Time for Senate Action on Global Warming
The Senate has shown it can take pretty strong action on energy security, with the first boost to fuel economy standards in three decades. But where is the action on a far more serious issue?
E&E News has a long, thoughtful article on the subject, “Grumbling about Boxer continues as EPW panel returns to hearings.” A subscription is required, but I’ll post the whole article below the fold, as it were.
The bottom line of the story? Critics of Boxer “have started to grumble in private that she has lost a handle on the climate issue and may soon be outpaced by other committees and political events surrounding the 2008 presidential election.”
I agree with those who say that getting 60 votes in the Senate for a cap & trade is tough — and getting serious legistlation enacted while Bush is President, even tougher. But the key issues need to be put on the national agenda in time for them to become a major part of the presidential debate — in both party primaries and then the general election. That is the only way to ensure the country is behind serious action starting in 2009.
If progressives can’t win on the climate change issue in 2008, when will they be able to?
Here’s the whole story:
Darren Samuelsohn, E&E Daily senior reporter
After a week of frenetic energy policy activity on the Senate floor, the global warming spotlight returns this week to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee where Democratic leaders hope to begin laying the groundwork for legislation that would curb heat-trapping pollution.
EPW Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) expects the Thursday hearing to delve deep into the issue of how best to control emissions from one leading U.S. source: coal-fired power plants.
For Boxer, the hearing also gives her a platform to address critics who have started to grumble in private that she has lost a handle on the climate issue and may soon be outpaced by other committees and political events surrounding the 2008 presidential election.
“Forgive the pun, but it’s almost like boxers circling each other and not yet coming to blows,” said Frank O’Donnell, head of the nonprofit Clean Air Watch. “We’ve had a few relatively minor things in some of these energy bills, which are in some cases positive. But so far, Congress hasn’t stepped up to deal with the elephant in the room.”
That elephant would be a mandatory cap on U.S. carbon emissions.
So far, Boxer has brought witnesses in this year to testify about everything from the effects of climate change on recreation to how California wants to develop its own pollution standards. While Boxer held an open forum at the start of this Congress for senators to share their opinions, she has taken heat for waiting until now to conduct hearings specifically about legislative proposals.
This week’s hearing brings together a cross-section of witnesses, including environmentalists and the directors of some of the nation’s largest electric utility companies. Republicans have also invited an outspoken skeptic who questions the science of climate change, as well as a top coal industry official sure to raise concerns about the costs to the economy should the United States take the significant step of controlling its own emissions.
Boxer’s aides said the hearing will explore cap-and-trade proposals that would set mandatory limits on power plants — which produce about 40 percent of the nation’s 7.2 billion metric tons per year of greenhouse gases. Further hearings after the July 4 recess will cover legislation that controls greenhouse emissions across the U.S. economy, including a wide number of different industrial plants and transportation fuels.
An EPW Committee staff member said Boxer also intends to lead a congressional delegation to Greenland next month to see first-hand the effects of global warming. She is bringing along Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), a freshman who earlier this month told E&E Daily he does not support mandatory caps on emissions.
“She’s looking for a constructive approach and when she has the votes to move forward on a meaningful package, she will do that,” the Boxer aide said. “It’s difficult to say when. But we’ve very optimistic to say we’ll make significant progress this year.”
Boxer v. Bingaman?
This week’s hearing carries multiple subplots.
While Boxer’s committee has primary jurisdiction over global warming, some environmentalists and Democratic staffers in recent weeks have raised concerns that the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee may steal the lead.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman of the energy panel, drafted cap-and-trade legislation in 2005 designed to go to his committee to avoid a confrontation with Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), then the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and a skeptic on man-made global warming.
Boxer now runs the EPW Committee, but she has yet to gain the full assurance of Bingaman that he will not try to keep his bill on his own turf.
Environmentalists argue the Bingaman approach does not go far enough to control emissions in line with the scientific evidence linked to global warming. But they think he may offer the most politically attractive solution to climate change for the narrowly divided Senate, bringing with him more Republicans and Democrats who previously opposed mandatory caps on emissions.
Asked about his strategy earlier this month, Bingaman in an interview said he had made no decisions on the key design principles in his bill that would determine where the Senate parliamentarian refers the legislation. Committee staff, Bingaman explained, were preoccupied with the Senate energy bill headed to the floor and had not had time to focus on climate legislation.
“I don’t know that I have a preference at this point,” he said. “I don’t know what the prospects of getting favorable consideration are in either committee at this point.”
Boxer said in an interview earlier this month that she too did not know what Bingaman planned to do with his bill.
Jason Grumet, executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy and a witness at this Thursday’s hearing, said Friday he thinks concerns over committee jurisdiction are overblown.
“I see no evidence to support the suggestion that Senator Bingaman is trying to craft legislation with any specific intent to push it toward [the Energy and Natural Resources Committee], or away from EPW,” he said. “That will be revealed quite explicitly when the bill is introduced.”
Still others doubt the Bingaman-Boxer dispute is that big of a deal.
“Right now, we’re working with Senator Boxer and [Sen.] Joe Lieberman [I-Conn.] to see if we can’t get the votes out of the committee,” Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said. “But we’re not there yet.”
Added Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), a member of Boxer’s committee: “What’s new about jurisdiction and committee arguments? Twenty nine years I’ve been here. I’ve walked on more of that turf than anybody around here.”
Ultimately, several sources insisted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will make the final decision on what bill or bills come to the floor. One possible advantage for Boxer is Chris Miller, Reid’s key staffer on energy and environmental policy and a former top aide on the Environment and Public Works Committee under former Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-Vt.).
Also important to recognize, aides say, is the Senate’s slim one-vote majority. “They’re going as fast as humanly possible under these circumstances, and these are tough circumstances,” said one Senate Democratic aide not on the EPW Committee.
Boxer’s opponents also predict they have the 40 votes necessary to block whatever the Democrats produce.
“In all fairness to Chairman Boxer, I don’t think the cap-and-trade she would move gets a majority,” said Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho).
Inhofe gave a similar assessment during an interview last month. “My inclination is it would enjoy more support in getting out of committee than it would on the floor, and ultimately, that’s where the battleground probably will be,” he said.
Environmentalists and some Democrats also say they may be better off waiting to push climate legislation after the 2008 elections, where some polls show them winning wider majorities on Capitol Hill and also even the White House.
“This is one of those 8,000 line computer programs trying to figure out how to model this thing,” the Democratic aide said.
Dingell and carbon taxes
Boxer so far has given only a vague notion of her legislative schedule. That is quite different than her House Democratic counterparts, including Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.).
Dingell remains under pressure from Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to produce a bill on climate change this fall. And Dingell’s top climate lieutenant, Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher (D-Va.), said last week he will try this September to mark up legislation with mandatory carbon controls.
Dingell has promised a vigorous global warming debate in the fall that covers fuel economy standards for cars and the possibility of federal pre-emption of state laws on climate change, including California. And Dingell appeared last week to open the door to an even broader response to limiting domestic greenhouse gas emissions through a tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels.
“My own judgment is that we are going to have to adopt a cap-and-trade system and some form of carbon emission fee to achieve the reductions we need,” he said at the start of last week’s subcommittee markup on energy legislation.
Dingell’s comments on a carbon emission fee caught many by surprise.
“We’re going to have a discussion about exactly what that means,” Boucher said in response to a reporter’s question about Dingell’s remarks. During the interview, Boucher echoed comments Boxer has made about carbon taxes, dismissing them because they do not provide enough of a guarantee of specific emission reductions.
“If you’re looking for certainty in the level of reductions you have to have some regulatory approach, and within the realm of regulatory approaches, the main thing that’s been recommended is some type of cap-and-trade system,” Boucher said.
At the same time, Boucher added, “These decisions have not been made. We’ll get to that in the proper time.”
In a brief interview Thursday, Pelosi said she favors cap-and-trade over a carbon tax. “You can’t answer about a provision that you haven’t seen, but cap-and-trade will be essential to the green economy that we’re trying to create,” she said.
As for timing, Pelosi said she hoped to see action on the floor before the end of the year. “Maybe September,” she said.
