PG&E, Boxer, Sanders respond to Lieberman-Warner
More on the Lieberman-Warner legislation....
We believe America’s Climate Security Act provides a solid starting point for constructively advancing a comprehensive, national response to and policy on climate change. Senators Lieberman and Warner have developed a thoughtful proposal that recognizes the urgent need for action by designing a program to achieve significant emission reductions from all sectors of the economy.From Nature, Sen. Barbara Boxer:
Today will be remembered as a turning point in the fight against global warming. We have the framework here. Every single issue that any one could raise about global warming has been raised in this bill, giving us the perfect place to start.
Sen. Bernie Sanders is more critical:
“The problem is even worse than many have previously suggested,” Sanders said. “If anything, the legislation Senator Boxer and I introduced in January, the strongest legislation introduced in Congress to address global warming, is probably too conservative to address the problem. It is likely that we should be even more aggressive in our targets and timetables for mandatory reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.”In a Senate floor statement, Sanders cited the views of major environmental groups on the Lieberman-Warner legislation.
Initial Responses to Lieberman-Warner
Environmental organizations have begun responding to the release of the Lieberman-Warner legislation.
Global warming legislation expected to be introduced tomorrow could provide giveaways worth hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars to polluting industries, according to an analysis of a draft of the legislation conducted by Friends of the Earth. . . . The Friends of the Earth analysis found that the coal industry in particular stands to benefit from this legislation, precisely because it is currently the industry most responsible for global warming pollution. Depending on market conditions, the coal industry could receive permits worth up to $231 billion in the first year alone, 48 percent of the total permit allocation.
Lieberman and Warner have paved the way for a historic committee vote on a bill that promises to make great strides toward climate security and economic growth. Thanks to their thoughtful approach we’re moving beyond talk and quickly toward action. . . . The emissions goal is aggressive in the short-term and that will have a real impact on investment decisions made now. Most scientists say we need to cut U.S. emissions by about 80 percent, and we continue to believe that deeper reductions are needed long-term. This bill is a good start in that direction, and we will continue to work toward those longer term reductions.
The bill is a significant political step forward for the U.S. Congress, but unfortunately the legislation as introduced still falls short what is demanded by the science and the public to meet the challenge of global warming. . . .The Lieberman-Warner bill, as introduced, leaves us in serious danger of reaching the tipping points that scientists tell us could lead to catastrophic changes to the climate. Polluters should pay for what they do and any bill must allocate allowances for the public benefit, not private windfalls.The Sierra Club finds that the bill falls short of the standards of scientific integrity and economic fairness, calling for an economy-wide cap of 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, and full auction of emissions allowances.
Although this bill is a strong start, NRDC supports changes that would improve the bill by ensuring that emission reductions keep pace with the science, and by reducing free allocations and directing additional resources to provide more support for critical program features, including consumer and low-income protections, safeguards for affected workers, and faster deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy solutions.
From our standpoint, it’s a good-faith political compromise, but it seems very unlikely to go very far unless President Bush does an unexpected 180 degree reversal. And it’s got some very significant warts.Clean Air Watch criticizes the giveaway of emissions credits and notes that the actual reductions in the bill come out to about 51% of overall US emissions by 2050 because the cap is not economy-wide.
We applaud Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner for their leadership on global warming. . . . While we commend several of the improvements Senators Lieberman and Warner made to their bill, such as increasing the 2020 target to a 15% reduction in covered sectors and recognizing the vital check-and-balance role that enforcement must play in any climate bill, their bill must be strengthened in some vital areas.Earthjustice calls for economy-wide coverage, an 80% reduction (not 51-63% reduction) by 2050, increased auction, and the restoration of funding for international relief.
The Lieberman-Warner bill offers a strong starting point for action. . . . We are especially pleased by the commitment to conservation and protecting wildlife and habitat reflected in the bill. Senators Warner and Lieberman have been leaders in recognizing the magnitude of the challenge climate change poses for the natural world and for all of us.
Today’s introduction of America’s Climate Security Act marks an important step by this Congress to address the urgent problem of global warming. We applaud Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner for their leadership and for their bipartisan commitment to moving America closer to real solutions to this very urgent problem. . . . We will continue to work to increase the reduction targets and the sectors covered in both the near and long term. We will also work to significantly increase the amount of allowances toward our goal of 100 percent auction, while ensuring that the auction revenues go to directly helping consumers, to increasing renewable energy and energy efficiency, and to helping impacted populations adapt to global warming both at home and abroad.
This is a bipartisan breakthrough on global warming that takes us a giant step closer to a historic vote in the United States Senate. I commend Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner for drafting a strong bill to protect people and wildlife from global warming.
Lieberman-Warner Releasing Draft Legislation: America's Climate Security Act 1
As reported at Gristmill, Sens. Lieberman and Warner intend to submit the draft of their cap-and-trade legislation, America’s Climate Security Act (S. 2191), today. The legislation incorporated suggestions from stakeholders to adjust some figures from the draft outline released at the beginning of August. Notably, the 2020 reduction from 2005 emissions levels is increased from 10% to 15% (the Sanders-Boxer target), and the peak auction percentage (reached in 2036) is increased from 52% to 73%. There are numerous other components, adjustments, and details.
How does Lieberman-Warner stack up to the Sanders-Lautenberg principles or the Step It Up 2 provisions?
Sanders-Lautenberg- CAP: The 2020 target is as strong as Sanders-Boxer, but the 2050 target is much weaker (67% by 2050 instead of 80%) and only 75% of emissions are regulated; there are numerous explicit provisions to loosen controls to protect the economy but none to change them to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of GHG; however, it calls for a report every three years looks at both economic and environmental impacts
- POLLUTER PAYS: The bill does not transition quickly to a full auction. Spending of auction revenues is generally in line with Sanders-Lautenberg, though large amounts go to CCS development
- ENCOURAGE STATE LEADERSHIP: The bill explicitly rewards states with stricter standards than the federal cap
- ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS: The bill includes green building standards and low-carbon fuel provisions, among others, but does not require new coal plants to have CCS
- NO LOOPHOLES AND LIMITED OFFSETS: The annual caps may be temporarily increased by as much as 20% if later caps are tightened and companies pay interest on “borrowed” allowances; offsets are limited to 15% of allowances and are held to the Sanders-Lautenberg standard
- GREEN JOBS: There is some funding for green jobs, but not 5 million by 2015
- EFFICIENCY: There is not a federal efficiency standard of 20% greater efficiency by 2015
- CAP: As decribed above, the cap is not economy-wide, and is 15% by 2020 and 67% by 2050, not 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050
- NO NEW COAL: There is not a moratorium on new coal plants without CCS
Full comparison of October release with the original August draft below the jump.
Cap
The bill specifies an annual aggregate tonnage cap, expressed in terms of Co2 equivalence, for each year from 2012 through 2050. The cap that the bill will specify for 2012 will be the 2005 emissions level. And: 10% 15% below 2005 by 2020, 30% by 2030, 50% by 2030, 70% by 2050. With respect to 1990 levels: 19% above 1990 levels by 2012, at 1990 levels by 2020, 17% below by 2030, 40% by 2030, 67% by 2050.
The emissions monitoring and reporting system is modeled on Klobuchar-Snowe (S 1387).
Coverage
Covered sectors represent about 80% 75% of total US emissions. The agricultural sector is not covered. Residential appliances are not covered by the cap, but efficiency standards in the bill apply to them.
Allowances
- Each year from 2012 to 2016 20% of that year’s National Emission Allowance Account for free to covered entities within the industry sector, transitioning to zero by 2036.
- In 2012 20% of the NEAA will be allocated to the electric power sector. A portion of that 20% will be free to new entrants to the electric power sector. The allocation will be at 20% from 2012 – 2016, then transition to 0% by 2036.
- 10% will be allocated to load-serving entities to defray energy-cost impacts on low- and middle-income consumers and to promote demand-side energy efficency, some of it for free to rural electric cooperative facilities.
8%5% will be allocated to covered entities who have taken pre-enactment action since the 1994 Rio Treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That8%5% will transition to 0% by20202017.-
Each year 4% will be allocated to state governments, half based on population, half on historical state emissions.Each year 9% will be allocated to state governments as such:- 5% split 1/3 based on LIHEAP expenditures; 1/3 based on population; 1/3 based on amount of coal mining, natural gas processing, and petroleum refining
- 1% to states that have at least 90% of new buildings complying with the efficiency codes in the HR 3221
- 1% to states that have adopted decoupling regulations for any electric and natural gas utilities in the state
- 2% to states with a stricter cap than the federal cap
- Each year until 2035 4% will be placed into a reserve “Bonus Account”, to be allocated to
US coal minesfirms who successfully perform geologic sequestration of CO2 from electricity generation, with a multiplier of 4.5 per unit of CO2 sequestered in 2012 that decreases to zero in 2040 - Each year
7.5%5% will be allocated to farmers, foresters, and other landowners to store carbon in soils, crops, and forests. -
Each year 2.5% will be allocated to the transportation sector. - Each year 3% will be allocated for reducing the rate of tropical deforestation in other nations
- 6% of the 2012 allowances, 4% of 2013, and 2% of 2012 are to be disbursed in early auctions starting within one year of enactment and ending in 2011
Allowances for Auction
- 24% in 2012 will go to auction under the aegis of the Climate Change Credit Corporation; rising to
52% by 203573% by 2036.
Auction Proceeds
- 20% for a public-private partnership for power-sector technologies including CCS
- 20% for public-private partnership for CCS
- 20% for transportation sector technologies and reducing miles traveled
- 10% for environmental mitigation
- 10% for SO2, NOx, mercury emission reduction from coal plants
- 10% to state and local for low-income community mitigation
- 10% for international mitigation
- 55% to Energy Technology Deployment Program
- 20% to Energy Assistance Fund
- 20% to Adaptation Fund
- 5% to Climate Change Worker Training Fund
new Energy Technology Deployment Program
A series of financial incentive programs designed to accelerate the development and deployment of renewable electricity technologies, low-carbon electricity technologies, advanced bio-fuels such as cellulosic ethanol, CO2 capture and storage systems, electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and high-efficiency consumer products.
new Energy Assistance Fund
- 50% to LIHEAP
- 25% to the Weatherization Assistance Program for Low-Income Persons
- 25% to a new Rural Energy Assistance Program
new Climate Change Worker Training Fund
Funding for a new Department of Labor workforce education, training, and placement program.
new Adaptation Fund- 40% to the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Account established under the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act.
- 20% to the Interior Department for funding endangered species, migratory bird, and other fish and wildlife programs.
- 5% to the Interior Department for cooperative grant programs that benefit wildlife.
- 5% to US Forest Service for adaptation activities carried out on National Forests and National Grasslands
- 25% split evenly between EPA and Army Corps for restoring large-scale freshwater and estuarine ecosystems
- 5% to Commerce Department for cooperative grant programs such as the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program, the Community-Based Restoration Program, and programs established under the Coastal Zone Management Act.
CCS
CCS regulations and a legal framework for the Federal assumption of liability for geological storage will be proposed by a study group within two years of enactment.
Carbon Market Efficiency Board, Banking
- Up to 15% of the allowances a covered entity must submit may be comprised of borrowed allowances, with an interest rate
set by the Boardof 10%, adjustable by the Board. - Up to 15% of the allowances that a covered entity must submit may be comprised of offset credits.
- Up to 15% of the allowances that a covered entity must submit may be comprised of allowances purchased on a certified foreign greenhouse gas emissions trading market.
- the Board may increase the number of emissions credits if the average daily closing price of an emissions credit exceeds the upper end of the range predicted by the CBO prior to the start of the program.
- The Board may adjust the terms and interest rates of the emissions loans “as needed to avoid significant harm to the economy” and “in the event of more extreme economic circumstances” to raise the cap temporarily by as much as 5% provided that subsequent year’s caps are tightened so that cumulative reductions are unchanged.
Offsets
“The bill will set forth detailed, rigorous requirements for offsets, with the purpose of ensuring that they will represent real, additional, verifiable, and permanent emissions reductions.”
Foreign Tariffs
[Modeled on Bingaman-Specter (S 1766)] The President will be authorized eight years after enactment to require that importers of GHG-intensive products submit emissions allowances of a value equivalent to that of the allowances that the US system effectively requires of domestic manufacturers, if it is determined that nation has not taken commensurate action to reduce GHG emissions.
new Climate Change and National Security Council
The Secretary of State is the Council’s chair, and the EPA Administrator, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of National Intelligence are the Council’s other members.
The Council makes an annual report to the President and the Congress on how global climate change affects instability and conflict, and recommends spending to mitigate global warming impacts and conflict.
Up to five percent of auction proceeds, at the President’s discretion, may be used to carry out the report recommendations.
new Energy Efficiency
ACSA includes the appliance and building efficiency provisions of HR 3221.
new Reviews
Two National Academy of Sciences reports every three years:- a broad review to determine:
- whether the cap-and-trade system is functioning properly
- whether the emissions trading market is liquid, transparent, and relatively free of dangerous volatility
- whether US emissions are coming down as projected
- whether atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions are stabilizing, on account of US and overseas emissions trends
- whether any of the allocations or uses of auction proceeds should be changed
- whether additional measures are required to protect low- and moderate- income Americans to cope with cost changes
- whether technology deployment is enabling the US economy to comply with ACSA’s emissions caps without suffering hardship, and recommendations for a tightening or a loosening of the emissions caps
A one-time EPA report recommending policies to reduce emissions from the transportation sector.
Regionally-specific analyses by the EPA of the new infrastructure, safety, health, land-use planning policies necessary for adaptation.
new Miscellaneous
The President is authorized to suspend the provisions of the bill in the event of a national emergency.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is required to require publicly traded companies to disclose global warming related financial risks.
Actions that EPA takes pursuant to ACSA are subject to the Administrative Procedures Act and the Clean Air Act.
States are not preempted from enacting and enforcing greenhouse gas emission reduction requirements that are at least as stringent as the federal ones.
Sanders and Lautenberg State Climate Legislation Principles
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) yesterday released a statement of principles for judging climate change legislation. Both are members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection, representing the majority with Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Baucus; Lieberman and Warner plan to submit cap-and-trade legislation to the subcommittee today.
Earlier in the month, a group of liberal Democratic senators outlined their goals for climate change legislation, praising the Lieberman-Warner effort.
Here are the Sanders-Lautenberg principles in short:- Targets must be set to cap atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases at a max of 450 PPM CO2 equivalent, latest science continually taken into acount
- Quick transition to polluter-pays auction, with monies providing economic relief and significant investment in renewables and energy efficiency
- No federal pre-emption of state efforts
- Additional policies such as building and fuel standards and CCS requirements that ensure rapid deployment of clean energy technology
- Offsets should be limited, real, verifiable, additional, permanent and enforceable
- The Solution Must Recognize the Gravity of the Problem The scientific evidence is clear that humanity is responsible for global warming. As such, any action we take to prevent it must be bold, aggressive, and comprehensive enough to prevent the devastating effects of catastrophic climate change. Targets must be set to ensure that the global concentration of greenhouse gases rises to no more than 450 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent. This requires a strong 2020 target to get the country shifted to a low-carbon economy and to make the long-term reductions that are needed in the fight against global warming. Additionally, we must ensure that the latest science is continually considered and informs our ongoing action.
- Quickly Transition to Polluter Pays We must quickly transition to a polluter-pays scheme, and an auction is the most economically efficient and fair way to do so. Auctioning allowances will provide the incentive for companies to develop and deploy cutting-edge, low-carbon technologies. Additionally, the increased revenues from a full auction will undoubtedly help to provide relief to all those affected by global warming, help support our transition to a low-carbon economy, and to fund a significant increase in the country’s use of renewable and energy efficiency technologies, including solar and wind.
- Encourage State Leadership The federal government should set the floor, not the ceiling, for action on and innovation in addressing global warming – consistent with the Clean Air Act and other major environmental laws. Over the past few years, states have stepped in to fill the unfortunate void left by a lack of federal leadership on global warming. As we now work to catch up, states must be able to continue to provide leadership and be able to pursue innovative strategies to protect their citizens from the risks of global warming.
- Additional Policies to Include in a Cap and Trade Bill While a cap and trade bill sets the basis for the mandatory emission reductions that are needed throughout the country, additional policies are needed to ensure the rapid and often cheaper deployment of clean energy technologies. Examples of such policies include green building standards, which will reduce long-term energy costs for the occupants of the property, a requirement that any new coal plant deploy carbon capture and storage technology, and policies that offer a roadmap for reduced carbon transportation fuels.
- Flexibility Mechanisms Must Not Result in Illusory Emission Reductions While theoretically offsets yield the same global warming benefit for less cost, in reality it is difficult, and some believe impossible, to ensure their long-term environmental integrity. As a result, the use of offsets should be strictly limited. In addition, they must be real, verifiable, additional, permanent and enforceable and should not undermine the signals to industry for technology development and deployment.
Democratic Senators Outline Goals for Climate Change Legislation
Democratic Senators Bob Menendez (NJ), Jack Reed (RI), John Kerry (MA), Russ Feingold (WI), Chris Dodd (CT) and Dick Durbin (IL) wrote last week to Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA), the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee, to weigh in on the draft plan of the legislation the two are developing.
They mirror the previous praise by Democrats on the subcommittee in their letter:We write today to congratulate you on your leadership in addressing global warming. The outline of proposed legislation that you distributed last month is an important start and your efforts to forge a bipartisan bill and attempt to pass a meaningful climate change bill this Congress deserve praise and recognition.They go on to express some concerns, though without the vehemence of the Kit Bond’s conservative criticism:
- Calling for a 80% reduction by 2050 with specific and aggressive interim targets, as opposed to the 70% target in the draft
- Reiterating opposition to “safety valve” legislation like that in Bingaman-Specter
- Criticizing the degree to which free allocations of emissions credits are given to the fossil fuel sector
- Calling for more emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable energy: “take some of the considerable resources generated by the auction process and devote them to further research and incentives for renewable energy . . . make the bill more balanced by devoting a larger share of the allowance value to public purposes, including support for energy efficiency and renewables”
Lieberman Open To 100% Auction
We’ve heard [calls for a 100 percent auction] from some stakeholders and heard that from some of our members. We’re thinking about it. Warner and I haven’t closed our minds to that. It’s on the table.
Fall Legislative Outlook
Senate
According to CQ.com, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee chair Barbara Boxer asked Joseph I. Lieberman, I-Conn., and John W. Warner, R-Va., “to write a bill that would cap nationwide greenhouse gas emissions.” They released the skeleton of the legislation in August and plan to introduce a final draft by the end of September. However, “Because the climate-change issue is so complex, marking up the bill will be no small task.” There are several other climate bills, including S. 309 (Sanders-Boxer) and S.1766 (Bingaman-Specter).
CQ.com reports that Harry Reid “plans to allow floor time for the Lieberman-Warner bill this fall if it wins approval in Boxer’s committee. No matter what the bill looks like, it will face procedural objections that can be overcome only with a 60-vote majority. It is unclear whether Reid would have enough votes to move beyond that obstacle.”
House
According to CQ, Energy and Commerce Committee chair John D. Dingell, D-Mich., also intends to introduce climate legislation to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent to 80 percent by 2050, although he has not announced any specific plans for the bill.
A first hurdle is the reconciliation process for the energy legislation that passed each chamber (HR 3221, and the Senate version of HR 6), which Dingell will be heavily involved in.
Dingell also announced his intentions to introduce global warming legislation for a carbon tax, a hike in the gas tax, and ending the McMansion mortgage deduction (homes larger than 3,000 square feet) while increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
Senators on Lieberman-Warner Draft
The draft Lieberman-Warner plan has been praised and critiqued by environmental organizations. What are the fellow senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee saying?
Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) eviscerates the plan:
Your proposal would impose hardship on U.S. citizens and threaten robust growth in the U.S. economy because it does not preempt similar conflicting, overlapping or duplicative state and regional carbon control programs… because it does not provide legal certainty for carbon sequestration… because it requires significant harm to the economy before triggering cost containment and management measures… because it fails to protect low-income families and consumers sufficiently [because it] first requires setting aside allowances to meet 100% of the needs of rural electric cooperatives [and] by allowing cost relief to also go instead to middle-income consumers and energy efficiency programs [and] because the proposal also allows allowances to go to [various worthy policy goals]... because it uses a Carbon Market Efficiency Board to employ cost containment measures [instead of] a defined price point of carbon allowances… because it allocates allowances arbitrarily across economy sectors and at variance with their emissions and impact on workers, consumers and families [because they] do not reflect those sectors’ contributions to carbon equivalent emissions… because it would raise costs above those needed for emissions reduction to pay for environmental, energy and social programs [instead of] funding them through the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury… because it delays technology development financing [instead of] immediate, significant flows of funding to carbon emissions capture and storage technology development and deployment.As does Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK):
The principles of Lieberman-Warner climate bill, as outlined today, fail to meet the two requirements established by the Senate to pass climate legislation. The Lieberman-Warner bill will significantly harm the United States economy and fail to mandate reductions from the developing world. With China now the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gasses, it’s even more important that the developing nations CO2 emissions be taken into consideration. As a result, I have long supported efforts that build off of the President’s Asia-Pacific Partnership that seeks to promote technology sharing among developing nations as the way forward.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) effusively praises the draft bill:
The Lieberman-Warner proposal is a huge breakthrough in the fight against global warming. The Lieberman Warner bill will be the fifth economy-wide Senate proposal, and in addition, there are several sector-by-sector proposals, demonstrating that an increasing number of U.S. Senators want to address this issue now. When I took the gavel of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I pledged to focus on global warming and on bringing bipartisanship back to the committee. With the Lieberman-Warner bipartisan proposal, those goals have been met, and we now plan to pass legislation through the committee before the end of the year. This proposal has taken good ideas from a variety of bills, and will be an excellent starting point for the committee.As does Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD):
Today Senators Joseph Lieberman, I-CT, and John Warner, R-VA, released the detailed outline of an economy-wide global warming bill that would significantly limit greenhouse gases. I am extremely pleased with the comprehensive nature of their bill and the strong, bipartisan leadership they bring to this critical effort. I also believe this bill has important national security implications because it will lessen our dependence on foreign energy and help achieve energy independence. We have an historic opportunity to address the most compelling environmental, energy independence and national security issue facing our nation. I pledge to work closely with my colleagues to turn this historic opportunity into reality.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is more measured:
“I commend Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner for their hard work in putting together legislation that our subcommittee will consider. There is no doubt that we need bipartisan support in the United States Senate to address the most significant environmental threat our planet has ever seen.Given the dimensions of the crisis, however, I strongly believe that we must act aggressively to halt and then reverse global warming. I am concerned that the outline my colleagues put out today, which is a good starting point, does not go far enough. As good as it is, I hope we can do better. As a member of the subcommittee, I look forward to working with them.
The people of the United States want strong action, and the Senate must follow. In my view, we can, in fact, break our dependency on fossil fuels, substantially lower greenhouse gas emissions, move to sustainable energy and, in the process, create millions of good paying jobs. Those are the principles that I will fight for.
There do not appear to be statements from Democratic senators Baucus, Carper, Clinton, Lautenberg, Klobuchar, or Whitehouse, or Republican senators Voinovich, Isakson, Vitter, Barrasso, Craig, or Alexander.
Debate on Cap and Trade with Environmental Defense
Joe Lieberman and John Warner are providing remarkable leadership. By developing an approach that has environmental integrity and support from both sides of the aisle they are doing what is necessary to actually make law.Matt Stoller of Open Left, who has been highly skeptical of all cap-and-trade approaches, let alone the Lieberman-Warner proposal, wrote this analysis yesterday:
Anyway, the bill Bush is going to get behind is the Lieberman-Warner bill, opposed by the Sierra Club but supported by the intensely corporate-friendly and compromised Environmental Defense. There’s a green civil war coming, with ED President Fred Krupp playing the role of the DLC. The other environmental groups are split, with the Pew Center and the Nature Conservancy following Krupp over the cliff. The Union of Concerned Scientists and NRDC are ‘concerned’, and the LCV and the Sierra Club are clear that this is a bad move. If you want to see a dysfunctional, degraded, and compromised movement that have lost touch with their mission statements, look no further than ED, Pew, and the Nature Conservancy.Today, Tony Kreindler of ED responded on Stoller’s site. Here’s an excerpt:
What Lieberman and Warner have offered is a blueprint for a climate bill with an airtight emissions cap and a market for carbon that will spur investment in cost-effective emissions reductions. They also have a plan for managing economic impacts, and importantly, it doesn’t compromise the integrity of the emissions cap. Does that favor corporations over the environment? We don’t think so, and we won’t support a bill that fails the environmental test.
The discussion is continued at Open Left.
Environmental Non-Profits Respond to Lieberman-Warner 7
In summary, US-CAP members Environmental Defense, Pew Center on Climate Change, and Nature Conservancy offer unequivocal praise of Lieberman-Warner.
NRDC (US-CAP) and Union of Concerned Scientists say it’s a starting point that needs fixing.
Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club say it has major problems; the Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters say that focus should stay on the Sanders-Boxer bill.
A number of organizations have not yet weighed in. Full quotations and links to the statements are below the fold.
Joe Lieberman and John Warner are providing remarkable leadership. By developing an approach that has environmental integrity and support from both sides of the aisle they are doing what is necessary to actually make law.
We welcome new ideas when it comes to fighting global warming, and are pleased that Senators Lieberman and Warner are providing leadership on this issue. But their proposal must be strengthened tobe effective.
UCS calls for a stronger cap and criticizes the industry giveaways and the level of carbon offset allowances.
NRDC (part of US-CAP)Friends of the EarthWe look forward to working with Senators Lieberman and Warner to further improve this proposal’s targets and timetables and to ensure that the bill’s valuable pollution allowances are invested in energy efficiency and other measures to reduce consumers’ costs, not create windfall profits for polluters.
The Lieberman-Warner legislation is just one more proposal that won’t get the job done on global warming.
FOE calls for a stronger cap with faster reductions and criticizes the industry giveaways (“The legislation also violates the ‘polluter pays’ principle”).
Sierra ClubThe Warner-Lieberman proposal and others are oriented toward meeting the needs of the coal, utility and auto industries. Congress should instead focus on proposals like Boxer-Sanders and Waxman that better meet the needs of communities, families, and the environment.
Sierra Club calls for a stronger cap and a more progressive focus.
Pew Center for Climate Change (part of US-CAP)
Joe Romm, Climate ProgressThe Lieberman-Warner proposal represents a critical step toward a workable climate solution, combining many of the best elements of earlier cap-and-trade bills. It proposes ambitious greenhouse gas targets and innovative mechanisms to ensure that the costs of meeting them are reasonable. Importantly, this proposal avoids the use of price caps or other mechanisms that would undermine the program’s environmental objectives and the economic efficiency of a market-based approach. With their bipartisan proposal, Senators Lieberman and Warner are leading the way toward strong Senate action to curb U.S. emissions and avoid the worst potential consequences of climate change.
It looks pretty good to me.
Nature Conservancy (part of US-CAP)
League of Conservation VotersWe commend Senators Warner and Lieberman for their commitment to enacting strong climate legislation. The thoughtful outline released today indicates that the senators are on track to write a bill that would help to address climate change and would be beneficial for conservation.
While we applaud Senators Lieberman and Warner for producing a global warming bill, we believe we can and we must do better than a 10 percent cut in global warming emissions by 2020. We look forward to working to ensure they ultimately produce a bill that accomplishes what the world’s best scientists say is necessary – reducing global warming pollution by at least 15-20 percent by 2020 to reach the goal of at least 80 percent reductions by 2050. We urge other members of the Senate to cosponsor the Sanders-Boxer bill (S. 309) – a bill that will help our country meet the global warming pollution reductions required to help our country secure a brighter future.
I couldn’t find any public statements from organizations such as Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife, World Wildlife Federation or the World Resources Institute.