.

Holmes Hummel on climate policy design

Holmes Hummel is a "Lecturer and Policy Specialist at the UC-Berkeley Energy Resources Group, and previously served as a Congressional Science Fellow focused on energy and climate policy development." That's from her bio. What's not on her bio is the fact that she's smarter than you and 10 of your smartest friends, combined.

She's put together a PowerPoint slideshow and taped a lecture titled, "U.S. Energy and Climate Policy on the Road Ahead," and it's worth your while to give it a read/listen. Find it under the "Recent Posts" section, here.

Can Congress be trusted to get necessary GHG legislation right?

We need an economy-wide greenhouse gas bill that puts a price on GHG emissions and allows reallocation of capital in response. Congress increasingly appears unable to produce such a bill.

First came the fiasco of Lieberman-Warner, wherein it became quite apparent that the route to Congressional approval was paved with district-directed pork, stealing money out of CO2-reduction efforts and distributing it to any number of pet projects. Thankfully, that failed.

Then last week, Speaker Pelosi suggested that the great thing about cap-and-trade is that it gives Congress money to dole out to favored interests:

I believe we have to [implement cap and trade] because we see that as a source of revenue ...

Again, the idea that the purpose of a GHG bill is to reduce CO2 emissions is completely subsumed by salivation over the potential grab bag.

Now comes this, from E&E Daily ($ub. req'd), noting that given the choice between a California waiver and cap-and-trade, legislators from the rust belt prefer cap-and-trade. Why? Because it might give them a chance to throw some money back at their districts:

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), for example, pointed to the large new revenue stream often linked to a cap-and-trade system, saying that the money would help domestic automakers retool their plants to meet a tighter suite of emission standards.

"I think that ultimately this gets addressed in the energy bill to slash cap and trade," Stabenow said. "It's not enough just to talk about the regulations. If we want to have a domestic auto industry, we have to be provided support, particularly in the middle of this global credit crisis where we have to invest massive amounts of money and aren't able to get credit."

Is the purpose of a cap-and-trade bill really to provide bailout dollars to the auto industry?

I write book reviews and talk on the radio

Because too much Roberts is never enough:

What seems like a million years ago (I'll never get used to paper media schedules), I wrote a review of Van Jones' new book The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems for In These Times. It's up now, with the somewhat unfortunate headline "It's Not Easy Becoming Green." (Note to eco-headline writers: no more Kermit references; no more inconvenient-anything references; no more "green is the new X.") Of course you'll want to read every scintillating word, but the basic thrust is, Van Jones in person is an unbelievable dynamo who's reshaping the political landscape in extraordinary ways; Van Jones in his book is rather flat and prosaic. With a few exceptions, it's difficult to hear the former's voice in the latter.

In other Roberts news, I appeared on the Liberal Oasis radio show while I was in D.C., discussing prospects for green legislation in coming years. My mellifluous tones and perspicacious insights are available via a variety of electronic delivery options: iTunes / XML feed / MP3. You should subscribe to the podcast -- host Bill Scher is a top notch thinker and communicator.

There's a reason Republicans stump for a carbon tax, and it ain't to reduce emissions

This may piss off some people I respect a great deal. Nonetheless, after hearing it in several off-the-record conversations in D.C. last week, I believe it's something that needs to be said publicly:

The 111th U.S. Congress is not going to pass a carbon tax. Calls for a carbon tax, to the extent they have any effect, will complicate and possibly derail passage of carbon legislation.

It's possible that a carbon tax (and/or cap-and-dividend) bill will be introduced. One or both might even make it to a full vote, though I doubt it. But they won't pass. If you want carbon pricing out of this Congress, cap-and-trade is what you're getting. It follows that your energies are best spent ensuring that cap-and-trade legislation is as strong as possible.

Them's the facts.

Through some process I find truly mysterious, the carbon tax has become a kind of totem of authenticity among progressives, while cap-and-trade now symbolizes corporate sellouthood. Across the interwebs, lefties now proclaim with absolute confidence and no small sanctimony that we should entrust our children's future to economists (whose historical contribution to environmental policy has been hostility, doomsaying, and an unbroken record of error) and the Congressional committees that control tax policy (climate champions all). "Pay to pollute," once the scourge of the green movement, is now the sine qua non of keepin' it real. It is baffling.

It doesn't seem to daunt these folks that their hostility toward cap-and-trade and support for carbon taxes has been taken up by a growing cadre on the far right, including Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, economist Arthur Laffer, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), and yes, even climate wingnut Sen. James Inhofe (R-Gamma Quadrant). Hell, throw in a refunded gas tax and you get America's Worst Columnist© Charles Krauthammer too. Are we to believe that these folks understand the threat of climate chaos, want to reduce climate emissions the amount science indicates is prudent, and sincerely believe that a carbon tax is the best way to accomplish that goal?

A pro-rail coalition should be much larger

As a big supporter of rail and transit, the creation of the OneRail coalition is quite heartening. It is, in a nutshell, a group of rail advocacy organizations that have banded together to lobby for rail investment. The Hill reports:

Several trade and issue advocacy groups are part of OneRail, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Amtrak, the American Short Line & Regional Railroad Association, the Association of American Railroads, and the Surface Transportation Policy Partnership.

If I have a complaint, it's this: A broader coalition is necessary. When highway funding is on the table, the heavies get into the game -- the oil companies, automobile companies, and chambers of commerce. Rail activities should also work to exploit the economic spillovers generated by rail investments. Transit-oriented development has proven lucrative for city governments as well as many commercial and residential developers. Producers of products from steel to electric and diesel engines to upholstery could benefit from new transit projects. Power companies, which helped develop the first generation of streetcar networks a century ago, might conceivably benefit from an increase in electricity demand or from the grid improvements that could accompany creation of improved national rail corridors.

The point is this -- rail investment is good environmental, energy, and economic policy, but it's also good business. And if OneRail can get business on board, then we can expect real legislative progress.

Legislative proposals must be judged not only as policy, but also as politics

Consider the following two undertakings:

1. Policy analysis, of the sort think tankers, bloggers, and occasionally journalists do.
2. Passing legislation through Congress, the kind of thing lawmakers, Congressional staffers, lobby groups, and occasionally the public do.

The first is about policy abstracted from politics. The second is about policy immersed in politics. The first makes use of scientific findings, economic models, and conceptual analysis. The second, by and large, does not. Congresscritters are rarely persuaded to vote for (or against) particular bills on the basis of white papers. They are persuaded by retail politics -- arguments about how constituents/contributors in their states/districts will benefit/not from legislation. That's how they keep their skins. So it ever has been; so it ever shall be. Democracy is the worst system of government except the alternatives, etc.

This is not to say that No. 1 is useless, or irrelevant to No. 2. (God forbid, it's what I do with half my waking hours!) Good analysis can serve as a kind of guidepost or compass to show how close lawmakers are coming to the ideals of efficacy, fairness, etc. It can clarify choices.

Nonetheless, the two are often confused. Policy submits to policy analysis; people -- people developing, endorsing, lobbying for, and passing legislation -- submit to political analysis. Criticism of legislative proposals must perforce have two parts: how they fall short as policy, and how they fall short as politics, i.e., how stronger legislation is politically possible.

Making the latter case requires a decent sense of the political players involved. It has to show how lawmakers could be persuaded that their constituents' interests, and/or their own political careers, are at stake. It requires a decent sense of the political dynamic: competing priorities, competing lobbies, and the tools available to those pushing to strengthen bills.