Climate Bill in Senate

June 3, 2008 by weatherdem 1 Comment

There was a Denver Post editorial piece last week regarding the Climate Security Act, formally S.2191, introduced last year by Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Warner. The editorial called on Senators Salazar and Allard to support the bill. What would it do?

This bill, as currently written, would commit the U.S. to reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 4 percent below 2005 levels beginning in 2012 and by 71 percent by 2050. It would set out to achieve those goals by establishing what is called a cap-and-trade system. The government would establish a level of emissions that represents the cap: the maximum level allowable without penalties. Entities (such as corporations) that know they will or are likely to exceed that cap can purchase carbon credits on an exchange. Those credits are available on the exchange because other entities emit less than the cap. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those that can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society.

So there are two things that I don’t like about this bill. The first is the baseline year: 2005. 2005 levels of carbon dioxide emissions were the highest verifiable value recorded. Values after 2005 might be available, but they’re not being discussed yet. In any event, I would much rather see 2000 or 1995 or 1990 as the baseline year. Those values would represent a more difficult target to hit, but I think they’re necessary given the seriousness of this situation. Part of me views 2005 values as alright. Another part, probably the more realistic part, views them as woefully inadequate. If we don’t get our emissions under control very, very soon, the biosphere as we knew it in the 20th century will be relegated to history books and old films. As a dynamic system, our climate can drastically shift given a small change in forcing. No one knows where we are in relation to any kind of potential tipping point.

The second thing I don’t like about this bill is the cap-and-trade system. To be more clear, I don’t think the way it looks like it will be set up will actually allow emissions targets to be met. I think there is too much wiggle room for the potential market to work effectively.

An emissions market was set up in the European Union (the largest economy in the world, btw) in January 2005 with all 15 (now 25 of the 27) member states of the EU participating. While the first phase (2005 – 2007) received criticism due to oversupply of allowances and the distribution method of allowances (via grandfathering rather than auctioning), Phase II links the Emission Trading Scheme to other countries participating in the Kyoto trading system. The European Commission has been tough on Member States’ Plans for Phase II, dismissing many of them as being too loose again.

I don’t expect the U.S. government, with its current makeup of denyers’ influence, to get tough on states or corporations or any other entities. Nobody should take a different make-up of government officials or attitudes for granted. The laws enacted need to be very tough. Technologies exist to achieve very aggressive goals. It’s the political will that’s been missing. This bill is one step down a long road of enacting solutions and possible recovery from the position we’ve put ourselves in.

I see the two problems mentioned above manifest themselves in different communities advocating for and against S.2191. And those positions are active in the pro-environmental segment of our society. For example, CREDO action is asking supporters to tell their Senators to either “fix it or ditch it”. I know both also exist in other segments, but won’t spend time addressing them in this post. The next post, however…

So it was interesting to see the Post editorial board call out both Colorado Senators regarding this legislation.

Global climate change deniers who insist we can continue to exponentially increase America’s dependence on imported oil and other fossil fuels are blindly promoting a policy of environmental and economic ruin.

That’s pretty strong words for a group I don’t consider progressive at all. They, like a quickly growing number of corporations, see what’s really going on. They’ve cut through the propaganda and spin and are ready to address the problem head on. If that doesn’t validate the significance of the climate change problem, not much else will. At least until we see, hear and read about significant physically visible changes.

The bill, as of Tuesday afternoon, is still in the midst of discussion and debate in the Senate. I’ll watch its progress moving forward.