Contrary to reports from many in the media, the prospects for a climate bill are as good as ever now that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has finished its work. E&E News makes that clear in a series of interviews with key Senate swing votes,”Senate moderates see an opening now that EPW gridlock is history” (subs. req’d):
Baucus insisted that the bill would cross the finish line, which would require both Senate passage and a successful conference with the House. “There’s no doubt that this Congress is going to pass climate change legislation,” he said. “I don’t know if it’s going to be this year. Probably next year.”
As I had noted last week, while the media was quick to jump over some seemingly negative statements from the Montana Senator, in fact it was clear from his words that Baucus will be voting for the final bill.
While many key moderates made clear they would not vote for the Boxer-Kerry bill that EPW voted out of Committee yesterday, everyone realizes that the process is going to start anew with Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman, who “will be working closely with the White House” to develop a separate bipartisan climate bill that can get 60 votes.
And contrary to some reporting, the EPW process has not undermined prospects for the new bipartisan bill:
Other moderate senators also said they would not reject voting for a climate and energy bill now that it is freed of the EPW Committee’s partisan gridlock.
“I presume that a lot is going to happen before then,” said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), the ranking member of the Budget Committee.
“It’s not the end of the process,” added Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). “That’s just the beginning of the process. So there’s lots of time and lots of opportunity for everybody to engage.”
So Boxer delivered on her promise back in early February, as Greenwire reported (see “Breaking: Sen. Boxer makes clear U.S. won’t pass a climate bill this year“):
“Copenhagen is December,” Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) told reporters. “That’s why I said we’ll have a bill out of this committee by then.”
Ideally Kerry and Graham and Lieberman and the White House will flesh out the key details of the new bill by Copenhagen, ultimately leading to a successful Senate floor vote in February, and a bill on the president’s desk sometime in April.
Link to original post
peterthomes said:
Notice, as you say, all the wrangling necessary with a bloated bill!
The issues are emission reduction and future energy supply.
Given the uncertainty of the effects of emission reduction on global temperature - and given the expense of emission reduction - the key is to engage in activites which
1. Are valuable in themselves.
2. Meet emission reduction targets with minimal business disruption and expense.
Sufficient first phase 2020/2030 emission reduction, for 2020 typically quoted at 15-20% reduction, is achieved by acting on electricity generation (coal, gas) and transport (mainly automobiles) alone, since these 2 sectors account for nearly 80% of CO2 emissions.
This can be done with emission tax (for cars, allowing free choice)
and emission limits for CO2 (for electricity generation), without any emission trading.
The focus on electricity and transport gives several advantages:
1. Local environmental benefit from less pollution of sulphur and all else that's in the emissions, regardless of the less certain or immediate global benefit from CO2 reduction.
2. Electricity supply alternatives which together with improved grid distribution gives better competition and keeps down electricity bills for consumers.
3. Transport alternatives (using electricity, hydrogen and other energy sources), which give variety of choice and competition advantages for consumers, additionally reducing the dependency on oil imports.
4. No trade problems: Unlike Cap and Trade, which involves cement, steel and other industries having to face imports from unregulated countries, the here suggested electricity and transport changes are not just more limited, but also largely local.
In 2020 (and again 2030), from then available evidence, either
1. There is increasing consensus that reduction attempts have no value: In that case little has been lost, since the described changes in electricity and transport industry carry their own benefit, or
2. Consensus remains that CO2 emission reduction should continue, in which case America is on track, and may continue with more specific emission reduction efforts towards 2050 that extend electricity and transport measures and can involve other industries, if necessary.
Funding and Impact
Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect on electricity bills or transport cost.
The impact on the businesses is further lessened by the stability and predictability surrounding the funding.
Since only electricity and transport are involved, other business continues as usual and consumers and society in general are spared expense and disruption.
This is even more obvious from having no energy efficiency regulation either.
Compare with
today’s all-encompassing Cap and Trade (emission trading) suggestions, with unpredictability, expense, and needless disruption from normal business practice on one hand, or unnecessary profiteering from free allowance handouts with little actual emission reduction on the other hand, together with extensive energy efficiency regulation on what people can or can’t buy and use.
----------------------------------------
Emission Policy Alternatives
http://ceolas.net/#cce1x
Introduction: The need - or not - to deal with emissions
The Overall Picture
Emission sources, land and ocean cycles, agriculture and deforestation
1. Direct Industrial Emission Regulation
Mandated reduction of CO2, monitored like other emission substances
2. Carbon Taxation
Fuel Tax -- Emission Tax
3. Emission Trading (Cap and Trade)
Basic Idea -- Offsets -- Tree Planting -- Manufacture Shift -- Fair Trade -- Surreal Market -- Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs -- Allowance Trading -- Companies: Business Stability + Cost -- In Conclusion
4. Contracted CO2 Reduction
Private companies compete for contracts to lower CO2 emissions.
- reply
- 0 points
Fri, 2009-11-06 20:56 — peter thomesPost new comment