Let it all out into the air

Despite John Boehner's attempt to stall the bill by reading the Waxman-Markey legislation on the floor of the House, cap-and-trade legislation to address global warming passed in the House of Representatives tonight (oh-so-barely, by a 219-212 margin, with lots of Democratic defections). The bill sets a limit (cap) on emissions of global warming gases and allows utilities and other industries to trade allowances. Over time, the cap lowers, increasing the costs of the problematic emissions, thereby attempting to monetize the environmental impact of this type of pollution. The goal, of course, is to create an economic incentive to influence industry to find cleaner energy sources.

Now, the bill moves to the Senate - probably after the summer ends.

Meanwhile, Republicans are gearing up to attack the bill as a tax which will slow down the economy. Eric Cantor is crying that this causes terrible harm to the economy during a difficult recession (intentionally ignoring the phase-in of the bill).

Some "realists," on the other hand, argue that, although the economic costs may not be that high (and right-wingers argue the opposite, so given their track record, I'm pretty sure where I'd come down on that) - about $1,000 per household by 2050 - the benefit is too small, as well. So, if the bill isn't perfect, the logic goes, we should continue to do nothing. This camp includes not only Republicans, who argue against efficacy for ideological purposes, but also some environmental groups like Greenpeace.

I think that those arguments are wrong, not substantively but practically. As much as anything, a bill is necessary to change our mindset and to encourage the rest of the world (the developed world has been largely ahead of us on this, except for the very significant examples of India and China - which cannot be ignored) to progress on climate issues, too. We're already too far behind (perhaps too far behind to stop significant warming, but that is no excuse to stop trying).

On specifics, it appears that the most significant arguments against the bill are regarding the authorization under the bill of an annual 2 billion tons of carbon offsets - "a massive loophole that will allow polluters to meet their carbon reduction obligations by paying someone else not to pollute," according to Michael Brune of the Rainforest Action Network. Joseph Romm counters that this objection is a red herring - 2 billion tons of offsets just don't exist and perhaps never will. The ability to offset, then, is, to an extent, illusory. (That may not be as good a thing as Romm makes it sound like; reading it another way, if 2 billion tons exceeds all the available offsets, the bill pretty much allows unlimited offsets to the extent available.)

It's not a cut-and-dry issue. Dr. James Hansen, the NASA climate scientist who last week was arrested at an anti-mountaintop mining protest, opposes the Waxman-Markey bill, citing studies that the bill would result in increased coal use in coming decades. As he told Elizabeth Kolbert in New Yorker Magazine recently (via New York Times' DotEarth blog):

Dr. Hansen pointed out that the bill explicitly allows for the construction of new coal plants and predicted that it would, if passed, prove close to meaningless. He said that he thought it would probably be best if the bill failed, so that Congress could “come back and do it more sensibly.”

I said that if the bill failed I thought it was more likely Congress would let the issue drop, and that was one reason most of the country’s major environmental groups were backing it. “This is just stupidity on the part of environmental organizations in Washington,” Dr. Hansen said. “The fact that some of these organizations have become part of the Washington ‘go along, get along’ establishment is very unfortunate.”

Yet as Al Gore said in a blog post supporting the bill:

Today is an historic opportunity to pass truly meaningful legislation to limit global warming pollution, vastly expand our use of renewable energy, and use energy far more efficiently. A victory today in the House of Representatives on the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act would represent an essential first step towards solving the climate crisis. This bill doesn’t solve every problem, but passage today means that we build momentum for the debate coming up in the Senate and negotiations for the treaty talks in December which will put in place a global solution to the climate crisis.

There is no back-up plan. There is not a stronger bill waiting to pass the House of Representatives. It’s time to get started on a plan that will create jobs, increase our national security, and build the clean energy economy that will Repower America.

Which, of course, is right. Imperfections in the bill matter little at this point anyway. Any bill that emerges from the Senate will be different, and assuming that a bill does pass the Senate, it must then make its way through conference committee to become a reconciled bill for passage by both the House and Senate. Greenpeace is focused on a singular purpose and a narrow-minded insistence on purity, but is failing on process. This is a necessary and important achievement. It's only a start, but if you never start, you never get anywhere.