RSS
Home
Agriculture seen as a key to passing climate-energy bill in the Senate
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Agriculture will be a big factor determining whether a climate bill similar to Waxman-Markey can make it through the Senate, said Eric Carlson, president of Carbonfund.org in Silver Spring, Md.
“Agriculture was a late comer to Waxman-Markey and needs more attention,” said Carlson, emphasizing that passing the legislation in the Senate will require a lot of work, but is not impossible. He hopes that the Senate version of the bill remains focused on reducing carbon dioxide and will not get watered down.
A last-minute concession Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif) made to agricultural interests was crucial in paving way to the Waxman-Markey bill’s passage in the House last week. Waxman agreed to change the bill so that the U.S. Department of Agriculture will oversee the carbon-offset program for farmers.
The cap-and-trade provision may need some improvements. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) said on Twitter, “I hope we can fix cap-and-trade so it doesn’t unfairly punish businesses in coal dependent states like Missouri.” She has called her constituents’ reaction to a climate-energy bill, “the definition of the word polarized.”
A cooling-off period probably is needed after the razor-thin passage of the Waxman-Markey. It would be unlikely and a mistake to try to pass a climate-energy bill this year, said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, because “Obama can get a better climate bill in 2010,” according to published reports.
Meanwhile, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) plans to begin marking up climate change legislation in late July, according to Roll Call, and is expected to use Waxman-Markey as a starting point. Major activity on the bill is slated to begin in September.
The 212 representatives voted “no” on the Waxman-Markey bill for various reasons, all of which must be weighed when writing the Senate version: 1) They consider the bill too weak; 2) They represent manufacturing or agricultural states, or 3) They reject scientific research that shows humans have a hand in greenhouse gas emissions – which I think is the most troubling group.
These representatives in “climate-change denial” are irresponsible and traitors to the planet, declared Paul Krugman in his New York Times column of June 28, 2009.
In making his case, Krugman points to the latest climate research from M.I.T., predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees by the end of the century, a major increase over the previous prediction of 4 degrees.
“The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected…global greenhouse gas emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out weaker than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is self-reinforcing – that, for example, rising temperatures will cause some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” he wrote.
Krugman also says that opponents of the bill misrepresented the results of studies of the bill’s economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.
Obviously, more energy needs to be put into educating the legislators and the public. There’s no doubt that moving a global warming bill will be challenging in the midst of a deep recession, with many business owners complaining about the cost.
“To impose substantially higher energy costs at a time when we’re having a difficult time keeping jobs is a recipe for shear economic disaster,” said William Kovacs, vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Still, a flurry of activity on a Senate climate bill is under way this year, and the public is tuned into the debate. Scott Segal, an industry attorney, says whether that activity will yield a bill ready for the president to sign by the end of the year remains to be seen. But one thing is for sure: “The Congress must do its homework on climate change,” he said.
For more information, see: http://www.examiner.com/x-12720-DC-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d30-Carbon-offsets-in-WaxmanMarkey-climate-bill-make-economic-sense
