Senate Climate Bill Dies—Does the Environment Win?

[polichick]

By Charles Komanoff - THE NATION

Despite a Democratic supermajority in Congress, and despite President Obama's campaign promise to tackle global warming, there will be no climate bill this year. The demise last week of the Kerry-Lieberman Senate bill makes that official. But that may actually be a good thing: it clears the way for genuine solutions to global warming­­—solutions that ordinary Americans can understand and support. And remember, most Americans do want their government to tackle climate change. A recent Stanford University poll found that 74 percent of the public believes climate change is human-caused, poses real threats and requires government action.

The bill that was withdrawn last week, like the Waxman-Markey bill that squeaked through the House last year and similar measures dating back to a 2003 Senate bill sponsored by John McCain, would have attempted to curb carbon emissions by creating a cap-and-trade market, a corporate-friendly approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Under this system, a "capped" number of carbon emission permits are offered to coal, oil and gas extractors and importers, who can then sell (trade) the permits among themselves. As the volume of emissions permitted by the cap declined over time, the price of the carbon permits would rise, causing fossil-fuel energy to cost more and creating incentives to use less.

Cap-and-trade was popular inside the Beltway—some business interests and many mainstream environmental groups insisted on it—but it is a total loser in the larger battle to excite and mobilize public opinion. Attacks by climate-change denialists took a toll, but the arcane nature of cap-and-trade made it hard to love, and its links to the financial industry, originally viewed as an asset, turned toxic after the housing bubble burst.

There is a better way. Virtually everyone who truly desires emissions reductions agrees that putting a (rising) price on carbon is essential. But there's another, better way to do that, one that also would deliver an economic bonus to a majority of Americans: the government should institute a fee-and-dividend system.


http://www.thenation.com/senate-climate-bill-dies-does-environment-win

Very interesting read about legislation I could fight for!

[karynnj]

1. Nice, except he is wrong on the polical appeal

This is essentially the CLEAR proposal by Cantwell and Collins. The problem is that there are areas that are winners and losers in this. In WA state, where a lot of energy is from clean hydroelectric power, the cost of energy would likely increase very little - yet people in that state would get their checks. Now, consider West Virgina (or most of the Midwest). Their power comes from coal. Their costs would increase enormously because of the fees - and they would get a check.

It is pretty easy to see that people getting their power from a coal burning plant, something they don't really choose - other than choosing to live where they do. Now, look at a map and consider how many Democrats would worry that this plan - as stated - would harm their states. One hint there were 14 Democratic Senators from states that use coal who wrote of their concerned to Kerry - and he worked with them. Tell me how you get 60 Senators when you don't have these 14 Senators.

In the Kerry/Lieberman bill, they used a variation of the CLEAR proposal - and credited Cantwell and Collins. One difference were that the dividends were returned in such a way to minimize the impact on the those in areas hurt the most. Apparently, the Nation never bothered to read the summaries of the Kerry/Lieberman bill or bothered to look at why some strong Democrats - including many DU favorites were not for the bill. They could then see why this idea - loved in the abstract by the left - did not move at all in the Senate.

[polichick]

2. I'm in a coal state and have told my Senators that we have to move on...

...from coal to other sources - the people are ahead of our industry whore politicians on this.

Also, the last thing we need is a new market for power brokers to game.

[karynnj]

3. That likely is what they need to hear

I actually think they might be able to pass something that will price carbon and provide a push to shift after the election -- as long as all or most of the tea party candidates lose - ie Paul, Angle, the CO candidate if he beats Norton in the primary, Rubio etc. That would mean that the loses to the Democrats would be small - and many lost Democrats(as far as just this issue goes) - are not with us anyway.

After such results, I would hope that Republicans, who supported this in the past - Collins, Snowe, Graham, McCain might feel freer to support a good bill.

My post was likely too negative - but it seems what the Nation is doing is comparing a pure concept with a bill where trade were made to get towards 60 votes (though they didn't make it). Had Reid started with the CLEAR bill and added the energy bill (Bingaman's), the Nation would likely have the same problem with it.