×
This week, the Senate will consider serious global warming legislation -- the first time they've focused on the issue since 2005. The Lieberman-Warner Bill -- the successor to the Lieberman-McCain Bill -- isn't perfect, nor anything near it, but many, including Barbara Boxer, argue that it's a plausible first step. Over at Grist, Kate Sheppard explains how it works:
The bill calls for a cap on greenhouse-gas emissions starting in 2012, with electric utilities, refineries, and the industrial and transportation sectors required to cut their emissions 19 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and a 71 percent by 2050. Other provisions of the bill are expected to reduce greenhouse gases from additional emitters 66 percent by 2050.For the primary industries covered, emissions cuts would be achieved through a cap-and-trade system that would let polluting entities buy and sell the right to emit carbon. About 20 percent of emissions credits would be auctioned initially; the rest would be given out free to emitters and states. The percentage of credits auctioned instead of given away would increase gradually over time. (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both advocated for auctioning 100% of credits from the beginning, a position widely supported by enviros.)[...]The biggest change in the new version of the bill is a cost-containment mechanism, or "emergency off-ramp," which would automatically release additional emission credits onto the market if the price of credits hit $22 to $30 by 2012, adjusted for inflation after that. The additional credits would be borrowed from future allowances and auctioned off, with the proceeds used for direct emissions reductions...Critics of the off-ramp argue that the price cap is too low and that it would remove the predictability that drives long-term investment.I can see both sides of supporting this bill, but I can't quite figure out why you'd do it now. Within one year, the Democrats are likely to have a significantly expanded majority in the House and the Senate. Within one year, the White House will be occupied by either a president who's much friendlier to efforts to curb climate change (Obama), or quite a bit friendlier (McCain). This bill, meanwhile, won't be implemented until 2012, so if it passed this year, it's unlikely that it would be amended or strengthened before it even went into effect. Which is why, if I were a lobbyist for polluting industries, I'd tell my clients to support immediate passage in order to head off stronger action in 2009. But I'm not a lobbyist for a polluting industry. This may be a good time to lay legislative groundwork and begin building coalitions, but it looks like a bad time to take what may be our only shot -- at least for the next few years -- at stopping global warming.
