« April 2007 | Main | June 2007 »
May 25, 2007
Climate change
With each new scientific study and extreme weather event, the consensus that climate change is a real and man-made challenge grows stronger. Although a few politicians continue to be skeptical of the severity of the problem, their numbers are dwindling, and their ability to obstruct policies that would address climate change is diminishing. Few politicians today would echo Senator James Inhofe’s (R-OK) infamous 2003 suggestion that “man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” This inexorable acceptance of the realities of climate change, along with the rapidly intensifying presidential race, suggests that real political action on the issue is becoming increasingly likely. Events in recent months have only confirmed this probability, and they have engaged all branches of government in a scurry for policy primacy.
In Congress, proposals to address climate change in some way have increased markedly in recent years, from seven in the 105th Congress (1997-1998) to over 80 in the 107th Congress (2001-2002) to 106 in the 109th Congress (2005-2006). The current 110th Congress, with its Democratic majority in both chambers, promises to accelerate this trend. Already, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has created a Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, a special committee dedicated to climate change. Many have interpreted the creation of this committee as an effort to diminish the influence of Congressman John Dingell (D-MI), chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee and longtime guardian of the interests of automakers in his home state. Either way, the creation of this special committee was a clear statement that the Democratic House leadership preferred bold action to incremental tinkering. “Global warming and energy independence are urgent issues that have profound implications for our nation's economic competitiveness, natural security, environmental quality and public health,” said Pelosi in creating the committee.
Congressional efforts to address climate change have taken a variety of forms, including proposals that would increase fuel-economy standards or encourage the use of hybrid vehicles and bills that would increase funding for research into renewable or alternative energy sources. The most direct and comprehensive efforts, however, are those that would directly limit emissions of greenhouse gases, and Congress is considering several proposals along these lines. One of the more aggressive bills is sponsored by Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in the Senate and by Henry Waxman (D-CA) in the House. It would freeze global warming emissions at 2009 levels in 2010, and then reduce them by approximately 2 percent per year from 2011 to 2020. After 2020, the bill would require emissions cuts of about 5 percent annually, with the goal of reducing global warming pollution to 80 percent of their 1990 levels by 2050.
Another bill, sponsored by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), would set similar goals. It aims to reduce total CO2 emissions to two-thirds of their present levels by 2050, with emissions limits stepped down over time and applied in a less restrictive manner than in the Boxer-Sanders proposal. Another proposal by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, would be much less aggressive in limiting emissions and would free industries from abiding by those limits in certain circumstances. Each of these proposals would introduce some variant of a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases, in which total emissions are capped and permits to generate greenhouse gases would be auctioned off by the government. Firms could trade these credits among themselves, and cleaner companies could make money by selling pollution credits to dirtier ones. A cap-and-trade system is currently in force in the European Union, and lessons from that experience and others suggest that the fundamental principle is sound.
Some of these Congressional proposals are older than others. The McCain-Lieberman bill, for example, was first introduced in 2003, while many of the Democratic proposals are the result of the recent change of leadership in Congress. But in recent weeks, the judiciary has notably forced its way into the climate change debate. In April, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Massachusetts vs. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The 5-4 ruling found that the EPA violated the Clean Air Act by declining to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles. Some had surmised that the EPA’s inaction rested more on a political inclination of the Bush administration than on an objective examination of climate change science or the EPA’s capacity to regulate CO2 emissions. “The EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
Perhaps spurred by Congressional pressure or by the Supreme Court’s recent decision, the president recently announced that he had ordered four federal agencies to prepare regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles by the end of his administration. “We're taking action by taking the first steps toward rules that will make our economy stronger, our environment cleaner and our nation more secure,” Bush said. Such moves would not be inconsistent with some of the president’s earlier statements on energy policy and climate change (for more, see Capitol Watch, February 2006). But Democrats were immediately skeptical. They noted that Bush had shifted the policy focus to the Environmental Protection Agency, which has a lengthy rulemaking process, and away from the Transportation Department, which sets fuel economy standards. “In effect, the president asked his agency heads to share ideas and come up with a plan that is due three weeks before he leaves office,” said Congressman Edward J. Markey (D-MA), chairman of the new House select committee on climate change.
The 2008 presidential candidates, too, have joined the climate change debate in earnest. Keenly aware of the magnitude of the problem—and, no doubt, of the voting public’s increasing insistence that their representatives tackle the issue—many candidates have already staked their positions on climate change. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) has spoken out against the poor fuel efficiency of U.S. cars and has linked up with a potential general election opponent in co-sponsoring the McCain-Lieberman proposal in Congress. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has called for a Corporate Carbon Tax, the principle of which may actually be a more efficient way to limit CO2 emissions than a cap-and-trade system. Republican candidates, if not explicitly acknowledging the causes of climate change, are at least advocating ways to address it using language that their political base finds palatable. "I don't pretend to be a scientist, but I do know that whether humans create climate change or not, we want to preserve our natural resources,” says former Arkansas Governor Mike Hukabee. And given the primacy of the Iowa caucuses, each candidate will have to pay lip service to ethanol—and some will actually mean it. Most importantly, an acceptance of the reality of global warming—if not necessarily of its causes or of the ways to address it—has effectively become a prerequisite for all serious presidential contenders. This is a far cry from the 2000 election, when global warming champion Al Gore felt compelled to downplay his genuine expertise on the matter for the sake of political expediency.
With President Bush facing a hostile Congress, a major foreign policy distraction in Iraq, and less than two years left in office, the prospects for a comprehensive bill that would regulate CO2 emissions are unclear. But as a lame duck, the president is keenly interested in securing a positive legacy for himself. Scientific evidence proving the reality and risks of climate change likely will continue to accumulate, and it will continue to convince an ever-dwindling core of skeptics. The demand for action on global warming, already great, will only grow stronger through the course of the 2008 election season. But already, a majority of Democrats and Republicans alike now agree that the problem is real, and that it must be addressed. That alone is a big accomplishment.
Foreign Policy Association, 24 May 2007
Posted by Daniel Widome at 09:09 PM to U. S. Politics | TrackBack (0)
