What now on Climate Legislation?
While faint glimmers of hope remain alive that the Senate will pass climate change legislation this Fall or during a lame duck session of Congress, most observers anticipate that cap-and-trade will have to wait for the future in terms of federal action. Two particularly interesting perspectives on the “What Now” question have emerged in the past week that deserve attention and analysis.
Megan McGowan suggests http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100818/are-moderate-republicans-obamas-leadership-keys-federal-climate-law that a lack of Presidential leadership and no support from moderate Republicans are to blame for failures on cap-and-trade legislation and these dynamics will need to change for future success. The article quotes Republicans and environmentalists who think Obama needs to stop listening to nervous political advisors, get out of listening mode, get bipartisan agreement on principles, lock the door with moderates and come out when there is a deal. Similarly, McGowan notes the reality of climate change and the likely change of margins in the next Congressional session will require moderate Republicans to come to the table, as simple party opposition will no longer be a politically feasible position.
An alternative “what now” analysis comes from Michael Brune, the new head of the Sierra Club, the nation’s largest conservation organization. In an interview with Yale Environment 360 http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2303, Brune suggests the path forward is a multi-pronged attack on climate change. This alternative path would put less emphasis on one-single bill and moderate deal-making, and emphasize:
· Less environmental ngo-corporate collaboration on cap-and-trade policy replaced in part by a more adversarial approach until corporations make clear commitments to change their operations and public policy positions.
· Grassroots campaigns to prevent the building of new coal-fired power plants,
· Public support for EPA actions to reduce pollutants in the air,
· Scaling up renewable energy support, and
· Scaling up production and demand for natural gas.
Both perspectives share a common goal of creating political space in Washington, D.C. to create meaningful action on climate change. At the core of McGowan’s article is an implicit deal-making that involves grand concessions to traditionally intensive ghg sectors such as coal and oil, whereas there is likely less room for such concessions in the path suggested by Brune. It remains to be seen if a political path forward can accommodate both perspectives.
http://www.climatechangeinsights.com/admin/trackback/217809
