legislation

If cost-containment mechanisms in new climate bill are exploited, emissions could remain unchanged

The short, snarky answer is "No; Boxer-Lieberman-Warner is never going to become law." The longer, analytical answer, which is the primary subject of this post, is "probably not, thanks to the bill's many cost containment measures, but it would take us off the business-as-usual emissions path."

Before explaining why, let me make clear that the vote on B-L-W is purely symbolic, since it is DOA as a bill can be. Most of the media, most of the public, and most of the world are unlikely to get much detail on the bill. They will just see whether a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade bill can get a majority, if not 60 votes, in the U.S. Senate. So I would recommend any senator vote for it -- after giving a floor statement explaining that it was in fact too weak. I can't see casting a protest vote against a symbolic bill while asserting it is too weak. The protest would get lost in the noise. Finally, it would be the height of hypocrisy for a conservative senator to cite progressive critiques of the bill, including mine, as a reasons to vote against it. Anyone who votes against this bill should at least have the guts to say whether they themselves think the bill is too weak or too strong.

Why the Boxer bill wouldn't cut U.S. CO2 emissions by 2020

This story begins late Friday night, when Deep 'emissions cut' Throat sends me the World Resources Institute's 14-page summary of the Boxer substitute to the Lieberman-Warner bill [PDF], with a note, "Does this mean no emission reductions until 2028? See bottom of page 6." Intrigued, I turned to the bottom of page 6 and read this bullet:

Climate bill fight likely to divide Republicans

Politico reports on the divide between John McCain and other Republicans on climate change: By contrast, the debate on a bipartisan climate change bill sponsored by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) offers McCain a chance to stake out a position different from the president’s and see if his party will follow. […]

Lost amid the crop-subsidy battle, a new biofuel regime

Amid all the thunder and lightening about subsidies in the new farm bill — which officially became law Thursday — Congress made a major policy shift with regard to the goodies lavished on ethanol makers. Under previous policy, biofuel makers — whether conventional or cellulosic — benefit from a 51 cent a gallon tax credit […]

Coal industry launches full-scale attack against climate legislation

Originally posted at the Wonk Room.

The coal-industry front group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity has launched a major lobbying campaign against the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. ACCCE claims it is opposed to Lieberman-Warner because it "does not adequately embrace" their "principles" and raises "just too many unanswered questions."

Principles: ACCCE's 12 principles [PDF] for federal legislation boil down to demands that they be allowed to construct new, uncontrolled coal-fired power plants until taxpayers pony up unlimited amounts of money for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. That's not a statement of principles -- it's a ransom note.

Lieberman-Warner, named for its two co-sponsors Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.), would allow the United States to join the rest of the world in combatting climate change by setting a firm limit on carbon emissions while providing support to low-income families. However, the bill also makes significant concessions to polluters, particularly the coal industry:

• The bill calls for reductions in greenhouse emissions that are insufficient to avoid climate catastrophe.
• The bill gives a windfall of emissions permits to polluters, instead of auctioning all permits [PDF].
• The bill promises over $300 billion directly to coal polluters.

Strangely, that isn't enough for ACCCE.

House passes Defense authorization bill, includes various climate-related elements

The House passed ($ub. req’d) the defense authorization bill for 2009 last night, and there were several climate and energy-related components included. One amendment modifies part of last year’s energy bill that forbids federal agencies from purchasing alternative or synthetic fuels that have higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than conventional petroleum. Amendment sponsor Rep. Dan […]

Looks like …

… the coal battle in Kansas is over for the time being. Score: Coal-0; earth/Sebelius/Kansas ratepayers-1

After blunder, the legislation slouches back to limbo

For the first time in its long process, the 2008 — née 2007 — farm bill was going according to script. Congress finally came up with a final version. Bush vetoed it, just as he had promised. The House overrode the veto, just as everyone knew it would. Next stop: the Senate, where Bush’s veto […]

New pro-LW ad from EDF

EDF has a new ad out supporting the Climate Security Act: The Act does indeed tell polluters they can’t pollute for free — in fact, it offers them $1 trillion [PDF] for their efforts!

Agriculture produces more than just crops — and it’s time for policy to reflect that

In spite of the best efforts of sustainable agriculture, environmental, and healthy food advocates over the past two years to reform U.S. farm policy, the bill recently passed by Congress lacks fundamental reform. Although the bill includes some environmental and healthy food system improvements over existing legislation, the system of commodity subsidies remains intact, and it is these subsidies, together with biofuels subsidies and mandates embodied in the farm bill and energy legislation, that drive the basic structure of the U.S. farm and food system.

To break the farm-block stranglehold on farm and food policy the next time around, we need a need a new vision of agriculture: one that recognizes that farmers produce more than just food, feed, fuel, and fiber. We also count on farmers to take care of vast swaths of critically important land. What we need, in short, is a "multifunctionality" vision of agriculture.