Economic Crisis May Slow Green Efforts

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Economic Crisis May Slow Green Efforts stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

DINA CAPPIELLO | October 12, 2008 10:22 AM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
In this July 11, 2008, file photo, a giant glacier is seen making its way to the waters of Croaker Bay on Devon Island. Global economic woes could halt efforts to control global warming. Economic troubles will make it tougher to pass legislation capping heat-trapping gases and could delay when reductions would start, according to lawmakers, environmentalists and industry representatives. (AP Photo/Jonathan Hayward, CP, File)

WASHINGTON — The economic free fall gripping the nation may bring down one of the main environmental objectives: capping the greenhouse gases that are blamed for global warming.

Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate, and both presidential candidates, continue to rank tackling global warming as a chief goal next year. But the focus on stabilizing the economy probably will make it more difficult to pass a law to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. At the very least, it will push back when the reductions would have to start.

As one Republican senator put it, the green bubble has burst.

"Clearly it is somewhere down the totem pole given the economic realities we are facing," said Tom Williams, a spokesman for Duke Energy Corp., an electricity producer that has supported federal mandates on greenhouse gases. Duke is a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, an association of businesses and nonprofit groups that has lobbied Congress to act.

Just months ago, chances for legislation passing in the next Congress and becoming law looked promising. The presidential candidates support mandatory cuts and a Democratic majority is ready to act on the problem after years of the Bush administration's resisting federal controls.

But the most popular remedy for slowing global warming, a mechanism know as cap-and-trade, could put further stress on a teetering economy.

Under such a system, the government would establish a market for carbon dioxide by giving or selling credits to companies with operations that emit greenhouse gases. The companies can then choose whether to invest in technologies to reduce emissions to meet targets or instead buy credits from other companies who have already met them.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., said that in light of the economic downturn, a bill that would give polluters permits free of charge would be preferable.

Story continues below
advertisement

"The first way we can control program costs is by not charging industrial emitters," said Boucher, who released a first draft of a bill this past week with the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. Giving away right-to-pollute permits was one of the options.

Other Democrats, however, see a cap-and-trade bill _ and the government revenues it would generate from selling permits _ as an engine for economic growth. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama supports auctioning off all permits, using the money to help fund alternative energy.

"If you see this as a job creation opportunity for the U.S. to develop the products that are then sold around the world, then you should be optimistic about what the impact of passage would mean for the American economy," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass.

Conservative Republicans who were never fans of a law to curb greenhouse gases have used the economic downturn as a rallying cry.

Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the senior Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, in a blog entry this month criticized 152 House members for releasing a set of principles to tackle global warming in the midst of the economic turmoil.

"The current economic crisis only reinforces the public's wariness about any climate bill that attempts to increase the costs of energy and jeopardizes jobs," Inhofe said.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, took the argument a step further when he said the Boucher-Dingell bill could lead the country "off the economic cliff."

But even supporters of federal regulation of greenhouse gases acknowledge that something has to give given the state of the economy.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., a lead sponsor of a Senate bill to curb greenhouse gases that failed this year, acknowledged that the economy could delay when reductions in carbon dioxide would start.

Warner told the AP that any bill should allow the president to decide.

"We must continue to think and devise a piece of legislation that will enable the president of the United States to control timing ... dependent on the president's analysis for the ability of the economy to assume the financial burdens," he said.

The U.S. is not alone. As the economic crisis has spread to markets across the globe, work to curb greenhouse gases elsewhere has stalled.

Earlier this past week, Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N. climate panel, said discussions about global warming solutions were "on the back burner." Pachauri shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore for their work on climate change.

"I'm absolutely sure that climate change will be the last thing people will think about at this point in time," he said. "Sooner or later, they will come back to it."

The upside is that in hard economic times, and with high energy prices, the amount of pollution in the air tends to decline.

That will slow global warming somewhat, but there are already enough heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere to cause the temperature to rise.

"I really wish that the science of global warming would look at the newspaper, and say we have an economic crisis so the Earth will stop warming," said Dave Hamilton, director of the Sierra Club's global warming and energy program. "But that is not going to happen."

___

On the Net:

House Energy and Commerce Committee: http://energycommerce.house.gov

WASHINGTON — The economic free fall gripping the nation may bring down one of the main environmental objectives: capping the greenhouse gases that are blamed for global warming. Democratic lead...
WASHINGTON — The economic free fall gripping the nation may bring down one of the main environmental objectives: capping the greenhouse gases that are blamed for global warming. Democratic lead...
Filed by Dave Burdick  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
26
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
- mamacat I'm a Fan of mamacat 136 fans permalink

The headline makes one point of view. Another is that building an alternative energy infrastructure may necessarily be part of a recovery program for the American economy. See Thomas Friedman's article on the subject in Wednesday's New York Times.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:21 AM on 10/22/2008

Inhofe: Global warming is still “greatest hoax." The guy is a kook.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:57 PM on 10/14/2008
- javaman I'm a Fan of javaman 5 fans permalink

in other words, the economy may slow the hyper marketing boon called "green". Which, by the way, is all BS.

here is "green", it's not sexy, it's not madison ave, it's not paris hilton in rcycled minc, what "green" really is: clothes lines, water barrels, recycling gray water, growing your own food, using a bicycle, using public transportation, shopping at the local farmers market, reading the labels on food, clothing and household products to see if they have chemicals that are bad for the environment, turning your a/c up in the summer and down in the winter, winterizing your home, that is what green means.

it's not buying way over expensive "hybrids" that are still manufactured with oil, it's not slapping on way too expensive solar panels that are still manufactured with oil, it's not buying into the whole line of green BS of you must buy buy buy to be green.

It's about lowering your carbon foot print right now.

It's not fictious carbon credits, it's not carbon capping, it's not "clean coal" (there is no such thing), it's not about nuclear energy (still takes massive amounts of oil to construct each and every plant). What it is about is, living simple, doing without, knowing where your food comes from and not buying garbage.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:25 AM on 10/14/2008

I totally agree. Living green means getting used to a lower energy lifestyle, through all the ways you mentioned. It means insulating your home and buying used furniture, not getting solar panels and shopping at some high-end "green" store.

Green is not a way to show off how rich you are because you can afford a $40k electric car. It's getting your behind on a bicycle or hoofin' it to the grocery store instead of driving the mile.

There will come a time very soon when everyone will have to get used to a lower energy lifestyle whether they like it or not. It doesn't matter what the government will do or not. It's our future.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:51 PM on 10/14/2008
- sheila I'm a Fan of sheila 41 fans permalink

why are you hating on solar panels? you think using coal is the better way? i agree in general with the "buying eco-chic" baloney, but solar panels are legit, and when paired with Feed in Tariffs, result in far more conservation than net metering, or raising prices. that combination is actually the best proven way to increase conservation.

don't hate on individuals owning clean power production, rather than re-enslaving ourselves to Big Energy monopolies that kill our wilderness (yes, that means Big Wind and Big Solar, too). this is a good thing, and should be encouraged for ALL people, not just richies. join our chorus of demand for FITs so WE can get paid for doing the right thing, and mercenary profiteers get kicked to the curb.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:31 PM on 10/15/2008

Evidence is building that global warming is dead. Our net increase in many years was only one standard deviation, the amount we might expect temperature to climb or fall in a single year.

But that does not negate the fact that we should still get rid of dirty power, gain energy independence, or clean up the planet. But what it does mean is that sooner or later the "man made global warming a disaster" club will be taken from the radicalized who want to use it as a weapon to push their socialist agenda.

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/543520/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:51 AM on 10/14/2008
photo

want to know the difference between the two campaigns?
here's a great article and a funny illustration too.

http://www.livinggreenmag.com/

keepin' it green

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:53 PM on 10/13/2008
- PeepingTom I'm a Fan of PeepingTom 2 fans permalink

Headline alteration:
John McCain may slow Green Efforts.
Palin puts an end to Green Efforts.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:21 PM on 10/13/2008
photo

here's a good article on the carbonissue too.

http://www.livinggreenmag.com#carbon

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:47 PM on 10/13/2008

That's just the Republican Bull pulling the joke again.

Let's discount it for what it is (pure nonsense) and focus on how we get the country energy independent. People will realize rather quickly that "green" also means "greenbacks" and the whole thing will fall into place.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:22 PM on 10/13/2008

It's a lot less attractive financially now that oil has dropped by 50%

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:33 PM on 10/13/2008
photo

Boy, this really is pain.

You haven't understood a bit. This energy crisis is not going away, China, India, the rest of the world will be grabbing for more and more crude.

Actually, if the US would pick up the Green now, this could/would be the chance emerging out of the crisis. A new huge business on the horizon.

But: crisis, what crisis? Right?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:58 PM on 10/14/2008

Many here think we can bet the climate change issue without reducing our consumption in the developed world. (ie material living standard). But NO we cant!

This recession come depression is a necessary path to addressing the issue and as climate environmentalist we should embrace it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:54 AM on 10/13/2008
- Exusian I'm a Fan of Exusian 25 fans permalink

I don't think anyone should embrace the recession the world is toppling into, given the very real hardship it will mean to hundreds of millions of people, but the short term reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and pollution will be a kind of silver lining to a dark cloud.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:20 AM on 10/13/2008

Just because it is a recession does not mean that people, on average, will do worse. Some people over here will do worse (think bankers, real estate agents and GM car sales men). But people in China will keep doing better. Asia will continue to expand. And the US could restart its industrial base by going energy independent. And that would be good for all of us. Ecologically and economically.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:25 PM on 10/13/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect