Last week was a busy one in Congress for climate legislation. But signals have been mixed
Posted 04.07.2009 at 12:50 pm
17 Comments
Green Grok Promobox
PopSci.com welcomes Dr. Bill Chameides, dean of Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment. Dr. Chameides blogs at The Green Grok to spark lively discussions about environmental science, keeping you in the know on what the scientific world is discovering and how it affects you – all in plain language and, hopefully, with a bit of fun. PopSci.com partners with The Green Grok, bringing his blog posts directly to our users. Give it a read and get in on the discussion!
Waxman and Markey Zig
When it comes to climate bills, Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) have their hands on the throttle. They are chairs of the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, respectively, and so any climate bill must pass though them before reaching the House floor.
Last week started off impressively when Reps. Waxman and Markey unveiled a much anticipated discussion draft of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. This bill would cap greenhouse gas pollution (GHG) more quickly than President Obama’s similar proposal by calling for a 20 percent reduction of 2005 levels by 2020 instead of Obama’s 14 percent. Both plans would reduce GHG emissions by 80 percent by 2050.
Other provisions in the Waxman-Markey bill include:
- a 25 percent national renewable electricity standard,
- grid modernization,
- energy efficiency
- clean transportation,
- green jobs measures, and
- $1.1 billion per year in research, development, and demonstration projects for carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.
That last measure is a direct attempt to get support from Congressional members from coal states since without CCS, coal will be a major loser in a climate bill, and without support from the those states, a climate bill is likely to be DOA.
Notably, the Waxman-Markey draft does not address what is arguably the most controversial aspect of cap-and-trade legislation: how pollution allowances are to be distributed. It’s an issue that threatens to fracture the alliance between corporations and environmental groups calling for market-wide cap-and-trade legislation. Corporations generally favor having the allowances simply distributed without fees to keep costs low; most environmental groups prefer auctioning them off to encourage faster emissions reductions. Obama’s proposal would have all of the allowances auctioned, much to the consternation of companies like DuPont and Duke Energy, which have been strong proponents of cap-and-trade. (For more, see the U. S. Climate Action Partnership.) Waxman-Markey avoided the controversy by punting on the whole issue at this point in the game.
What are the next steps? According to Waxman, we can look forward to subcommittee hearings in April; in May the full committee will begin markup. Meanwhile, the president has endorsed the bill.
Thune Leads a Senate Zag
On the same day that Waxman and Markey‘s bill raised hopes for climate legislation in this session of Congress, senators did their best to dash them.
As part of the Senate’s budget negotiations, Senator John Thune (R-SD) inserted a measure that would prohibit climate change legislation from increasing electricity or gasoline prices. The non-binding amendment passed by a vote of 89-8. Huh? This does not prohibit certain kinds of climate legislation; it effectively blocks all legislation on climate change.
We can lower emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the major greenhouse gas pollutant, by either:
- “putting a price" on carbon to discourage the use of coal and oil, or
- adding yet-to-be-perfected pollution control devices to remove carbon dioxide from effluent steams and storing it somewhere (i.e., CCS).
Either option will increase electricity and gasoline prices, at least temporarily. So, on the basis of the Thune resolution, climate legislation is not to be. (And by the way, without legislation to discourage demand for gasoline, gas prices will eventually go up. The difference will be that the dollars will flow overseas rather than stay at home.)
The perplexing thing about this vote is that so many senators who are on record favoring climate change legislation (including some who've supported such bills in the past) voted yes on this resolution.
Boxer Maneuvers a Zig Back
Seeking to limit the damage from Thune’s measure, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) inserted language into the budget resolution requiring that legislation “relating to clean energy technologies not increase electricity or gasoline prices or increase the overall burden on consumers.” (Italics added.) This measure passed 54 to 43.
Related Articles
 | Dispatch from Copenhagen, Day One: Outlook Not So Good |
 | Climate Change and Conflict |
 | Obama's Green Team: Who They Are and What's Next |
Tags
The Environment, Guest Blogger, carbon emissions, congress, energy, enviroscience, Obama, science news, The Green GrokThe Boxer insertion makes climate change legislation tenable as long as the government provides revenues to consumers to offset the extra costs of energy purchases. One way to do this is through revenue-neutral legislation where income to the federal government, for example from the auction of allowances, is returned to taxpayers in the form of a tax rebate or reduction in payroll taxes. (Both the Waxman-Markey bill and the Obama proposal have provisions to offset at least some of the extra costs to consumers in this way.)
While the Boxer resolution was a good catch for those favoring climate legislation, the vote sends an ominous message. Only 54 voted in favor — shy of the 60 needed to pass climate legislation now that the president’s efforts to include cap-and-trade legislation in the budget provisions have been axed. After all this, it would appear that passage of a climate bill is still very much in question.
Want to learn more about the environment, solar energy, sustainability, and more? Subscribe to Popular Science today, for less than $1 per issue!
17 Comments
To comment, please Login.
Popular Tags
The Environment on Popular Science
140 years of Popular Science at your fingertips.
Popular Science+ For iPad
Each issue has been completely reimagined for your iPad. See our amazing new vision for magazines that goes far beyond the printed page
Download Our App
Stay up to date on the latest news of the future of science and technology from your iPhone or Android phone with full articles, images and offline viewing
Follow Us On Twitter
Featuring every article from the magazine and website, plus links from around the Web. Also see our PopSci DIY feed
April 2013: How It Works
For our annual How It Works issue, we break down everything from the massive Falcon Heavy rocket to a tiny DNA sequencer that connects to a USB port. We also take a look at an ambitious plan for faster-than-light travel and dive into the billion-dollar science of dog food.
Plus the latest Legos, Cadillac's plug-in hybrid, a tractor built for the apocalypse, and more.
Popular on Popsci
Most Commented
The Environment
Most Emailed
The Environment
Most Viewed
The Environment
Online Content Director: Suzanne LaBarre | Email
Senior Editor: Paul Adams | Email
Associate Editor: Dan Nosowitz | Email
Assistant Editor: Colin Lecher | Email
Assistant Editor:Rose Pastore | Email
Contributing Writers:
Rebecca Boyle | Email
Kelsey D. Atherton | Email
Francie Diep | Email
Shaunacy Ferro | Email
Today on PopSci.com
Copyright © 2012 Popular Science
A Bonnier Corporation Company. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Gotta love it. You do realize that for every "green job" created, that one non "green" job will be sacrificed? How much money do you get from the government?
"We can lower emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the major greenhouse gas pollutant, by either:
* “putting a price" on carbon to discourage the use of coal and oil, or
* adding yet-to-be-perfected pollution control devices to remove carbon dioxide from effluent steams and storing it somewhere (i.e., CCS).
"
You forgot to mention that building more nuclear power plants would also reduce greenhouse emissions.
"Either option will increase electricity and gasoline prices, at least temporarily."
By how much and for how long?
"One way to do this is through revenue-neutral legislation where income to the federal government, for example from the auction of allowances, is returned to taxpayers in the form of a tax rebate or reduction in payroll taxes."
So energy companies pay the government money to produce energy and carbon, then the government pays consumers the money so the consumer can pay the energy companies' higher prices for production? Doesn't this seem a little circular to you?
I wonder how much gets skimmed by various middle-men and bureaucrats before it actually ends up in the consumer's pocket. And will this be distributed evenly or only to lower income individuals who this kind of scheme affects the most?
from New York, New York
"kstauff"-- you ask some important questions. Addressing tough questions is going to be crucial to the success of any of these efforts.
"seriously"-- a lot of the not-so-green jobs have been dwindling of their own accord. Detroit's car industry meltdown hasn't been a result of the economic collapse. Like, say, the publishing industry, it's had its own problems and been asleep at the wheel (so to speak), and now the economic situation is exacerbating its problems.
This isn't a black and white issue, and a green vs. not-so-green economy is not an either/or scenario. Industry evolves, and workers (and their jobs) evolve with it. This has always been the case. The old Mills that used to be the economic bread and butter of small cities across America no longer produce the textiles and whatnot they used to. I think the current Administration is working to pinpoint the areas of American industry that need to evolve, or are evolving (a dying industry is a clear sign that there's some evolution taking place), and pointing industry, and our nation, toward the future, so we don't shoot ourselves in the feet clinging to an unsustainable past.
This hasn't been suggested in Congress or anything, but what if GM, say, and all its workers, started manufacturing windmills? What if we conduct CPR on the industries that need it by transforming those industries into the backbone of green industry?
Just a thought. Thanks for sharing yours!
Taylor
PopSci.com
Taylor, I agree with you on the fact that those jobs have been dwindling. Advanced technology in any industry will reduce the number of jobs, I will never state otherwise. However, I feel it is reckless to say that you will be "creating" more jobs with "green" technology. Also, to retool an entire industry is not really feasible. Cars will be around for a long time, so there is no real reason for them to retool. Just let the car industry fail, and start over. Other businesses will come in and make the necessary changes for it to be viable again. This current administration is not doing anything to help, neither did the last, it is best if Washington just stays out of the way. More to your point on Detroit, they died starting in the mid to late 90's, they were living on a namesake and started building crappy cars in order to make a few extra dollars, they deserve anything bad that happens to them. GM and Chrysler could make a comeback, but they need to go into bankruptcy for that to happen.
taylor:
I think Seriously's point is that if there's likely no net gain of jobs from the "greening" push, so it seems disingenuous when this policy is marketed that way. If there is a net gain in jobs, then this may imply an increased cost for that energy, or that the jobs are lower paying than those replaced.
Detroit's meltdown is more a function of perceived poor quality relative to their foreign competitors combined with extremely high operating costs brought about largely by labor agreements they entered into with unions. In my opinion, all parties involved there deserve what they get, which should be bankruptcy.
I agree and am heartened that you see this as a complex issue; that's certainly refreshing. I hope to hear more from popsci that gives a fair treatment to all sides of these issues. I also enjoy reading Dr. Chamiedes articles, although I often feel that he presents a less than completely objective view of environmental issues.
I disagree that creating green jobs removes conventional jobs. If you get the insulation in your house upgraded, that's not taking anybody's job away. If you buy an American made, energy-efficient window instead of a cheap Chinese one, you might be taking a job away, but it's coming from China back to the US, and if you love America, you should be for that. If you have a landscaper come in and plant trees around your house to reduce heating and cooling costs, that's not taking a job away either. It's just common sense stuff that keeps Americans working while lowering our electrical bills. At the same time, by reducing this energy, we can avoid the need to build more power plants, which cause asthma, acid rain, and evaporate a substantial portion of the freshwater that could go to crops or drinking water. So I'm all for my tax dollars going to get this ball rolling.
How would reducing you energy bill not lead to layoffs within that power plant? If you are no longer using the same amount of power then why would the need a bunch of people standing around?
Seriously,
The folks who had been "standing around" at the local coal-fired power plant are now working on developing and installing smart appliances in people's homes; they're also helping to produce smart appliances for export to other countries.
------
Dr. Bill Chameides
Dean, Duke University
Nicholas School of the Environment
www.nicholas.duke.edu | www.TheGreenGrok.com
Twitter: theGreenGrok
Seriously,
WRT your earlier comment, actually not. Most studies suggest that transitioning to a green economy will result in more total created jobs. See www.cggc.duke.edu/environment/climatesolutions
And by the way, people predicted that computers would destroy jobs too -- didn't quite work out that way, did it?
------
Dr. Bill Chameides
Dean, Duke University
Nicholas School of the Environment
www.nicholas.duke.edu | www.TheGreenGrok.com
Twitter: theGreenGrok
kstauff:
1. The two options I listed do not preclude or mandate nuclear power. They simply set the conditions by which low-carbon technologies like nuclear power can compete.
2. It's not circular because companies that figure out how to make low-carbon energy at low cost can break the cycle and out-compete others. The mistake in your reasoning is that you are not accounting for innovation. The whole purpose of market-based policies like cap-and-trade is to set the incentives for innovation and let the private sector do the rest.
3. I share your concerns about middlemen and bureaucrats. That's why many people favor market-based approaches because the gov't's role can be kept small. But as in most
things, the devil is in the details.
------
Dr. Bill Chameides
Dean, Duke University
Nicholas School of the Environment
www.nicholas.duke.edu | www.TheGreenGrok.com
Twitter: theGreenGrok
Seriously - Not so sure about "reckless." There have been some pretty high-powered economic analyses on the subject. They may be wrong, but reckless? I don't think so.
------
Dr. Bill Chameides
Dean, Duke University
Nicholas School of the Environment
www.nicholas.duke.edu | www.TheGreenGrok.com
Twitter: theGreenGrok
Seriously - Not so sure about "reckless." There have been some pretty high-powered economic analyses on the subject. They may be wrong, but reckless? I don't think so.
_---------------------------------------------------
Grok, during that time, how many government jobs were created? If I am not mistaken, the government employs more people than the Forbes top 30 corporations. Also how many jobs shifted from the manufactering industries to service industries? The tech bubble shifted jobs from one place to another, but what happens when no more shifting can be done? I mean we are talking theoretically with GW, so why not talk in theory with what will happen to those jobs? Also if you could link to those analyses, that would be great. Thanks.
"3. I share your concerns about middlemen and bureaucrats. That's why many people favor market-based approaches because the gov't's role can be kept small. But as in most
things, the devil is in the details."
Dr. Chameides,
I don't think it's unfair to ask that carbon neutral energy suppliers innovate further to reduce the cost of their energy to such a level as to compete with fossil fuel providers. I also remain unconvinced that CO2 is causing warming that is significant relative to the warming that is evident in the paleo-climatological record.
Therefore, putting economic levers put in place to "engineer" fossil fuels out of the economy is at best a dangerous experiment and at worst a new avenue for government largess and abuse by all parties involved with the tax payer and consumer footing the bill. In my opinion, there's simply not enough evidence to support such dangerous and damaging economic policy, especially when carbon neutral energy such as nuclear is available.
Dr. Chameides, Please explain this:
cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46453
Quote:"Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, says a new study released this month. The study draws parallels with the green jobs programs of the Obama administration".
Just curious to your thoughts?
While I'm not a scientist I do spend a *lot* of time reading about various issues across the sciences (and engineering), and I'd like to look at the issue regarding lost/gained jobs from a slightly different prospective.
I don't know if there might be a net gain in employment, neither a gain nor a loss, or a net loss.
But let's say there is a net loss. I'd rather see those losses at least partially offset, and I can't see how there can't possibly be *some* new "green" jobs created, including for some people in more traditional employment who might lose their jobs.
For instance, from what I've read, it will take minimal training, sometimes on the job (i.e., not in a formal class setting), to train various traditional craftsmen to perform tasks such as install solar panels or film, erect wind turbines, install new windows/insulation/etc. in homes and buildings.
Let me stress I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just think that however many jobs are lost there will be some new ones created. Heck, if I weren't nearly 58, I'd look at a career change (from being a self-retired university English instructor)!
One other point I'd like to make not related to the employment issue. Where I live (Bangkok) there's not a whole lot I can do. I live in a rented unit on the ground floor of a nine-floor building. But by using my ceiling fans as much as possible, unplugging my various household devices when I'm not using them, showering quickly and not using the electric water heater, I've reduced my electric and water bills by about 60%. So whether global warming is a myth or whatever, I *like* having smaller bills. I also wish the air, especially, were better -- on some days I think I'm in the middle of Los Angeles during a temperature inversion!
In short, regarding my second point, no matter the truth on environmental change, there's a lot to like by going green.
Mekhong Kurt
Bangkok, Thailand
yes thx for info
-------
daniela andre
www.mls.fastrealestate.net
I agree, that is the way it should be.
www.unfairdismissalcompensation.com