Tweet
I recognize that many observers believe that the President’s failure to mention climate change in last night’s Oval Office address basically sounded the death rattle for a cap and trade program to get through Congress this year. My answer would be there’s no sign it wasn’t dead already. Senate Democrats just don’t want a comprehensive climate bill. And it’s not a question of one or two members – it doesn’t look like something with a price for carbon even has majority support. When this is your average Senate Democrat, very little will happen:
“The climate bill isn’t going to stop the oil leak,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat. “The first thing you have to do is stop the oil leak.”
On the other side of this, Nancy Pelosi suggested yesterday that a bill without a carbon cap couldn’t pass the House. So things seem stuck.
The Administration does appear to be going to work to find out what can pass. The President is speaking with lawmakers, starting with Scott Brown (R-MA) today. A bipartisan summit of sorts is on the schedule for next week. The President set a date for legislation to hit the Senate floor – July 12. They would then wait to merge the House and Senate bills in a lame-duck session after the elections:
Phil Schiliro, the White House congressional liaison, has told the Senate to aim to take up an energy bill the week of July 12, after the July 4 break (and after the scheduled final passage of Wall Street reform). Kagan confirmation will follow, ahead of the summer break, scheduled to begin Aug. 9. The plan is to conference the new Senate bill with the already-passed House bill IN A LAME-DUCK SESSION AFTER THE ELECTION, so House members don’t have to take another tough vote ahead of midterms.
Advocates have actual public support for carbon limits in the polling. (see Mike Tomasky for more on that.)
The biggest green groups seem approving of the biggest comprehensive bill they can get. In a letter to Senate Committee Chairs, 18 major environmental groups – most of the nation’s environmental establishment, including NRDC and the Sierra Club – advocates called for taking the best of all the possible plans already put forward by Senators. This comes in advance of a big meeting tomorrow of the entire Democratic caucus to hammer out exactly what kind of a bill to push. The letter does lead with the urgency of putting a cap on carbon pollution:
The President went on to say that the time has come to aggressively accelerate the transition to clean energy, and that:
… [t]he only way the transition to clean energy will succeed is if the private sector is fully invested in this future – if capital comes off the sidelines and the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs is unleashed. And the only way to do that is by finally putting a price on carbon pollution.
The President is right. Only a comprehensive bill that includes limits on carbon pollution can put in place the incentives needed to create the jobs and security that are essential to our future prosperity. This legislation should be written in a way that makes clear to the American people how it is responsive to the Gulf disaster. And it needs to take aggressive steps to deal with the immediate issues raised by the BP spill, as well as the underlying problem of oil dependence. This effort can succeed by articulating clearly the security, economic, and environmental benefits of these measures so that the defenders of big oil and dirty coal – as well as ideological opponents of reform–can’t hide behind empty rhetoric and delaying tactics.
And then the enviros ask to “draw from existing legislation,” including bills without a carbon cap. They want to lift the liability cap, reform offshore drilling regulations, increase sustainable biofuels and vehicle efficiency, move to electric cars, expand the renewable energy standard and increase energy efficiency across the board. They want a “best of all bills” approach:
Several Senators have already developed legislation addressing most of these issues. For example, Gulf response measures have been developed by Senators Vitter and LeMieux, as well as by Senator Menendez and others; oil reduction measures have been advanced by Senators Dorgan, Alexander, and Merkley; carbon pollution limits have been developed by Senators Cantwell and Collins and Senators Kerry and Lieberman; and energy efficiency and renewable energy measures have been advanced by Senator Bingaman and by Senator Lugar. Each of these bills has its strengths; several have fundamental weaknesses as well. But by combining their strengths, they can provide the basis for assembling a broad package that can be brought to the Senate floor this summer.
I fully agree that you have to name your target, and if you feel a need to fight climate change, you actually have to fight climate change, especially because your opponents will accuse you of doing that in the worst possible fashion. Even a bill that has noble energy goals but no climate cap will be called cap and tax. But at least the green groups are arguing an all-of-the-above instead of a pre-compromised strategy. Only problem with that is that some of the legislation they’re drawing from, particularly with respect to the cap (Kerry-Lieberman and even Cantwell-Collins), is already pre-compromised.
32 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
we need a real bill, not a pre-compromised one
That the Sierra Club is not breathing fire over the Gulf Oil Disaster, is stunning.
Wait, no it isn’t.
Who was it in the Sierra Club that was big wig in oil or Goldman? Or was that the Nature Conservancy?
It was Paulson and the Nature Conservancy.
Chariman of the Board.
I would link to it, but the picture of Hank would make banana slugs vomit.
Thank God he hasn’t given up on bipartisanship. With Scott Brown on board you know we’re gonna get a good bill.
Surely the Chair of Senate Committee on Environment would be heavily involved in a “best of all bills” approach? Especially when she’s facing a tough challenge from that rich annoying bobble-head lady? Right? Barbara?
So who in the Senate will be Obama’s rotating villain this time? Amazing how the Senate Dems always force Obama into supporting neoliberal, pro-corporate policies.
In the Conservatory (heh heh) with a lead pipe.
Leave it to liberals to think they can legislate the global climate.
Care to elaborate?
Umm, Revenue neutral carbon tax?. There was a bipartisan bill he which he could have gotten through attached to the Healthcare reconciliation bill. Why on God’s green earth is the White House even bothering with cap and trade bill that requires 60 votes to pass instead of going with a carbon tax bill that– as a revenue bill– only requires 50 votes? Other than that Goldman Sachs hasn’t figured out how to profit from tax collection yet, I mean. :o)
Rep. Inglis (R- SC) introduced H.R. 2380, “Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act of 2009’’ (5/13/09):
Upstream carbon tax.
Starting at $15/ton CO2 rising to $100 in 30 years.
All revenue used to reduce payroll tax rate. (Contrast with Larson bill which would exempt first ~ $3,800 earned from payroll tax.)
Tax reduction split between employer and employee.
Border Adjustments: equivalent tax on imports, exports credited.
http://www.carbontax.org/progress/carbon-tax-bills/
The environment and environmental science has been my avocation for most of my adult life. I have donated money, given talks, and written letters to the ed, to Congress, essays for environmental publications etc. Observing the span of this tragedy work its way, the anti-scientific preconceptions and responses (in substance and politically) convinces me that all the efforts of those of us who care for the life on the planet and its future have been ignored and were futile to this point.
Sputnik got the attention of the country with resulting flourishing of scientific education and research in math, physics and engineering. One hopes there is some chance this current fiasco will so discredit the system that created it that a similar flowering in the biological sciences may occur.
if we accept Matt Taibi’s understanding of cap’n trade, it’s another financial industry Ponzi scheme that will do little if anything to address the problems.
Majority support means NOTHING if it isn’t accompanied with strong political action. We should really start protesting and lobbying and writing Congress and things like that for a stronger climate bill than we know possible, just so they’re really shoved in that direction. I can’t say I know exact strategies or how much of an effect it will really have against big business, because I’m just an ordinary person, but I do know that this is our last chance so we should give it all we’ve got.
Nothing much will be accomplished until they/we turn to science for the data and legislate on what is best for the earth. If BP had paid attention to the science, indeed if MMS had had any respect or knowledge of the science, the Gulf Coast wouldn’t be facing financial disaster; Economic and lifestyle changes that are likely greater than what might be impacted by pursuing a rational approach to energy and the environment.
A carbon tax is the best solution which would “tax” the biggest polluters and change the behavior of Americans. But, how do you convince a neo-liberal President to push for a “tax” on any corporation? Remember, this is the President who said they expect to raise $86.5 billion through 2019 by ending a strategy that lets U.S.- based multinational companies effectively hide the role their foreign subsidiaries play in shifting profits into low-tax jurisdictions such as the Cayman Islands (ie. tax havens) BUT later backed off.
I just don’t see true energy policy reform happening until we get a progressive President in office. Cap and trade looks like another way to funnel money to the financial institutions.
How do we keep it from being regressive?
“No Tax Increase? How?
A carbon tax should be revenue-neutral. Revenue-neutral means that little if any of the tax revenues raised by taxing carbon emissions would be retained by government. The vast majority of the revenues would be returned to the public, with, perhaps, a very small amount utilized to mitigate the otherwise negative impacts of carbon taxes on low-income energy users.
Two primary return approaches are being discussed. One would rebate the revenues directly through regular (e.g., monthly) equal “dividends” to all U.S. residents. In effect, every resident would receive equal, identical slices of the total revenue pie. Just such a program has operated in Alaska for three decades, providing residents with annual dividends from the state’s North Slope oil revenues.
In the other method, each dollar of carbon tax revenue would trigger a dollar’s worth of reduction in existing taxes such as the federal payroll tax or state sales taxes. As carbon-tax revenues are phased in (with the tax rates rising gradually but steadily, to allow a smooth transition), existing taxes will be phased out and, in some cases, eliminated. This “tax-shift” approach, while less direct than the dividend method, would also ensure that the carbon tax is revenue-neutral and could offer other benefits. For example, reducing payroll taxes could stimulate employment.
Each individual’s receipt of dividends or tax-shifts would be independent of the taxes he or she pays. That is, no person’s benefits would be tied to his or her energy consumption and carbon tax “bill.” This separation of benefits from payments preserves the incentives created by a carbon tax to reduce use of fossil fuels and emit less CO2 into the atmosphere. Of course, it would be extraordinarily cumbersome to calculate an individual’s full carbon tax bill since to some extent the carbon tax would be passed through as part of the costs of various goods and services.
Revenue-neutrality not only protects the poor (see next section), it’s also politically savvy since it blunts the “No New Taxes” demand that has held sway in American politics for over a generation. Returning the carbon tax revenues to the public would also make it easier to raise the tax level over time, a point made nicely by McGill University professor Christopher Ragan in a 2008 Montreal Gazette op-ed.”
http://www.carbontax.org/introduction/
I’m picking up rumors that the Administration wants a bill with a price on carbon in some fashion, either quietly in Reid’s Frankenbill or in conference.
Progressive advocacy groups can either make a big, positive difference or they can gather round for a firing squad. There are perhaps 3 to 10 bills (I’m still trying to get a count on the number up for serious consideration) in play. All of them have some good ideas and some bad ideas. Progressives can make a lot of noise in demanding that the good ideas already in the bills be put in the Frankenbill, instead of the bad ideas. Or they can complain about well established, influential allies and demand that ideas not in the bills (e.g., carbon tax) be considered.
If cap and trade is in it, I’d rather have nothing.
And mind your tone.
“Mind your tone”? My, oh, my.
This isn’t about policy (whether a carbon tax is a better concept than a cap and trade system). Abstract arguments have been made in the past, and a carbon tax may very well be a better idea. This is about politics (what can get through the Senate). I see no indication that a carbon tax bill is pending in the Senate, let alone is being championed by anyone meeting with Reid tomorrow.
Thank you for the link. I hope congressional staff keeps thinking, as those two mechanisms do indeed seem cumbersome. And please don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of finding a good solution, not using that to justify opposition to the basic idea.
If they pass cap and trade you’re going to be paying the entire thing, the energy producers will simply pass their costs on to you, plus the costs of the market makers and speculators, with no rebate or dividend. Cap and trade is more regressive and more cumbersome. It is there to suck your blood, not help the environment.
Cheers.
: )
Well, thanks again, but It’s not me I’m worried about, it’s folks who can only just barely feed and house and clothe themselves and their families.
Yes. I’m glad to hear you’re doing ok!
How the dividends are calculated allows the cost to be progressive, which is the key benefit of the method.
Well, it would be nice if it took into account the low income person’s cash flow on a daily basis. Maybe a card to use at the pump and get the tax taken off at point of sale, etc.
Is this the right time to discuss this stuff instead of jobs.
People barely scraping by right now will have to switch off heaters in the winter in north and air-conditioners in the summer in the south. Kind of stuff to drag our economy from recession into depression.
Is personal privacy important or not. Soon programs will be written to provide discriminate treatment of people by the machines based on the cash flow as you are saying. Super-cool idea say when one is forced to wait say for gas for hours at the pump since he is deemed not so high spending customer by the machine.
A debit card based on last month’s usage and income, could work!
I agree with you. Congress and the WH are too busy selling us to Morgan Stanley and Goldman to bother with jobless people.
Scumbags, every one.
We’re talking about the dividend/rebate, you could still buy gas. Personal privacy certainly is an issue with such a realtime system, though, you’re right about that.