How to Deal with the Climate Bill: Take the Table Scraps or Fight for More?

"Al Gore says support it. Paul Krugman says support it. Two Nobel Prize Winners. Who am I to question them?"

That is a question received, in more than one space, when it comes to the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act.

Well, with all due respect to the infallibility of a Nobel Prize Winner (Kissinger, ’73, James Watson, ’03, etc.), we should be clear that the bill, as drafted, falls far short of what is necessary and quite likely falls short of what is possible.

How can this be? How can a bill driven by two of the most passionate and knowledgeable House members fall short of the possible? 

For one, perhaps it is because of a fundamental failure of those advocating serious action in regards to climate change. In short, as per Gore’s and many environmental organizations’ praise for the draft bill, there is a clear impression (if not reality) that those advocating for action are prepared to take scraps from the table rather than fight for and demand adequate legislative action.

In short, the mainstream reaction to the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s passage of ACES last week has been: "YEAH, Congrats and Thanks to Waxman and Markey, oh, by the way, can we try to strengthen this a bit?"

Well, we need to ask ourselves a serious question: How does one “win”?

Do you win by saying "this ain’t what I want but YEAH" and then watching it watered down even further by attacks from anti-science suffering global warming deniers?

Or, do we get a stronger bill by reminding (STRONGLY) that this bill has tremendous shortfalls and does not even live up to basic principles?

What are some items to consider?

* Joe Romm, who has been cheerleading Waxman-Markey recently (despite much on-the-record work that provides a basis for highlighting its inadequacies), says that it might (MIGHT) give us a 10-20% chance of stabilization at 450 ppm and avoiding catastrophic climate change. Hmmm … what wonderful odds. (Romm believes, with reason, that this is an improvement over the odds without Waxman-Markey. That Romm is strongly supportive gives pause to what might otherwise be harsher criticism and conclusions. And for those who aren't aware, Romm's Hell & High Water is perhaps the top book on the intersection of climate change and U.S. politics.)

* The bill’s Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) doesn’t even meet the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) latest business as usual (BAU) analysis of renewable power in the U.S. system come 2020. 

* The bill’s 2020 target is such that it could well be met with zero actual reduction in US emissions from the EIA’s latest BAU analysis. (This is from a comment from the EIA’s acting director in a public session yesterday.)

* The bill gives over $1 trillion in direct and indirect subsidies to fossil fuel industries and about 1/10th that to renewable energy and energy efficiency.

And, so on …

ACES Fails on Principle

Amid all this, we should recognize that this bill, despite all the hard work by good people, fails on basic principles.

1. Scientifically Sound: The IPCC benchmark, which is quite likely far too conservative, calls for the developed world to cut emissions by 2020 by 25-40 percent below 1990 levels. (2005 levels, being used as a benchmark for Waxman-Markey, are about 14 percent higher than 1990.)

• 1
• 2
• 3
• next page »