Going Big, Not Going Home

Yesterday the Senate passed a resolution preventing climate change legislation from going through the budget reconciliation process, on an overwhelming vote of 67-31. The vote suggests that climate change alone can't get 50 votes in the House, anyway, so this doesn't seem to me like a major loss. In fact, this resolution only applies to this particular budget, and if a new budget resolution is written, the ban on reconciliation for cap and trade becomes moot.

However, I think the Administration has already foreclosed on that option, because the Markey-Waxman climate bill is more of an omnibus, which could actually make it easier to pass.

One of the striking features -- and perhaps the most consequential legislative decision Dems will make this year on energy/climate -- is that it lumps everything together in a single bill. I know some folks aren't big on this strategy, and I've been on the fence myself, but I've pretty much come to see it as both smart and inevitable.

Consider the context. There are several important steps that need to be taken on climate and energy, and the Dems have promised to get them done this year. If nothing else, the U.S. needs something to take to the Copenhagen climate talks, coming up in December. That puts serious time pressure on the whole undertaking [...]

It's important to note that the cap-and-trade part of the package is by far the least popular and easiest to demagogue. So conventional wisdom has been that Dems should lead with the more popular energy and grid stuff. But those aren't a cakewalk either -- there's plenty of regional opposition to renewable energy standards and a whole set of jurisdictional and local battles around the grid.

The fact is, doing these pieces separately would mean three, four, possibly five bruising legislative battles, culminating in a battle over cap-and-trade that, in my estimation, simply can't be won on its own in this Senate. No one in D.C. has the appetite for that, not this year.

So they've decided, uncharacteristically for Democrats, to double down. They are piling all this stuff into one big-ticket, high-profile, must-pass bill. Just as there will be "a healthcare bill" -- and not four disparate, complicated healthcare bills only wonks can understand -- there will now be a green economy bill. For it or against it.

I definitely agree that a single green economy bill is harder to demagogue, though Republicans will certainly give it a college try. And if everything is included, then legislators can pick and choose bits they don't like as a means to vote against the bill. But it is unusual to see Democrats go so big on such a big priority. While I think that the Waxman-Markey bill has room for improvement, unquestionably the bill would represent a major step forward.

I like it.

Waxman-Markey: Could Be Better

Some big news today on the climate change front, as Henry Waxman introduced a bill that would cut greenhouse gas emissions dramatically by 2050.

Representative Henry Waxman, chairman of the House energy panel, will unveil draft legislation to reduce U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions by 20 percent, according to two people familiar with the measure.

The California Democrat, who heads the Energy and Commerce Committee, will release the proposal today, according to the people, who declined to be identified before the plan is made public. Utilities will be forced to rely on renewable energy for some of the power they sell, the people said.

“The Waxman bill is the opening shot in the battle about what we do about global warming,” said Daniel Becker, director of the Washington-based Safe Climate Campaign. “So it’s pretty important.”

President Barack Obama has called for the U.S. to reduce emissions 80 percent by 2050, and get a quarter of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025. Waxman’s proposal would follow those goals.

These goals are actually somewhat in line with the targets of the group Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy (BICEP), which includes Nike, Starbucks, eBay and a bunch of other corporate partners. Those businesses are worried about the direct results of climate change to their materials and suppliers. In fact, the BICEP plan is BETTER than Waxman's, because they are calling for a 100% auction, while Waxman's bill would give some carbon credits away to polluters:

The Waxman plan doesn’t specify whether any allowances will be given for free, as some companies have requested. The committee staff favors auctioning a majority of them, according to the energy lobbyist.

The proposal will allow industrial emitters such as cement makers and utilities to buy and hold emissions permits, then use them to meet their targets any time in the future. Polluters may also use permits from “offsets,” projects that absorb carbon dioxide from the air or produce energy with fewer emissions, to meet part of their obligation.

The Waxman plan will allow offset credits covering 2 billion tons of emissions annually, or about 27 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gases in 2007. The government will hold some permits in reserve to help industry keep transition costs down, under the draft plan.

Waxman's plan hews much closer to the U.S. Climate Action Partnership plan, which includes in the coalition ConocoPhillips and General Motors along with mainstream enviro groups. Ed Markey, the go-to on climate change in the House and a co-sponsor of the bill, admitted that some credits would be given away on a conference call today.

Good for Greenpeace for speaking out that this bill doesn't go far enough.

After more than a decade of denial and delay by U.S. leaders, Chairmen Waxman and Markey have placed clean energy and global warming at the very top of Congress's agenda as the world looks to the United States for leadership in the run-up to Copenhagen. The draft bill is a good first step in the right direction, but the bill must be strengthened to ensure that it will achieve the goals of transitioning to a clean energy economy and solving global warming.

Key short-comings that must be addressed include:

• Two billion tons of pollution offsets, a virtually unlimited amount equal to a quarter of all U.S. emissions. If all the offsets in the bill were used, the bill's emissions reductions could be met without any reduction in fossil fuel emissions for more than 20 years. We cannot solve global warming by simply planting trees and continuing to pollute forever.

• The coal industry receives untold billions dollar in handouts for the false promise of carbon capture and sequestration, with American ratepayers and taxpayers footing the bill.

Finally, the discussion draft is largely silent on how auction revenue will be used. We urge the committee to dedicate this revenue to the short-term up-front investments needed to transition to a clean energy economy, including investments in clean energy development domestically and in the developing world as well as adaptation efforts for countries and communities most directly affected by climate change.

Giving away credits makes absolutely no sense and will delay perhaps forever the transition to a clean energy economy. It should be a bright line for progressives. And obviously, the so-called "clean coal" industry shouldn't be getting a bailout in this bill.

What's problematic is that Waxman-Markey is likely to be the best climate bill coming out of Congress this year. The Senate version will be even more compromised. So improving on this one before it goes to a vote is crucial.

Making Them Do It On Climate Change

Making Them Do It On Climate Change

by dday

Regarding Digby's musing about kabuki, even if this is a game for the cameras to give Obama space to his left, it doesn't mean that progressives shouldn't rally to Kerry and Conrad and make the argument. In fact, it seems to me that is the whole purpose - to "make Obama do it," as it were, and create a bottom-up movement for a real, liberal stimulus with a focus on job creation. Which progressives ought to do. Because there are certainly counter-vailing forces inside the Obama team (I wouldn't guess that Larry Summers is necessarily in on the game) who have the ear of the President-elect, and so even if this is kabuki it would work better with a grassroots response.

There's another area in which progressives need to speak up and not assume that our betters in Washington have everything covered, and that's on the issue of climate change. It looks as if the House has been reorganizing for the sole purpose to pass meaningful climate legislation, be that a cap and trade or a carbon tax. Henry Waxman deposed John Dingell as hed of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Dingell's coal-state partner in obstruction, Rick Boucher, was hustled out the door as well.

As Kate reported earlier today, new House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) is reorganizing the committee, unifying oversight of climate, energy, air quality, and water issues under a single subcommittee: the Energy and Environment Subcommittee.

The Boston Globe just broke the news that Ed Markey (D-Mass.) will chair the new subcommittee.

Right now Markey chairs the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, and reportedly enjoys working on telecom policy. Due to his seniority, he had his choice of subcommittees this session -- which meant he could, if he wanted, take the reins of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee from coal lover and Dingell ally Rick Boucher (D-Va.). That alone would have been, as Joe noted the other day, "almost as big a deal as Waxman defeating Dingell for committee chair."

But now Waxman has consolidated environment and energy jurisdiction in one subcommittee. Gone is the Environment and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, chaired by Gene Green [D-Texas], another Dingell ally [...]

The Energy and Environment Subcommittee has something the Select Committee does not: legislative jurisdiction. It will be the key subcommittee pushing climate/energy legislation through the House.

(Boucher moves to that Telecom and Internet subcommittee, and he's been pretty good on that issue.)

This seems like a very grand setup for bold action to combat climate change, engineered by Waxman and Nancy Pelosi.

Then why is Pelosi telling Energy & Environment News that the House won't be getting around to climate legislation this year? (Sub. reqd. for E&E, so forgive the link to National Review's "Planet Gore" denial site. They think this is a sign that the planet's actually cooling and Democrats are quietly burying the issue. Someone forgot to tell the scientists!)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said today that she has enough votes to pass cap-and-trade legislation aimed at curbing the effects of global warming but would not commit to holding a vote in 2009.

Speaking to reporters in the Capitol, Pelosi said she has sufficient backing in the Democratic-controlled House to move a cap-and-trade bill, but will not force the issue. "I'm not sure this year, because I don't know if we'll be ready," Pelosi said. "We won't go before we're ready."

Pelosi acknowledged the December deadline looming over U.N. negotiations toward a new international climate change agreement. "We're sensitive to Copenhagen and the rest of that," she said, referring to the Denmark capital that will host the next annual U.N. conference. "And it's a very high priority for me." [...]

Incoming House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) will take the lead in 2009 on a climate cap-and-trade bill. But to date, Waxman has not spelled out his plans for that legislation.

"To be determined," replied Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and Pelosi's point person on global warming issues, when asked today about prospects for global warming legislation. . . .

Asked about her expectations for the timing of cap-and-trade legislation, Pelosi replied, "I don't know what the timetable will be. A lot of that will relate to how quickly we get through the recovery, whatever else we're doing, and when the bill will be ready. I don't think it's ready."

I spoke to Frank O'Donnell from Clean Air Watch about this yesterday. He agreed that this seems incongruous, given all the work done to change around committees and put the best people on this issue in charge of it. "But why isn't this a top-line issue?" O'Donnell wondered. "Maybe Pelosi is just being cautious, but the stars seem to be aligned as well as they could be."

Certainly one would think that you don't want to try for major climate legislation in 2010, during the midterm elections. Although, given that green energy initiatives are very popular, and seeing all the Republicans greenwashing themselves during the most recent elections, that could be the calculation. But of course, that wastes another year at a time when more Arctic ice is melting and more greenhouse gases are being spewed into the atmosphere. Not to mention the fact that conference committees and reconciliation bills can extend this process for months.

I'm wondering whether this reluctance to act is due to the Obama team's uncertainty on which way to go, and the conflicts among his top advisers (there's that Larry Summers again).

In the fall of 1997, when the Clinton administration was forming its position for the Kyoto climate treaty talks, Lawrence H. Summers argued that the United States would risk damaging the domestic economy if it set overly ambitious goals for reducing carbon emissions.

Lawrence H. Summers, left, and Peter R. Orszag, leaders of the Obama economic team, say a cap-and-trade system should include a “safety valve” against high prices of pollution permits.

Mr. Summers, then the deputy Treasury secretary, said at the time that there was a compelling scientific case for action on global warming but that a too-rapid move against emissions of greenhouse gases risked dire and unknowable economic consequences.

His view prevailed over those of officials arguing for tougher standards, among them Carol M. Browner, then the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and her mentor, Al Gore, then the vice president.

Today, as the climate-change debate once again heats up, Mr. Summers leads the economic team of the incoming administration, and Ms. Browner has been designated its White House coordinator of energy and climate policy. And Mr. Gore is hovering as an informal adviser to President-elect Barack Obama.

As Mr. Obama seeks to find the right balance between his environmental goals and his plans to revive the economy, he may have to resolve conflicting views among some of his top advisers.

To be sure, Obama has shown a desire to implement an expansive green jobs plan and fold energy issues into the overall recovery package. But there seems like reluctance on setting climate targets. O'Donnell said that he wouldn't doubt that Pelosi was deferring on this. "Barabara Boxer has been quoted saying that she's willing to do something simpler and more bare-bones and let Obama's team fill in the blanks."

Once again, I think this is a case where progressives need to be the squeaky wheel. It makes no sense to constitute an environmental dream team in the House and then slow-walk whatever legislation they can pass. The world cannot wait for American leadership on this, and any delay will just increase the needed targets and cause more pain. The House must act. We have to make them do it.

Aftermath of a Hangin'

Following up on John Boehner's Hang Speaker Pelosi comment, Democrats are certainly trying to make the Republican Minority Leader pay. Hoyer, Emanuel, Clyburn, Schakowsky, and Wasserman-Schultz are all out with comments, joining the early outrage from George Miller and this one from Ed Markey:

Assertions of physical violence toward the Speaker of the House have no place in the halls of Congress. Period. After a week stuck in an echo-chamber of their own making, this group of Republicans has turned ugly. Democracy is about settling differences through debate, without violence. It is unfortunate that the Minority Leader allowed violence to creep into his overheated rhetoric.

Checking Google News, the Politico, Roll Call, The Hill and the Chicago Tribune's politics blog have stories up about this. In other words, this hasn't broken through yet.

And I just don't think it will. Because after all, we're talking about a Republican threatening violence to a Democrat. This doesn't raise eyebrows in Washington. It just doesn't.

(to say nothing of the violence against women aspects)

Free the iPhone

I had the opportunity to play around with a friend's iPhone, and I have to say, it's pretty awesome. It's also the future of digital communication, with multiple devices merged into one box. Therefore, it is absolutely ridiculous that AT&T has an exclusive license to deliver their wireless service through it. It's like Comcast having an exclusive license for a Sony flat-panel TV. And much to my surprise, Congress has actually spoken up about this.

Bipartisan members of Congress spoke out today to free the iPhone and other next generation hand-held computers from the grip of phone incumbents like AT&T and Verizon.

During the hearing of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, representatives from both sides of the aisle called for a more open wireless system where new innovations aren't held hostage to the competition-killing carriers that control the network [...]

In what's been dubbed the "iPhone hearing" Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and "Chip" Pickering (R-Miss.) called for a different system - where wholesalers could compete and new applications and devices could be connected regardless of carrier.

"The iPhone highlights both the promise and the problems with the wireless industry today," Rep. Markey said holding up before other members his newly acquired iPhone. "On the one hand, it demonstrates the sheer brilliance and wizardry of wireless engineering. On the other hand, the advent of the iPhone raises questions about the fact that a consumer can't use this phone with other wireless carriers."

That Chip Pickering, a conservative Republican from Mississippi, jumped aboard this train is astonishing. This is the beginnings of making the telecom market much more open and free, to increase competition and to move this country onto a much better footing with regard to connectivity. We are one of the worst developed nations in broadband access and wireless connectivity in the world, and it's because we have this old guard system of delivering access that rewards big business at the expense of consumers and cripples innovation. The choice is between the telecom's wishes of putting gates up on the Internet where you only get proper access (as a consumer or as a Web content developer) if you pay more money; or the consumer's deep wish that the Internet and wireless networks are neutral, open and free.

Markey and Pickering spoke about the current dilemma in America's wireless system. The iPhone is shackled to AT&T and won't work on any other network. The reason? We have allowed carriers to exert almost complete gatekeeper control over all devices, services and content in the wireless sector.

This has left the U.S. generations behind other nations, a failure that prompted New York Times blogger David Pogue to call American carriers "calcified, conservative and way behind their European and Asian counterparts."

Here's Ben Scott from FreePress on the iPhone hearing (the rumor I heard is that the hearing came about because John Dingell got his iPhone and realized he was locked in to AT&T and he got super-pissed):



FreePress has also set up Free the iPhone, a website with action items to change this horrible, weird policy that only exists in the wireless market and not with any other consumer electronic device. You can sign the petition.

This is just one part of a fight over net neutrality and who controls communications in America in the 21st century. It's incredibly important.