Climate and energy

The Senate has begun debating the Climate Security Act, also known as Warner-Lieberman, also known as Lieberman-Warner. (You can find the text of the bill here, and listen in live here.) CEP took notes on the debate on Day 1 and Day 2.

W-L is the first carbon regulation proposal to make it this far in Congress. It is a system of cap and trade. Carbon regulation is not widely expected to pass until the next presidential administration – all three remaining candidates support some form of it.

A great deal of the climate and energy debate in the states – such as Kansas – revolves around the fact that Congress is expected to soon implement carbon regulation. The Warner-Lieberman bill, regardless of whether it is passed, will set the foundation for this regulation.

Thus, CEP is taking notes. The debate will go on all day and we will fade in and out, but check back for updates to this entry as we roughly follow along.

Some of the major trends we have noticed so far: There is an elephant in the room. Its name is “carbon tax.”

There are basically three main types of models for carbon regulation – command and control, cap and trade, and a carbon tax. Command and control is off the table. Supporters of carbon regulation often agree that a carbon tax is the best way to go, but that there’s no way that any policy initiative with the word “tax” in it has a chance of getting passed. So that left cap and trade.

Opposition of carbon regulation is kind of mixed right now, though. The traditional dogma about cap and trade is that it is hugely bureaucratic with lots of overhead – meaning, big government. So if you are a small government person… well… if there is going to be carbon regulation, maybe a carbon tax doesn’t look so bad after all. The opposition is very torn between trying to say that cap and trade is actually a hidden carbon tax, and then realizing that if they tank cap and trade they might be left with a carbon tax.

Rock and a hard place. That’s one interesting trend. Another is that the opposition is trying to make this about gas prices. Supporters counter that rising gas prices are happening with or without carbon regulation, that that is about peak oil.

Another trend, one that crosses opposition and support – the development of nuclear power.

More supporters are talking today. We’ll probably get a different cross-section of arguments and rebuttals than on Day 2. (and for some of these pros, I haven’t heard a con yet. Which doesn’t mean it’s not out there, probably just that I was away from my desk.)

Also – if I covered an argument in Day 2, unless it is changed or updated – tweaked in some interesting way – I won’t repeat it here.

I am also to the best of my ability trying to scrub the debate of all the partisan bickering (since CEP is nonpartisan). But that’s quite difficult, because there’s a lot of it.

Climate change: Pro: The earth is heating up and changing what we do here is going to threaten business as usual and burning of fossil fuels and special interests and they will claim they are being harmed and that’s tough we still have to figure it out. Con: Hey wait!

Carbon: Pro: We are pumping way too much carbon into the air and that’s not good. Con: (MH: There’s actually no rebuttal to this one. Or not one that anyone in Congress is any longer saying. You don’t hear “carbon dioxide is good” or “carbon dioxide is harmless” anywhere in the national debate right now.)

Scientific evidence: Pro: Scientists – who are conservative people who don’t really get along (Kerry said that yesterday) – generally agree that climate change is happening and we have to do something and we are uncertain about what exactly will happen but we know there are big risks and the prudent thing to do is to take precautions. Con: There is a lack of scientific certainty about climate change and the risks are unknown and the potential harm is not clearly demonstrated and the social and economic changes would be so enormous that the prudent thing is to do nothing until we are sure.

Carbon sequestration: Pro: we’re still going to have to use coal so let’s throw money into research and development for carbon sequestration technologies. And let’s consider enhanced oil recovery – and even algae.

Renewable energy: Pro: We have to start making the transition to renewables and energy efficiency and subsidies are the only way to make this transition happen and that’s a big chunk of where money from this bill goes.

Technology development: Pro: We need to put billions into R&D. A moon shot! Con: Um, is that taking away from the relief the bill gives to consumers?

Stewardship: Pro: We have to take care of what God gave us, the planet, or Mother Nature will not work in balance.

Gas Prices: Con: The short-term emergency of gas prices makes it impossible for us to consider long-term carbon regulation at this time. Plus which the American people are more concerned about gas prices than global warming. We need to be doing something about rising energy prices not global warming. Rising prices threaten the economy, global warming doesn’t. If you think any different you are out of touch. Pro: Agh! (MH – kidding, see above)

Wise and prudent: Pro: We are! Con: No, we are!

Fossil fuels: Con: This bill is trying to kill fossil fuels. Pro: This bill is trying to clean them up. Con: But that will kill some of them. Pro: Well, if they don’t clean up. Con: The technology isn’t there yet, they can’t, that’s not fair. Pro: That’s why we are throwing billions at R&D.

Coal: Con: Coal is the engine of economic development and if America imperils coal with carbon regulation then jobs will go to countries that still allow coal like India and China and our economy will be in big trouble. Pro: If we support a renewable energy economy then that will even it out.

Jobs: Pro: This bill will create a renewable energy economy will bring new green jobs that can’t be exported. It is a world of opportunity. Con: This bill will destroy an existing energy economy and destroy existing jobs and export jobs. It is a world fraught with danger.

Air pollution: Pro: We have to cut air pollution so it doesn’t hurt our atmosphere and people’s lungs. Con: We can only cut pollution costs if it doesn’t cost money and doesn’t hurt people’s pocketbooks.

CAFE standards: Con: If we raise CAFE standards to 52 mpg like NRDC wants we will have a nation of golf carts hauling our kids farm produce and trade goods! Pro: Wait, where did that come from? That’s not in the bill.

Support for bill: Con: Environmentalists support this bill and manufacturers and workers don’t. Pro: Hang on, many many manufacturers signed letters of support for this bill because they want regulatory certainty on carbon regulation. Con: Not the right manufacturers.

Benefits of bill: Con: The environmental benefits of this bill aren’t enough to justify the economic impact. Especially since the emissions reduction targets are so low.

Standard for bill: Con: We need to have low energy prices and a healthy environment and be able to have big families and drive all we want and carbon regulation has to accomplish all this or we won’t vote for it. There is some form of carbon regulation out there that can accomplish all this and this bill isn’t it.

FYI – 1:00 p.m. If you have been listening in online and are puzzled as to what’s going on with the bill, well, the opposition is forcing the poor clerks to read the entire thing.

There could be many reasons why this is happening. Usually it means stalling while fights and arm-twisting I mean democratic discussion is going on off-camera. Earlier it was mentioned that the opposition to the bill was upset that supporters might not allow them to bring an unlimited number of amendments to the bill. So that negotiation could be part of the delay.

2:00 Now the CSPAN update says that Republicans are forcing the reading of the entire Climate Security bill to protest the slow pace of judicial nominations. Fine by me, I am learning one heck of a lot, just by listening! They can read the whole thing as far as I am concerned. That’s more than I was going to do.

What’s funny – this would appear to take away the “we didn’t have time to review the bill in-depth” argument. And the “we don’t understand the bill’s complexity.”

BUZZWORDS: energy security, affordable energy, good decent trustworthy citizens, grandchildren, American way of life

— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org