Climate Science Links
U.S. Government
International
Academic, Non-Governmental
Video: Rangel on a Climate Bill -- 'We're There'
SolveClimate had the luck to bump into New York Congressman Charles Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, as he arrived by train in Washington, D.C., on Monday, and he was gracious enough to answer a few questions about climate legislation as we walked along the platform.
It was the day before President Obama addressed the joint session of Congress, asking for a cap on carbon emissions. When we asked Rangel how his committee would respond to climate law, here's what he said:
Whether it's cap and trade or a carbon tax, we're there.
On the question of where the money from carbon revenues should go, he voiced concern about protecting consumers from rising energy prices that a cap on carbon would bring:
We've got to provide a cushion. No question about it.
Watch the video. It will make you feel like you're walking the platform at Union Station alongside the powerful Congressman as he pulls his own bag behind him. Unfortunately, we ran out of platform and the drive-by interview was over, but he gave us a peek into his intentions for influencing the shape and scope of climate law.
At issue is hundreds of billions of dollars of new revenues, so it should be no surprise that Rangel has his antenna up as chairman of Ways and Means -- that's why he said, "We're there." Since then, he has announced that his committee would be marking up a climate bill of its own before Memorial Day.
On Rangel's committee is Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who is floating a "cap and dividend" climate bill that aims to recycle 90% of the carbon revenues back to consumers. That's a cushion alright, no question about it.
Republican lawmakers are hoping that this move puts Rangel on a collision course with Rep. Henry Waxman, whose Energy and Commerce Committee is working to move its own climate bill by Memorial Day. Climatewire reports:
“The more I get the Democrats fighting each other on whatever, I’m happy,” said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), a skeptic on climate science and the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. “I hope Rangel and Waxman get into a huge fight over this. I’ll provide the gloves.”
Clearly Barton didn't get the memo about bipartisanship.
President Obama has signaled that he believes a large chunk of the carbon revenues should go back to consumers; the Democrats in the House are now working out just how much, while all seem to be agreement that 100% of the carbon permits will be auctioned. That means no free lunch for polluters.
The other major issue that needs resolution, besides the fate of the carbon revenues, is where to place the cap on carbon. Van Hollen is in favor of an "upstream cap" -- a simple mechanism for collecting fees at the point where carbon enters the economy. It would require monitoring about 2000 companies -- oil, coal and gas companies that bring fossil fuel to the market. Traditional cap and trade schemes have been designed around the notion of capping carbon where it is burned -- requiring a complex system to monitor and regulate hundreds of thousands of sources of emissions.
See Also
Video: Is Cap and Dividend the Right Solution for Climate Change?
Attachment
The following is the text of a "Dear Colleague" letter Rep. Van Hollen circulated this week in Congress:
Dear Colleague:
- 1
- 2
- next page »
|
© InsideClimate News |
Cap and Dividend
I wonder why so few people talk about the key role that US cap and trade legislation will play in making sure that we get a new climate treaty? Without an international solution to this global problem, we won't solve it. To get a global agreement on climate change, we need the US to help developinig countries transition to low carbon economies, and we need to help stop tropical deforestation, which accounts for more emissions than every car, truck or plane on the planet, combined.
Of course, the US is the world's largest historical emitter, and so has the greatest responsibility for the climate crisis, so it makes sense that we would help reduce these other sources of emissions in poorer countries. But if we don't use some of the revenue from cap and trade to help pay for that, we won't get a new treaty, we won't reduce emissions globally and so we won't stop climate change.
Why in all the talk about cap-and-dividend won't anyone say that? This isn't just about US emissions folks. We need a global solution.
Point Has Addressed
Please take a look at this article I co-authored: http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2116
What Obama Must Do on the Road to Copenhagen.
Please also read the comments after the piece.
There will be no global climate deal without money on the table from developing nations.....I agree. Why does it necessarily have to come from carbon revenues?
Post new comment