As someone who follows global climate issues for a living, the past month has been a whirlwind of incremental progress, speculation and literal explosions. Following the daily – make that hourly – ticker has been valuable in understanding the current climate position of the U.S. and the direction things are heading in 2010.
The Issues Unfolding
Currently in the U.S., three important issues are simultaneously unfolding on the climate stage. Receiving much of the media attention is the tumultuous follow-up to April’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill. At the time of writing this post, robot submersibles are working to place a mile-long tube active below the sea, to funnel leaking oil to a tanker ship. This week in Washington, a new round of Congressional hearings into the spill continue while President Obama has decided to have a presidential commission investigate the cause of the rig explosion that unleashed millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
Adding to this, the head of the Interior Department’s embattled oil and gas drilling program announced this week he is retiring at the end of the month, a move that comes as his agency faces scrutiny following the spill. As details continue to emerge, on the significant failings and potential corruption of the Interior Department, its Minerals Management Service and how these oversights likely lead to the disaster, there is little indication that the term “oil spill clean up” will turn out to be anything but oxymoronic.
Alongside these events, the American Power Act made its debut last week. After months of petty delays, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman released their climate bill, revealing surprising similarities to the Clean Energy and Security Act passed last year. In short, the bill calls for cutting carbon pollution 80% by 2050 and contains provisions for carbon markets and transportation and leeway for the EPA to set its own standards for power plants. To pass, the the APA requires 60 votes in the Senate, which has already been deemed unlikely. The bill is designed to be viable within this difficult political context.
Since its release, the APA has received criticism mainly for being overly industry friendly and weak on renewable energy mandates. With its favorable provisions for coal and oil companies, passes for industrial polluters (until 2016), subsidies for nuclear power and an expansion of offshore drilling, it’s hardly a shock that hundreds of environmental groups and democratic politicians have come out against the bill.
Addressing the criticism, Senator John Kerry writes:
“And here’s what I can tell you, a comprehensive climate bill written purely for you and me – true believers – can’t pass the Senate no matter how hard or passionate I fight on it. No, it’s got to be an effort that makes my colleagues – and that has to include Republicans so we can get to 60 – comfortable about the jobs we’re going to create and the protection for consumers and the national security benefits – and it has to address those pieces on their terms. The good news – I think we got that balance right.”
Quietly emerging in the background, the biggest movement has come from the EPA. This month, following Supreme Court orders, the agency went forward, using the Clean Air Act to crack down on the dirtiest coal plants in the U.S. Via the new “tailoring rule,” major carbon polluters will now face stronger emissions controls while smaller companies will be exempt from many of the enforcement requirements. Focus will be placed on facilities such as power plants and oil refineries, which account for roughly 70 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources. The tailoring rule will take effect in January 2011. The announcement means that even if a climate bill dies in the Senate, there exists a backup tool to go after polluters that account for the highest percentage of American carbon emissions.
As expected, the new EPA initiative has been criticized by various industry groups with some citing concerns that the tailoring rule takes the country in the wrong direction by using the Clean Air Act to expand the power of the EPA and allows the agency to choose which energy sources American consumers will use. Business groups would rather be in a bargaining position with Congress, to negotiate with lobbyists. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican Senator, warns that the EPA action will “throttle the economy” and has worked up a bill to bar the EPA from acting.
It’s All Connected
At first glance, the BP explosion, the release of the APA and the EPA activity appear affiliated with each other but not wholly connected. In fact, the three scenarios are heavily linked, with the APA bill squarely in the middle. Negatively influencing its passing is the Deepwater spill. The bill’s offshore oil drilling provision was supposed to be an inciting feature for Senate Republicans. But the Gulf disaster has made a number of Senate Democrats more opposed to drilling than they ever were. Some have sworn to filibuster anything that presents further opportunities for offshore drilling. Unless Obama decides to incorporate the spill into a broader message on reducing fossil fuel dependence, passing the APA bill wasn’t made easier when that rig exploded. Now, many feel that the only serious chance that a climate bill has is from the business community, weary of a government agency on its back to regulate emissions. This could be used as the leverage necessary to get the Senate to pass a more negotiable climate bill.
Despite the attention the American Power Act is receiving, I’d say that the chances for its passing are grim. Failure to agree on a way forward has less to do with scientific complexities, but more the lack of political will. Writing for the BBC, environmental correspondent, Richard Black says:
“The yawning chasm between the rhetoric of ‘the most serious problem facing humanity’ and the reality that governments are nowhere near agreeing effective remedies is as wide as that between BP’s need to stem the Gulf of Mexico oil spill quickly and their confidence in being able to do so.”
As the world of offshore drilling collides with politicians, regulators and lobbyists in Washington it is obvious that the early stages of climate legislation will suit no one group entirely. It is more realistic to recognize that even a small effort to nudge industries toward efficiency and clean power is an important step, even if the tools to do so are flawed. By adopting an iterative, work-in-progress stance on climate legislation, inadequacies contained within a bill can be strengthened over time, once the difficult passing phase is over.
