The Blogosphere Reacts to the Kerry-Boxer Senate Climate Bill

Originally posted at EnviroKnow.

Yesterday, Senators Kerry and Boxer introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (CEJAPA). You can view a section-by-section summary and the full text of the legislation here.

Many bloggers have already weighed in with their initial reactions. What follows is a round-up of these first impressions, as well as a few thoughts of my own.

Bradford Plumer has a solid summary, running down the list of they key differences between Kerry-Boxer and Waxman-Markey. Key among the differences are the preservation of the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, a "crackdown on carbon speculators" and "stricter scrutiny for biofuels." Among (what I consider to be) the weak points in the bill, Plumer identifies increased incentives for natural gas production and use, and a voluntary mechanism for methane capture, which on first glance seems awfully short-sighted.

Brad Johnson writes that: "Incorporating the efforts of a number of senators, the Kerry-Boxer legislation has strengthened a number of provisions." Among these, Johnson highlights the stronger emissions limits, funding for green transportation, and the preservation of EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which the House bill foolishly gutted. Johnson also mentions a few Senators who have already attacked the bill, including Democrat Kent Conrad and Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Kate Sheppard makes an interesting observation: "Noticeably missing from both the bill and their rhetoric was any reference to cap and trade. Instead, they're calling it a 'Global Warming Pollution Reduction and Investment' program -- and they're promoting the energy and national security benefits rather than the emissions reductions goals." Sheppard also observes that, as of yesterday's unveiling, there was no Republican support for the bill whatsoever.

Elana Schor laments the lack of focus on transport, writing that "transportation reform groups are already strategizing about how to increase the bill's focus on their area -- which currently accounts for one-third of U.S. emissions but stands to receive far less than the 10 percent of total climate revenue that is mandated in the so-called "CLEAN TEA" legislation." Schor also predicts that the bill will not make it to the Senate floor in advance of December's climate negotiations in Copenhagen, but that "Senate passage next spring remains a distinct possibility."

Steve Benen also expresses skepticism that some of the more promising measures will make it to the Senate floor. Benen writes: "So, does the bill have a realistic shot? It won't be easy. The first step for Boxer-Kerry will probably be the easiest: it's going to pass the Environment and Public Works Committee, perhaps by the end of the month. From there, however, it will be subjected to scrutiny in at least four other Senate committees, each of which will change the bill, probably for the worse. Some of the entirely worthwhile measures introduced yesterday are not at all likely to withstand the process." This, of course, brings to mind the old adage that the United States Senate is where good ideas go to die. This statement is as true now as it ever was, as far as I can tell.

Brian Beutler discusses the arduous path the bill must take through various unfriendly Senate committees. In particular, Beutler mentions potential roadblocks in both the Finance and Agriculture Committees. Beutler also takes note of the bright side: "James Inhofe will spend weeks and weeks saying more and more ridiculous things about it. So that should be fun."

Matt Yglesias raises the same concern that I will below: "Kerry-Boxer is a somewhat stronger and better measure than the American Climate and Energy Security bill that passed the House. But of course ACES passed the House whereas Kerry-Boxer will doubtless be changed many, many times."

Joseph Romm focuses on the genuine improvement over the House bill in terms of offsets. Romm republishes a guest-post from an expert on offsets, who writes: "Probably the most important difference between the bills is that the Kerry-Boxer bill does not specify which agency would be in charge of administering and ensuring the integrity of any offset program. In the House bill, a last minute compromise switched all of the administration of biological sequestration offsets to the USDA from the EPA, a change widely criticized by environmentalists because of the belief that the USDA would not be as effective in regulation."

A. Siegel focuses primarily on the price collar, detailing the pros and cons of the approach Senators Kerry and Boxer have used. In the end, he concludes: "From my perspective, for the next 10+ years, it seems almost certain that the floor will have more impact on actual carbon prices than the ceiling ... thus, having that floor will help drive more emissions cuts than a program without a cost collar."

David Roberts takes note of the fact that the bill is called Kerry-Boxer, rather than Boxer-Kerry as was previously expected. Roberts writes: "Word has it this decision came down from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) himself." He also speculates that this decision was due to Senator Boxer's "bungling" of the Lieberman-Warner bill, which was the Senate's last attempt to address global warming.

Personally, I'm cautiously optimistic. While -- as others have pointed out -- the bill as it currently stands is stronger than the American Clean Energy and Security Act in several crucial ways, it has a treacherous gauntlet to run before reaching the President's desk. The two greatest roadblocks I anticipate are in the Agriculture and Finance Committees.

In the House negotiations, Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson was able to several major concessions which significantly weakened the bill. Pollution-powered Senator Blanche Lincoln, who recently took over the Chairmanship of the Senate Agriculture will undoubtedly take the opportunity to do the bidding of her agribusiness benefactors. It would be a true shame for the Senate to grant devastating concessions to Senator Lincoln at the expense of the environmental integrity of the legislation.

The Finance Committee Chairman, Senator Max Baucus, is also likely to be a major thorn in liberals' side. Baucus has been fighting behind closed-doors to have a major role in the key aspects of the bill, including the financing for cap-and-trade mechanism. Senator Baucus' insistence on wasting months trying to secure Republican support -- despite all evidence that such support would never materialize -- has been a major detriment to Democrats' ability to move healthcare legislation in a timely manner. Indeed, many progressives have now accepted that Baucus' attempts to gain Republican support are little more than pretense for weakening the bill and delaying the process as long as possible.

A smaller but still significant concern is a group of Midwestern Democratic Senators -- led by Sherrod Brown -- who are intent on extracting concessions for manufacturers in their states. Senator Brown, speaking of Senators Kerry and Boxer to The Hill yesterday, gave the ultimatum: "They don't get the votes from Midwestern industrial-state senators unless manufacturing is a major component of this." While the Midwestern Senators do have some valid concerns, the manufacturers they are advocating on behalf of now join a long list of industries seeking favorable concessions (read: free emissions credits): Nuclear, Coal, Natural Gas, Agribusiness, Oil Refining, Electric Utilities, etc. The true test this bill faces is whether or not it can work its way through the Senate without ceding so much ground to these industries that the environmental integrity of the bill is compromised. Either way, as Steve Benen notes, "it's a fight worth watching closely."

Follow Josh Nelson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/enviroknow

Comments

[atti1]

While they are making provisions, are they making any for the thousands of workers that will be left without training for a new industry? How can they even thinking about letting that many American Jobs be lost when we have already lost droves of jobs to other countries. The United States used to be the leader in manufacturing and now that industry is being threatened by the Proposed Cap and Trade... Oops, I'm sorry, I meant the Kerry-Boxer Senate Climate Bill. Regardless of what you call it, it's the same! Let's let our elected officials know how we feel! http://www.dontcapandtradeourjobs.net/?=terraCO

[realpolitic]

Meanwhile, back in the real world the EPA is moving to limit greenhouse gas emissions. If Congress does not want to act, we may not need them!


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/science/earth/01epa.html?hp

[Richard2]

Persons interested in the proposed cap and trade legislation would be wise to check up on the Yamal tree ring controversy, which is breaking out right now.

Many of the scientific studies that have been cited by the IPCC as indicating accelerated global warming may be highly suspect now, because of the new problems with the data behind the Yamal tree ting studies, which has been released by the researchers for the first time this week.

Persons interested in this topic are advised to check the RealClimate and Climate Audit websites, and others.

[rblackbird]

I have read the sources you refer to. Very revealing. They reenforce the suspicion that the warmists manipulate data to reach a predetermined conclusion. I am waiting to see what contortions the warmists will use to get out of this tangle.

[realpolitic]

It is the kind of arcanery that deniers love because it means absolutely nothing in the larger world, the criticism is unfounded and just imaginged, yet it confuses a few law people and gives denier crowd a change to pat themselves on the back. When it amounts to nothing McIntyre loses whatever little respect he has remaining!

[realpolitic]

Good of you to mention RealClimate where there are real scientists. They respond...

"More seriously, many of you will have noticed yet more blogarrhea about tree rings this week. The target de jour is a particular compilation of trees (that was first put together by two Russians, Hantemirov and Shiyatov, in the late 1990s. This multi-millennial chronology from Yamal (in northwestern Siberia) was painstakingly collected from hundreds of sub-fossil trees buried in sediment in the river deltas."

"So along comes Steve McIntyre, self-styled slayer of hockey sticks, who declares without any evidence whatsoever that Briffa didn’t just reprocess the data from the Russians, but instead supposedly picked through it to give him the signal he wanted. These allegations have been made without any evidence whatsoever."

"The timeline for these mini-blogstorms is always similar. An unverified accusation of malfeasance is made based on nothing, and it is instantly ‘telegraphed’ across the denial-o-sphere while being embellished along the way to apply to anything ‘hockey-stick’ shaped and any and all scientists, even those not even tangentially related. The usual suspects become hysterical with glee that finally the ‘hoax’ has been revealed and congratulations are handed out all round. .... Net effect on lay people? Confusion. Net effect on science? Zip. "

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=realclimate+&page=1&qsrc=2417&ab=0&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclimate.org%2F


http://www.ask.com/bar?q=realclimate+&page=1&qsrc=2417&ab=0&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclimate.org%2F