Climate Bills and a Green Economy

Climate Action in Congress

Source: Pew Center on Global Climate Change

On June 26, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES Act), H.R. 2454, by a vote of 219 to 212. This comprehensive national climate and energy legislation would establish an economy-wide, greenhouse gas (GHG) cap-and-trade system, and critical complementary measures to help address climate change and build a clean energy economy. The legislation was introduced into the House Energy and Commerce Committee by Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, on May 15.

Key Legislation in the House:

• The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R.2454)
  • Status: Passed out of the U.S. House of Representatives on June 2, 2009

Climate Action in the Senate

Now that the House has passed the ACES Act, similar legislation is under consideration in the U.S. Senate. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, chaired by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), passed the American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (S.1462) on June 17, 2009. This bill addresses several energy issues, including many addressed under the ACES Act. On November 5, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, chaired by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), passed the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act of 2009 (S.1733), which draws heavily from the ACES Act and establishes a cap-and-trade system.

As four other Senate committees hold jurisdiction over the legislation – Agriculture, Commerce, Finance, and Foreign Affairs - the timing of the climate change debate within the broader Congressional agenda remains unclear. Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) worked outside of the committee process to broaden the base of support for comprehensive climate legislation within the Senate. Sens. Kerry and Lieberman released their draft discussion of their American Power Act on May 12, 2010. Sen. Graham left the process in late April.

Progress advances towards climate legislation as Senators of both parties continue to introduce bills that move the debate towards a single piece of comprehensive legislation. On June 9, Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN) introduced his Practical Energy and Climate Plan (S.3464). Lugar's bill starkly contrasts with other climate legislative proposals in that it does not put a price on carbon. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is expected to combine the various elements into a comprehensive bill that he will bring to the Senate floor in July. If the Senate passes this "combined" bill, differences between the Senate and House bills would have to be reconciled, with the final bill passed by both houses, before the bill could be sent to President Obama and signed into law.

There is an opportunity to get a clean energy and climate bill that includes cap and trade passed in this Congress and enacted by the President. The Pew Center continues to strongly believe that achieving this goal requires two important elements: leadership by the Obama administration and greater bipartisanship in the Senate.

Key Legislation in the Current Senate:

• Lugar Practical Energy and Climate Plan (S.3464)
  • Status: Introduced by Senator Lugar (R-IN) on June 9, 2010
• The American Power Act
  • Status: Discussion draft released by Senators Kerry (D-MA) and Lieberman (I-CT) on May 12, 2010
• The Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal Act of 2009 (S.2877)
  • Status: Introduced by Senators Cantwell (D-WA) and Collins (R-ME) on December 1, 2009
• The Clean Energy Act of 2009 (S.2776)
  • Status: Introduced by Senators Alexander (R-TN) and Webb (D-VA) on November 1, 2009
• The Clean Energy Partnerships Act of 2009 (S.2729)
  • Status: Introduced by Senator Stabenow (D-MI) on November 4, 2009, and referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
• The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act of 2009 (S.1733)
  • Status: Passed out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on November 5, 2010
• The American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (S.1462)
  • Status: Passed by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on June 17, 2009

Stop the War on Carbon

June 3, 2010

Canada Free Press - The Carbon Sense Coalition today called for an end to the suicidal war on carbon. The Chairman of “Carbon Sense,” Mr Viv Forbes, rejected green claims that coal was dirty and carbon dioxide was a pollutant.

Carbon is being demonized because of man’s production of carbon dioxide. This campaign started as a scare on global warming. As the warming failed to eventuate, that morphed into a campaign trumpeting “climate change.” As the public became sceptical that man controlled the climate, the campaign slogans changed to “air pollution” and “clean energy.”

The aim of this campaign now is to cripple the coal industry because combustion of coal produces carbon dioxide which is tarred as a “pollutant.” However carbon is the most valuable element on our planet. It is the building block of all life on earth, and has always provided the food, clothing and most of the energy and building materials for every human being. Carbon dioxide is the key link in the cycle of life on earth. It feeds the world.

Coal is derived from plant material. It is as clean as the most fertile soil and as “green” as any forest. Because it was derived from plant material, every constituent in coal is a valuable atmospheric and soil nutrient needed to maintain healthy plans and animals.

Anything can be harmful if too concentrated. We will drown in 100% water, suffocate in 100% carbon dioxide, and be unable to breathe in 100% oxygen.

The worst pollution in the world is caused by millions of poor people burning poor fuels in dirty open fires. Clean electric energy from modern coal fired power stations will abolish the smog.

To wage war on carbon is to wage war on life.

Will Carbon Trading End Up like the Subprime Mortgage Crisis?

Originally Published on January 30, 2009

The Heritage Foundation - Vincent de Rivaz, CEO of the UK arm EDF energy, made an interesting but frightening comparison when talking about trading carbon credits under the European Union’s cap-and-trade program:

“We like certainty about a carbon price. [But] the carbon price has to become simple and not become a new type of sub-prime tool which will be diverted from what is its initial purpose: to encourage real investment in real low-carbon technology.

We are at the tipping point where we … should wonder if we have in place the right balance between government policy, regulator responsibility and the market mechanism which will deliver the carbon price.”

This came immediately after “the Guardian revealed that steelmakers and hedge funds were cashing in ETS carbon credits obtained for free, causing the price of carbon to plunge. The price of carbon has slumped from €30 a tonne to below €12, leading to a tail-off in clean-technology offset projects in the developing world.”

A similar trading scheme would like occur in the United States if we adopt a cap-and-trade plan to reduce carbon dioxide, as suggested by California Rep. Henry Waxman, chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

But the reality is the ebbs and flows of the market are causing a number of hiccups in the EU’s carbon trading plan. As a result, electricity prices are up, windfall profits are plentiful, and carbon reduction is negligible.

Do we really want to enter into our own version of carbon trading, which could result in a rendition of environmental subprime mortgages? Look at where subprime lending got us. Now imagine adopting a carbon trading system on a global level. Carbon trading undoubtedly fails the cost-benefit litmus test: Very high cost, very little (if any) benefit.

There’s also the possibility that carbon trading will be fraught with corruption, manipulation, noncompliance and mismanagement, especially if the government is running the show. In fact, the more I think of it, the more it does remind me of the subprime mortgage crisis.