Which bothers you more: rising sea levels, shrinking ice caps and global weather twirling out of control - or do you worry about the health of the coal industry, a potential bump in gas prices and jobless rates a year before mid-term elections? If you chose the second set of concerns, you're a prime example of why climate change legislation is in deep trouble. A flawed but worthy plan to cut greenhouse gases barely cleared the House and now faces high hurdles in the Senate, whose members are a far tougher sell.
After eight years of denial and inaction by the prior White House, President Obama has made climate change legislation a top priority by setting the nation on a course to reduce carbon dioxide emissions - the chief global-warming culprit.
The House plan, which squeaked through two weeks ago by a 219-212 vote, is a milestone. It puts the country on course to cut greenhouse gases by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent at midcentury. It would go beyond the tightening of tailpipe emissions; the package would take in all industries from power plants to farming.
In effect, the rules amount to a new energy plan for the country, a spur to an infant green-tech economy and a bet that a complex cap-and-trade mechanism will nudge the nation away from fossil fuels with minimal pain. After decades of talk, the country may finally take serious steps to clean its skies and cut back on importing 70 percent of its energy.
Obama hailed the package, but it's nowhere near a done deal. Collecting the 60 votes the Senate will need to stop a filibuster and win passage is no certainty. For all of its lofty intentions, the House bill was larded with so many giveaways and complexities that several environmental groups denounced it.
Adding to the bewilderment is the political reality that climate change doesn't necessarily follow partisan lines. Midwest states worry about job losses if smokestack rules change. Coal states fear that generating plants will cut back on their favorite fuel. Farm groups want ag-friendly sweeteners to promote biofuels and allow the sale of pollution credits to outside industries. The moribund nuclear industry wants a chance to rebound. Included in the House version is a tariff on imports from countries that don't play by the U.S. rules, a worrisome invitation to a protectionist trade war. The present Democratic majority doesn't stick together on global warming policy.
The urge for deal-making may topple the package when the lead Senate committee headed by California Democrat Barbara Boxer goes to work this month. Adding to the complexity is that several other Senate committees - and their powerful heads - will be drawn in. A full-Senate vote could come this fall prior to an international environmental summit in December. The United States might as well stay home if the Senate fails.
With this schedule there should be time to examine all of the moving parts carefully. At 1,200 pages, the House bill demands serious study and simplification.
An ideal outcome would have the Senate rid the package of its worst features: the tariff on imports, favored treatment for carbon-dioxide-spewing power plants and special rules for farming interests. Clarity on the cap-and-trade system would be helpful, too. How will it work and be run?
A sweeping bill designed to show results over decades doesn't impress leaders worried about the next election or unemployment report. Obama and his Senate supporters must do a better job of selling the benefits of the bill in relation to its costs. Proponents are waving a government report that climate controls will cost a family $175 per year, a number that opponents claim understates the pocketbook hit.
Though it may not resonate in the Senate, there's a worldwide impact to consider. As the planet's biggest polluter, this nation must lead the way in stemming the climate change problem. Until now, that job has been shrugged off.
It's time to take the undeniable problem of global warming seriously and push ahead with a plan to solve it. The House plan is a starting point for the Senate to follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment