Climate 411

New Momentum to Pass a Carbon Cap in 2009

The House Energy and Commerce Committee just approved landmark climate change legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

EDF president Fred Krupp said it this way: “The committee today put climate legislation on the path to the President’s desk.”

This vote is much more than a procedural milestone. To pass this bill, the committee had to bridge regional differences among its diverse membership. It succeeded in producing a strong bill that can win broad support in the House and serve as a template for quick Senate action.

The bill, also known as the Waxman-Markey bill, draws on key provisions of a legislative blueprint negotiated by the 25 leading companies from every sector of the U.S. economy and the five non-profit groups in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership. Committee action on the bill also drew support from labor unions like the United Auto Workers and the Steelworkers, faith groups, and state and local officials.

The timing couldn’t be better.  Fred Krupp says, “As the President’s economic advisors said this week, a cap on global warming pollution is essential to our economic recovery and our long-term financial health.”

We look forward to action by the full House this summer.

Posted in Climate Change Legislation / Comments are closed

450 Poison Pills

The House Energy and Commerce Committee continues to slog through debate on the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Debate has been slow because opponents of the bill plan to introduce a whopping 450 amendments. You might think the unusually high number of amendments shows genuine concern about the issue, but some of the proposed measures are truly bizarre.

Among the amendments that opponents say they’ll introduce are provisions to eliminate all the tax benefits for any business in USCAP — a group of major corporations that support a carbon cap. USCAP includes companies like PepsiCo, Shell Oil, Duke Energy, PG & E and Johnson & Johnson.

Another proposed provision specifically targets a much smaller, non-profit group — us. That amendment would call specifically for reviewing the tax status of Environmental Defense Fund.

Those amendments haven’t been introduced yet, but they’re still on the list of 450 so that could materialize at any time. It’s hard to imagine how these actions would benefit the debate over climate change.

Perhaps opponents have no substantial ammunition with which to attack this bill?

Posted in Climate Change Legislation / Comments are closed

Climate Legislation Link Round-Up

With climate legislation moving to a vote this week in Chairman Henry Waxman’s Energy and Commerce Committee, it’s encouraging to see thoughtful and honest arguments and posts covering the various angles of this historic step forward. 

Paul Krugman’s The Perfect, the Good, the Planet posits that while imperfect, Waxman-Markey is our best chance at addressing climate change.  Joe Romm sets the record straight on Europe’s carbon trading efforts in his recent post, and Daniel Weiss provides a succinct update on where the legislation currently stands.

Did we leave anything out?  If so, post your links in the comments!

Also posted in News / Read 2 Responses

We’re Live-Tweeting the Mark-up

Follow us on Twitter to hear our play-by-play of the mark-up of the American Clean Energy and Security Act!  You can find Environmental Defense Fund on Twitter at www.twitter.com/EnvDefenseFund.  

Posted in Climate Change Legislation / Comments are closed

Climate and the $3,100 Lie Detector

How can you tell when a politician in Washington isn’t telling the truth? When they claim that the cost of capping carbon emissions and reducing foreign oil dependence will cost American families “$3,100.”

It’s become Talking Point Number One for opponents of action on climate change. Problem is, it’s entirely made up — so don’t get fooled. Ask where that number comes from.

The claim that carbon cap legislation proposed by Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey will cost families “$3,100” was first made in a March press release from the National Republican Congressional Committee. The NRCC said its number was based an MIT analysis of cap and trade legislation.

Here’s what John Reilly, the author of the MIT study, told Politifact about the NRCC’s claim: “It’s just wrong. It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.”

In two recent letters to House Republican Leader John Boehner, MIT’s Reilly asked that the NRCC stop using the “misleading” figure, noting that MIT’s estimates are less than one thirtieth of what the NRCC is claiming. “A correct estimate of that cost … for the average household just in 2015 is about $80 per family, or $65 if more appropriately stated in present value terms discounted at an annual 4% rate,” he said.

Reilly also pointed out that the MIT study is an “old analysis that is not well calibrated to either current legislative proposals or US economic conditions.” That’s important because the legislation now under debate in the House is expected to take further steps to ease cost impacts on consumers.

So why do Rep. Mike Pence and other opponents of cap and trade keep saying it will cost thousands? Either they are ignoring every credible analysis, or they’re very bad at math.

If they cite a study claiming astronomical costs, be sure to ask three key questions:

  1. Does the author of the study agree with the claims about their analysis?
  2. Does the analysis actually look at the current legislation under debate?
  3. What do the most recent, credible, and unbiased analyses say?

According to a new EPA analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate bill (the American Clean Energy and Security Act), an ambitious cap on carbon pollution can be met for as little as $98 per household per year over the life of the program – or about a dime a day per person.

In the early years the costs are even lower: Before 2012 it is zero — because the bill won’t have taken effect. By 2015, the costs “skyrocket” to 2 cents per person. Anyone who claims that now is the wrong time to cap carbon is engaging in scare tactics.

EPA’s analysis sets the gold standard by using two of the most credible, transparent, and peer-reviewed economic models available. It’s not a crystal ball, but it shows clearly that household costs will be modest under a well-designed cap and trade bill.

Also posted in Economics / Read 4 Responses

U.S. Chamber of Commerce vs. Some of Its Own Members

Recently, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been one of the loudest voices against a climate change bill. But now they have formidable opposition from … some of the members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

It looks like the Chamber started lobbying on this issue without checking with some of their largest members —  like Johnson & Johnson and Nike — who support a carbon cap. Now the Chamber is getting called out in the press. Oops.

Here’s the story from Politico: “Chamber under fire on warming

Posted in Climate Change Legislation / Comments are closed