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.
A Time for Action
President Obama's first Oval Office address was highly anticipated, as there is mounting criticism of the Administration's management of the BP oil spill. Supporters of climate and clean energy legislation eagerly gathered around their televisions in hopes that the President would provide the much needed road map detailing how this tragedy should transform American thinking on energy policy going forward.
However, many were left disappointed as the President did not answer some key questions nor did he set forth specific expectations for the Senate's summer session. There was considerable rhetoric about the country's oil addiction and the need for compelling and immediate clean energy legislation, but President Obama offered few specifics, although he seemed to provide some support for combining elements of several bills. However, the President, did not go so far as to mention a price on carbon, raising the tax on gasoline, or placing a cap on greenhouse gas emissions.
While the President's remarks could be seen as a big blow to Senators. John Kerry (D-Massashusetts) and Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut), co-authors of a Senate cap-and-trade bill, in a joint statement they said that Obama has joined their fight.
"There can be no doubt that the president is rolling up his sleeves to ensure we establish a market mechanism to tackle carbon pollution, create hundreds of thousands of new jobs each year, strengthen energy independence, and improve the quality of the air we breathe," the two senators said.
In addition to the Kerry-Lieberman package, other legislative potentials include the Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman's (D-New Mexico) bill (S. 1462) which includes a renewable energy standard; a more ambitious renewable energy target found in bill co-sponsored by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) and Senator Snowe (R-Maine) S. 862, an alternative to the traditional ideas on pricing carbon (S. 2877) from Senators Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) and Susan Collins (R-Maine); and a bill (S. 3464) promoting energy efficiency from Senators Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina).
Prior to the speech, Senator Lieberman indicated that he hoped President Obama would emphasize the need for a market mechanism for pricing carbon.
"The truth is, trying to make America energy independent without creating a market mechanism to price carbon, would be the equivalent of President Kennedy launching our national effort to put a man on the moon without building a rocket," Lieberman said. "It's that important, and any alternative legislation being proposed -- including some that has some good stuff in it -- that doesn't do something to price carbon, will not unleash the billions and billions of dollars in the private sector that are waiting for that signal to put their money into clean alternative energy sources for our society."
The President stated that "the one approach I will not accept is inaction." The President is correct in this regard, as there has been a lot of talk for a long time. Yet, some specifics from the White House would be useful right now.
Achieving Fast Mitigation: Kerry-Lieberman and UnSNAPing a Mobile Refrigerant
It's easy to overlook crucial provisions of the Senate climate bill that address strategies to reduce non-CO2 climate-forcing that accounts for almost half of the warming effect our activities cause. In the brouhaha the bill caused, it was also easy to overlook the significance of a petition from NGOs to EPA asking it to end the privileged status of the most widely used mobile air conditioning refrigerant, which has a global warming potential (GWP) up at 1,400. Yet these two closely-related actions, despite having nothing to do with CO2 emissions from the power plants targeted by the Senate bill, may well provide the most significant climate protections the US achieves in the near term.
The Senate climate bill unveiled on May 12th by Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman contains a section titled “Achieving Fast Mitigation” to address non-CO2 climate forcers, including black carbon soot, methane, and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). When combined with other similar sources like ground-level ozone, these non-CO2 greenhouse gases and pollutants make up 40 to 50 percent of total climate forcing.
Why is this called Fast Mitigation? The non-CO2 forcers are short-lived in the atmosphere -- a few days to about fifteen years -- meaning reductions will produce benefits fast and help to avoid the tipping points for abrupt climate change. Reductions in CO2 of course are essential but will not produce cooling for centuries.
We addressed controls over HFC greenhouse gases with hundreds to thousands the global warming potential of CO2 19 months ago here. Both the Senate bill and the House's Waxman-Markey bill now address HFCs and thus complement the proposal by the US, Canada, and Mexico under the Montreal Protocol ozone treaty which, if the Parties reach agreement in November, would result in avoided emissions of at least 100 billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent.
Studies show that technology is already available to address the non-CO2 pollutants and gases. Expanding biochar production is one such strategy but the hugest GWP reductions can be made in HFC refrigeration and air conditioning applications. That's where the NGO petition on HFC 134a comes in.
The NRDC, joined by the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development (IGSD) and the Environmental Investigation Agency, filed the petition to withdraw EPA approval for use of HFC-134a in mobile air conditioning installed in new cars. HFC-134a has a GWP 1,400 times greater than CO2, while replacements such as soon-to-be approved HFC 1234yf (GWP: 4), already-approved HFC-152a (GWP of ~140), hydrocarbons (GWP: 5), and CO2 (GWP: 1) have comparatively tiny GWPs.
Durwood Zaelke of the IGSD, one of the groups filing the petition, says that “reducing all HFCs can produce a planet-saving 100 billion tonnes or more of CO2-equivalent in climate mitigation. We can get 30 percent of this by outlawing high GWP HFCs in mobile air conditioning, as the European Union is already doing, starting with new models in 2011. And we can do it fast—easily in seven years for new cars as required in Europe, or in as little as three years if automakers get serious about improving their cars.”
Kerry-Lieberman (Minus Graham) Release "The American Power Act"
Talking Points
- Senators Kerry (D-Massachusetts) and Lieberman (I-Connecticut) have released the much anticipated discussion draft of the American Power Act (APA). Originally the bill was to include Senator Graham (R-South Carolina) as a co-sponsor as he played an integral role in the development of the legislation. However, Senator Graham withdrew from co-sponsoring prior to public release of the legislation, citing perceived Democratic shifting of priorities towards immigration reform as an act of bad faith by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and the White House.
- The bill has been released and is undergoing economic modeling by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Agency. Senator Reid has indicated the bill will only go to the floor for a Senate vote if it has a real shot at passing. 60 votes necessary to overcome a likely filibuster are not yet secured. The bill could reach the floor in June or July.
- The APA has significant stakeholder support with endorsements from a range private sector interests including Dow, Florida Light & Power, General Electric and American Electric Power. The US Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute both released statements welcoming the legislation but stopped short of specific endorsements. Several leading environmental groups including the Environmental Defense Fund support the bill.
- The bill is framed around 5 central themes: 1) Benefits to Consumers, 2) Energy Independence, 3) US Competitiveness and Job Creation, 4) Reducing Emissions differently for power plants, heavy industry and transportation, and 5) Regulatory Predictability.
- The APA takes a significantly different approach from the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill approach of economy wide cap on emissions; instead adopting a unique sector by sector approach.
- The key lynchpin of the bill is a mandatory 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by the year 2020. The power sector will fall under the cap in 2013, with industrial manufacturing sectors entering the system in 2016. The refining sector for transportation fuels will be required to purchase a set number of allowances each year but will not be engaged in carbon trading of allowances and offsets, resulting in what amounts to a fixed price carbon tax for the sector.
- Carbon markets, a key component of a cap-and-trade policy, remain part of the equation within this bill, but the market will be highly regulated in terms of trading and pricing of carbon. In addition, there will be significant distribution of allowances in early years coupled with allowance auctioning that will expand over time. Some key details of allowance allocation remain to be negotiated.
- Provisions for expanded offshore oil drilling promise to be controversial but are a key component of reaching the necessary 60 votes to pass the bill. Protections allowing states to maintain or establish bans on drilling are included.
- Provisions for scaled-up financial support for nuclear energy, transportation and carbon capture & storage are integrated into the bill. Corresponding national renewable energy standards and incentives for the industry are not in the bill, but are anticipated to be incorporated in consultation with the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee. The bill does, however endorse and seek to support state-level renewable energy programs.
- The natural gas industry will face new regulations for public disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemical fluid ingredients. These provisions seek to increase public confidence and support of the industry with respect to environmental, health and safety concerns.
- Programs directed towards bilateral and multilateral funds for international climate mitigation and adaptation measures are established under the bill. However, sustainable funding for these efforts through a set-aside of emission allowances is uncertain leaving these efforts more vulnerable and requiring annual Congressional appropriation processes.
- Fast Action Mitigation provisions for reducing GHG emissions from hydroflurocarbons, black carbon, enhanced soil sequestration and methane.
