TV Schedule

Senate Bill Would Set Climate Policy Backwards


  3. JanforGore
  4. related topics
There's an important story in yesterday's edition of E&E (as always, $ub. req'd) about two alternatives to Lieberman-Warner that have recently been floated in the Senate. One comes from Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and the other -- not so much a bill as a "set of principles" -- from a coalition of the nation's biggest and dirtiest coal companies. Together they serve as an excellent primer on the conservative movement's latest approach to climate change.

What do they want?

1 No mandatory caps or a safety valve. Voinovich's bill ditches cap-and-trade entirely, at least for a three-year evaluation period. He and the coal companies would both institute a "safety valve," which would prevent the price of carbon from exceeding a specific threshold. (Policy-wise, that's about as bad as no cap at all.)

2 Incentives. When conservatives don't like incentives, they call them "pork." When they don't like the recipients of the incentives, they call them "welfare." On global warming, though, fossil interests see an historical chance to attach themselves more securely to the public teat, so "incentives" it is. Voinovich's bill is called the "Incentives-Based Alternative Climate Policy Act," and it amounts to a laundry list of handouts and tax breaks for individual industries and technologies (think nuclear power and carbon capture and sequestration). This is "green conservatism" of the Gingrich variety: all carrots, no sticks.

3 Preemption of state efforts. Many state governments are not as sclerotic, polarized, and compromised as the feds. They present the real danger to Republicans' corporate sponsors. Remember states as "laboratories of democracy"? That's a notion conservative federalists love when they aren't in power. In power, they need control consolidated at the federal level, so fossil interests can do more targeted lobbying. If passed this would, at a stroke, eliminate the majority of good climate policy that's been passed in the U.S., in deference to much weaker policy.

4 Inaction pending Chinese and Indian policies. Conservatives claim that carbon caps in the U.S. will drive jobs and capital to developing countries unless those countries also implement caps. The practical effect of this would be to deprive us of our one truly powerful means of persuading China and India to act.
JanforGore

5 responses // Senate Bill Would Set Climate Policy Backwards

  • Number three is the one that upsets me most. Many states have taken the lead in passing initiatives to cut GHGs effectively and implement changes to alternate energy sources. They have also fought coal plants being built in their states as Governor Sebellius of Kansas has done, with a vote against overriding her veto just happening yesterday.

    States are seeing that progress is possible now, so of course TPTB want to squash the strides made regarding climate change by the states. This should not be allowed. This bill will do nothing but set climate policy back to where it was: nowhere.

    You can tell Voinovich and others in the Senate that you will not tolerate going backwards when the stakes are so high. There will not be a climate bill that will effectively address climate change if we the people don't let our voices be heard.
    JanforGore
  • http://action.environmentaldefense.org/campaign/oppose_...
    Oppose the Voinovich Proposal
    JanforGore
  • Okay, Jan...signed and sent!
    jjmaster
  • Thank you. Good to see some care.
    JanforGore
  • Thanks for let me know about this action item Jan! Did it!
    stopnoise

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.