U.S. Government
International
Academic, Non-Governmental
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) took the first steps toward Senate action on climate legislation today by announcing a list of principles and vowing to get a cap-and-trade bill through her Environment and Public Works Committee by the end of the year.
It could be weeks, not months. ... We know that we have to act, and we intend to act.
That prompted Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Senate's climate skeptic-in-chief, to issue this statement that read like an invitation to a fight:
Congressional cap-and-trade bills, often touted as an ‘insurance policy’ against global warming, would instead be nothing more than all economic pain for no climate gain. We look forward to debating these tough issues in the Committee this year.
Boxer's news conference was short on details about the future climate legislation. She promised that “Science will guide us. Period.” A carbon tax is out. Cap-and-trade is in. Asked which low-emissions energy sources would benefit from the legislation, Boxer gave a clear nod to nuclear as one, noting that some of the environment committee’s members “are extremely pro-nuclear.”
Instead, Boxer outlined the basic principles that will guide the development of a climate bill:
Some of Boxer's comments after she read the principles sent mixed messages, though.
Joe Romm of Climate Progress heard her deliver a death knell to climate change legislation winning approval before the U.N. summit in Copenhagen this December. Boxer spoke of getting strong bi-partisan support, and when asked if she was coordinating legislation with House Energy and Environment Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, who has promised to get his own climate protection bill to the House floor by June, she replied: "We’re going to write our own bill, and he’s going to write his own bill. We’ll see where it goes. As far as coordinating and having exact legislation, we haven’t decided." Romm's take:
Her remarks contained the real news — no chance of climate legislation be enacted into law this year.
Jeremy Symons of the National Wildlife Federation provided a different interpretation of Boxer's intent.
Senator Boxer stated clearly that she's ready to go in 2009. I personally do not believe she'll wait until the end of the year to move legislation. She just did not want to be pinned down to a date and was showing typical respect for the Senate majority leader who decides when a bill moves on the floor.
Obama has been in office all of two weeks. We can certainly expect there to be good cooperation between the administration, the Senate committee and the House Committee. I'm not terribly concerned. Things are moving in the right direction.
Based on Boxer’s description, the Senate bill that eventually emerges will be similar to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 that died in the Senate last summer, only more vague. Lieberman-Warner failed because it was “weighted down with details,” Boxer said.
A lot of what was in that bill will be in this one, but in a different form. It will be a more streamlined approach. We want to get a bill out there that is straightforward, that doesn’t have too much weight that it sinks. I want to get a bill that every member has a stake in. We will have bi-partisan support.
- 1
- 2
- next page »
Don't Count Carbon Taxes "out"
Boxer's revving up to roar down the dead-end where wreckage of Lieberman-Warner cap-n-trade smolders. Cap-n-trade and carbon taxes both put a price on carbon to discourage squandering the "free" resource, using the sky as a dump. But caps hide prices, taxes use prices as incentives.
Testifying to the Foreign Relations Committee, Al Gore told Senator Corker that a revenue-neutral carbon tax is his "preferred alternative." Why? Because it's effective, transparent, easy to implement, and with revenue shifted to reduce payroll taxes, it's fair.
A carbon tax will raise fossil fuel prices gradually but substantially to put conservation and alternatives on a more equal footing. Cap-n-trade will also raise prices by auctioning (or giving away) permits, but unpredictably, in response to supply constraints as demand collides with the cap. Caps are hidden, volatile, regressive taxes; current proposals dole funds out to special interests, including polluters. (Boxer says she wants "a bill that every member has a stake in." Read the fine print.)
A revenue-neutral carbon tax with a corresponding reduction in taxes on work isn't a net tax increase, and could be a win-win for environment and economy.
Why try to "fix" the complex, easily-gamed, and ineffective cap-n-trade? Despite a mighty and prolonged struggle, the EU's cap-n-trade system has produced no emissions reductions. Time for fresh thinking.
She can stamp and fume all she wants about bipartisan support, but Boxer's not likely to get a hidden, volatile, regressive tax increase passed. Senator Corker and his colleagues can spot a hidden tax when they see it.
For more on carbon taxes: Carbon Tax Center at www.carbontax.org. Petition and letters to Congress: Price Carbon Campaign at www.pricecarbon.org.
Post new comment