Global Warming In the News

First, the political good news.  
The press conference emphasized that well over 60 votes are in play on the bill; that Blanche Lincoln's Agriculture Committee will hold hearings beginning in early January; Max Baucus is committed to being Max Baucus moving quickly; and that a bill will be passed this Congress.  As a side note, Senator Mark Pryor (D-WalmARt) is now rethinking his position on cap and trade in light of Monday's EPA announcement that carbon dioxide endangers human health.  And, since much climate action is presently occurring elsewhere, the Senators' announcement is designed to show the rest of the world that the United States Senate backs President Obama.

Thus, the Senators' language uses exactly the same pledge that Obama did last month -- a near term pollution reduction target "in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels."  And that's where things start to go awry.  Kerry-Boxer called for a 20% reduction, a loftier goal than Waxman-Markey's 17%.  By contrast, a new study from the Met Office in Britain shows that emissions have to peak before 2020 if we have any hope of holding the temperature rise to two degrees Celsius:

The researchers conclude that early action to reduce emissions maximizes the chances of remaining below two degrees Celsius, BBC reports.

Peaking in 2018 and reducing emissions by four percent per year after that, would give a 50 percent chance of keeping warming below two degrees.

Should the peak occur two years later, in 2020, the decline would then need to be five percent per year for the same odds of staying below two degrees Celsius.

Oil, nuclear, and coal power:
The framework seeks to increase "our supply of domestically produced oil and natural gas on land and offshore " -- a state can opt to drill.  Already Environment Florida is sounding the alarm: "Extensive drilling that hurts our lucrative coastal economy, premises our security on a paltry oil supply, and fuels global warming, if anything, is not the best compromise we can craft for Florida. We need leadership that can guide us past the twin dangers of climate change and offshore drilling."  And the framework singles out "the ability to refine petroleum products in the United States" as a national security priority; I surmise this will mean a goodie for refiners.

In today's midday open thread, Meteor Blades asks whether  the cost of passing a climate bill will be a massive, taxpayer-funded bailout of the nuclear industry.  The Senators answer: Yes!  "We will make it easier to finance the construction of new nuclear power plants," possibly by increasing the size of the federal loan guarantee fund.

And the framework ensures a future for coal: "We will commit significant resources to the rapid development and deployment of clean coal technology, and dedicated support for early deployment of carbon capture and sequestration."

Competition:
The Senators explicitly reject carbon taxes and a "labyrinth of command-and-control regulations" (possibly a jab at the EPA) in favor of cap and trade a market-based pollution reduction system.  They praise efficiency, a price on carbon, regulatory predictability, and apple pie.  

Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman are getting competition from other Senators.  Tomorrow, Senators Cantwell and Collins will unveil their alternative proposal "that would set a price on carbon emissions and return most of the revenue to consumers who will pay higher fuel costs," also known as a cap and dividend approach:

While most of the revenue from the auctioning of emissions permits under the plan would go to consumers, a quarter would be used for clean energy research, assistance to hard-hit communities, energy efficiency programs and reductions in greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide.

The average household would receive a tax-free refund of about $1,100 a year, according to Senator Cantwell’s office.

I've previously criticized Cantwell's draft CLEAR bill on a number of grounds, most important of which is the fact that the draft plan had a very nominal (1-2%) reduction in carbon emissions from 2005 to 2020.  The bill being unveiled tomorrow has apparently fixed that by promising a 20%  reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 -- Kerry-Boxer's starting point.  Tomorrow we'll all have more information on whether Cantwell-Collins is a CLEAR improvement over Cantwell's draft and over the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill or whether it will only confuse Senators.

Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman may believe that they've got a bill that can pass, and Senators Cantwell and Collins may feel the same way about their competition.  Any bill that promotes further reliance on oil drilling and "clean" coal, while reducing already modest emissions targets, may be too ineffective to do much for the slow-motion climate catastrophe that we've unleashed upon the planet.  Senators may negotiate dueling bills until the cows come home, but ultimately a bill has to effectively reduce carbon emissions.  Reality doesn't negotiate -- not even with Senators.