Waxman, Peterson Reach Deal; Climate/Energy Bill Set to Move Forward
Rep Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Rep Collin Peterson (D-MN) have reached an accord to further water down the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill in order to gain the support of farm belt Democrats. Joe Romm has analysis. There are two big concessions, one has to do with the blocking real scientific analysis of the comprehensive carbon impact of ethanol, and one has to do with switching oversight authority for agricultural offsets out of the EPA and into the Department of Agriculture. Romm has a relatively rosy take on the ethanol element, arguing that “in the real world, this part of the agreement will probably have very little consequence” largely because existing policy on this subject is already bad:
Well, as I noted before, the enviros made a terrible deal back in the 2007 Energy Bill where they agreed to allow the corn ethanol industry a mandate for 15 billion gallons with a full exemption from lifecycle analysis in return for a mandate of 22 billion gallons of nonexistent cellulosic biofuels. If they thought they could undo that deal, they were wrong.
In practice, then, we’re basically ratifying existing bad policy rather than creating any new problems. The other issue is really harder to evaluate. The whole subject of offsets is inherently very fraught. In principle, they can make compliance with tough carbon targets much easier. But in practice if you don’t evaluate these things properly they can really undermine what you’re doing. The intention of shifting oversight from the EPA to the Agriculture Department is pretty clearly a desire to get offsets scored improperly and let agricultural interests get credit for offsets that they shouldn’t get credit for. Whether or not that’s actually what happens sort of remains to be seen. A good administration that cares about getting this right should, in principle, be able to get the Agriculture Department to do things right whereas a bad administration that doesn’t care about getting this right should be able to get the EPA to do it badly.
I think on the overall question of whether or not the package is worth supporting, probably the best thing you can do is read Charlie Homans’ Waxman profile from earlier this year in The Washington Monthly. There’s simply nobody else in Congress whose record of progressive legislative accomplishments can hold a candle to Waxman’s. When you draw intersecting curves of “what needs to be done” and “what can realistically be done,” Waxman has time and again put himself at the intersection, and I think it involves a fair amount of hubris to think that you know better than him what the best feasible legislative outcome is.
That said, there’s really no getting around the fact that the best feasible legislative outcome isn’t good enough according to the climate science. What we’re left with is essentially the hope for an iterative process—a flawed bill that makes progress helps spur a productive meeting in Copenhagen helps spur some kind of bilateral deal with China which helps create the conditions for further domestic legislation. I think this is the best idea anyone has, but it’s a pretty dicey proposition. Bottom line is that to get a better bill you need a situation wherein a non-trivial number of Republicans are willing to contemplate emissions reductions. Faced with uniform Republican support for untrammeled pollution, the only viable legislative path involves buying off every Democrat.
35 Responses to “Waxman, Peterson Reach Deal; Climate/Energy Bill Set to Move Forward”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 24th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Maybe we should just wait until 2011 and try again. Because as milquetoasty as the House bill is, you know it’ll only get worse in the Senate.
At least by 2011, we should pick up some more Senate seats, so we should at least be able to get a milquetoasty bill through the Senate that won’t be made worse in the House.
June 24th, 2009 at 10:35 am
U.S. (world) population, now 306 million (6.7 billion), will rise to 439 million (9.2 billion) by 2050. Anyone who thinks the U.S. (world) is going to solve environmental problems against this backdrop is a box of rocks.
June 24th, 2009 at 10:47 am
You left out the part where according to the CBO this won’t destroy the economy and the CBO is pessimistic. I think the political consequences of enacting weak Cap and Trade legislation and then an economic recovery in the next few years will be enormous. Then again if the economy doesn’t grow Republicans will claim falsely that it was environmental extremism that is to blame. Sadly people will believe them.
June 24th, 2009 at 10:53 am
“Maybe we should just wait until 2011 and try again”
No. Since the effect of greenhouse gases is cumulative, and
the costs of reducing emissions are less if you take it
slowly, this is very much a problem where doing something
half-assed right now is better than doing something slightly
better later. The global politics make that even more true:
you need to negotiate with China, and those negotiations are
going to be long and slow, and they won’t even *start* until
the USA shows it’s serious.
Besides, getting more Senate seats isn’t going to make an
ounce of difference if they’re clones of Baucus/Landrieu/
Nelson etc.
“U.S. (world) population, now 306 million (6.7 billion), will rise to 439 million (9.2 billion) by 2050″
Yeah. But with that small proportion of the population, we
actually use about 25% of the energy. Besides which, China
and India sure as hell aren’t going to sign up for tough
restrictions on carbon emissions unless and until the USA
is seen to be doing its part.
June 24th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Besides which, China
and India sure as hell aren’t going to sign up for tough
restrictions on carbon emissions, ever.
Fixed it for you.
June 24th, 2009 at 10:58 am
What Richard Cownie said.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:00 am
… see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
USA is the no 1 emitter of CO2, with 22.2% of the total.
Next is China 18.4%, EU 14.7%, Russia 5.6%, India 4.9%,
and Japan 4.6%. Those six account for 70.4%: the EU is
already moving forward aggressively, the USA *must* act,
and then you need to also get China, Russia, and India.
It’s going to be tricky: but it’s perfectly clear that
the no 1 emitter – the USA – *must* act, and then must
also negotiate seriously with Russia, China, and India
to have a chance of solving the global problem.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:05 am
What Richard Cownie said, again.
…adding that the US has much lower population and vastly greater resources than India and China, not to mention that we and the EU are responsible for the vast majority of the excess CO2 already in the atmosphere, which makes the need for immediate action necessary. That is, the US and EU already burned through the margin of error.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:05 am
“Besides which, China
and India sure as hell aren’t going to sign up for tough
restrictions on carbon emissions, ever.”
Well, if we used a little of the $700B+ military budget
on bribes (e.g. subsidies for energy conservation projects)
rather than implausible threats (let’s face it, we’re not
really going to nuke Beijing), I think we could be a heck
of a lot more persuasive.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:08 am
In practice, then, we’re basically ratifying existing bad policy rather than creating any new problems.
Given what I know about the legislative process, I think we have to call this a WIN.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Well, if we used a little of the $700B+ military budget
on bribes (e.g. subsidies for energy conservation projects)
rather than implausible threats (let’s face it, we’re not
really going to nuke Beijing), I think we could be a heck
of a lot more persuasive.
Better yet, let’s just eliminate the entire military and give everyone a pony.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:20 am
“Better yet, let’s just eliminate the entire military and give everyone a pony.”
Under Clinton, a $300B military budget was enough to give
the USA unchallenged global military dominance. What are
we getting for the extra $400B/year ??
Personally, I’d like us to consider a military budget of
around $150B-200B, about 3x larger than either China or
Russia (and bear in mind that the other big spenders, in
NATO and France, are unquestioned *allies* of the USA, so
that 3x factor understates the strategic imbalance).
June 24th, 2009 at 11:26 am
… BTW, a good pony costs about $1000. The US population
is around 300M. So cutting the military budget from the
current $700B+ back down to the Clinton-era $300B would
free up $400B/year, or $1333 per person. So actually, for
what we’re currently spending you could buy every man, woman,
and child in the USA a pony *every year*, *and* have the
same overwhelmingly dominant military we had in 1999, *and*
have a cool $100B/year left for mad money.
Yeah, $700B is an insane amount of money.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:38 am
That’s pretty funny Richard.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:44 am
China will have a minimum of 15 million electric automobiles on their roadways by the year 2020, one million of those vehicles will probably be high powered electric Hummers.
What is the United States doing. Biofuels! Let’s get ‘em boys, let’s make over the heartland states like Iowa, Nebraska and Kansas, turn them into one vast cornfield so we can make fuel. For combustion engines. Brilliant!
What a pitiful, stupid, sorry ass country I live in.
June 24th, 2009 at 11:46 am
… well, it *would* be funny, if that $700B wasn’t going
to come out of my paycheck (and my kids, 20 years from now).
As it is, the joke’s on the taxpayers.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
But all those ponies will fart up the atmosphere and we’d be back at square one. Not a bang, nor a whimper but by pony farts. What a way to go.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
That is 15 million electric cars, by the way, not hybrids. The Chinese are not diddlyfucking around with hybrids. Not when it comes to the home soil. They will make hybrids in the tens of millions to sell here, though, knowing how stupid we are. Knowing that we have no auto industry to call our own. Knowing that we really do not have the slightest interest or the political will to combat global climate change.
And they will forge ahead of us on the climate change issue, mark my words. We will be whining and crying that because the Chinese are dirty polluters we steadfastly refuse to do anything, and one day we will look up and see that China is totally electric, and is building out their solar and wind power networks at ten times the rate we are to power their country in the cleanest of fashions.
And ten years from now they will be pointing fingers at us, the so called greatest country on the planet earth.
June 24th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
… well, it *would* be funny, if that $700B wasn’t going
to come out of my paycheck (and my kids, 20 years from now).
As it is, the joke’s on the taxpayers.
Protecting it’s shores militarily is the prime function of the national govt. What is the % of GDP? 4%? About the same as the Clinton era. Which we would have no problem paying if it wasn’t for all the other crap we pay for or want to pay for, ie. the global warming farce, health care, GM, Chrylser, Fannie, Freddie. But I bet you have no problem having your kids pay for that stuff.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Max,
While I like to condemn our greenhouse gas policy as much as the next guy, those Chinese electric cars will be run on electricty generated by coal burning power plants with even higher CO2 generation than typical gasoline powered cars. Their only benefit is in removing pollution to remote locations rather than having it in densely populated areas. Healthwise, they are environmentally good. Climatewise, they are a step back.
BTW, Richard’s greenhouse gas emision numbers are from 2004. China probably surpassed the US in emissions in 2007. They still have much lower per capita emissions, so the point is a still valid, though.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Chinese electric cars will be run on electricty generated by coal burning power plants with even higher CO2 generation than typical gasoline powered cars.
Documentation, please? Everything I’ve read is that even with coal generated electricity, EV are more CO2 efficient because gas powered internal combustion engines are so damn inefficient. I read a CA Air Resources Board study on this that was pretty thorough.
June 24th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
“Protecting it’s shores militarily is the prime function of the national govt.”
Really ? So how come the Coast Guard only spends about
$900M, barely 1% of military spending ?
If you think the current structure and composition of the
US military is designed for defending the territory of the US,
you’re batshit insane.
And in general, the idea that military spending should be a
fixed fraction of GDP makes no sense. And since the people
who raise that argument never propose to *cut* military
spending when GDP shrinks in a recession, it’s obvious they
don’t even believe it themselves.
Military spending should be in proportion to the threat. And
the USA really isn’t seriously threatened by anybody. Even
in WW2, there was never the slightest possibility that
Germany or Japan could mount an invasion of the continental
USA across the vast distance of the Atlantic or Pacific.
Heck, it was a big challenge for the USA to get an army
across 20 miles of the English Channel.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Even in WW2, there was never the slightest possibility that Germany or Japan could mount an invasion of the continental USA across the vast distance of the Atlantic or Pacific.
Richard, dear, have you ignored the wisdom of the Great Governess of the North?:
Like, such as South Africa and the Iraq everywhere like such as. . .
June 24th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Since the Federal Government won’t fund an analysis of ethanol’s effect on the carbon cycle or energy independence, we’ll just have to rely on conclusions from university studies thus far, that the ethanol economy is a net consumer of energy, and therefore the only reasons to keep throwing Federal dollars at it is to:
- encourage a biofuel distribution infrastructure that can be used by follow-on, efficient fuels.
- buy the farm states votes needed to get one’s candidates into D.C.
At this rate, there won’t be a follow-on fuel, which leaves this as strictly a bribe.
Overall, I’m agreeing with Richard on defense spending, but I gotta split some hairs:
- basing “defense” on the idea that our interests stop at the EEZ doesn’t match reality, and hasn’t since the days of the Barbary Pirates and impressment of US seamen into the Royal Navy.
- along the same lines, avoiding a war with Germany and Japan might have seemed a poor strategy in retrospect.
June 24th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Richard: Sir, I am offended! Batshit insanity and death from above are America’s sole remaining exports. How dare you impugn the justice and freedom of America’s hard-working insanity and death manufacturers.
Next, you’ll be telling me education spending should be “in proportion” to the stupidity of the American populace (especially the portion of the American populace in government). Only when we are all scared, stupid, sick, or dead will the terrorists have finally lost – and isn’t any percentage of our GDP worth sacrificing for that?
June 24th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Military spending should be in proportion to the threat.
Wow, is that stupid. Todays threat may not be tomorrows and tomorrows threat may be anything. Is it not better to be prepared for any contingency than not?
If you think the current structure and composition of the
US military is designed for defending the territory of the US,
you’re batshit insane.
Oh please, you know what I meant. I guess I should have said national security. Sorry.
And in general, the idea that military spending should be a
fixed fraction of GDP makes no sense.
My sense is, is that you don’t feel that way about entitlements and other social spending. Hey at least your not consistent.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
“- basing “defense” on the idea that our interests stop at the EEZ doesn’t match reality, and hasn’t since the days of the Barbary Pirates and impressment of US seamen into the Royal Navy.”
Yes, but when no other nation in the world spends more than
about $70B, it seems that $200B would be plenty, even if you
wanted to keep a fairly substantial capability to blow up the
world with nukes, re-fight the Korean War, and bomb anyone
anywhere anytime you felt like it. I mean, all those other
countries with sub-$100B military budgets are pretty realistic
(and effective) in defending their interests, they’re not
all pacifist hippies.
If you really wanted a pure “defend the territory of the USA”
approach, then the military budget would be maybe $40B
(taking the similarly-sized and similarly-unthreatened
Canada as a baseline, with its $18B defense budget, and giving
you a 2x factor to allow for the extra border with Mexico,
Hawaii, and a bit more overseas involvement). I’m not
proposing that as a plausible alternative, just pointing
out the appropriate comparison.
- along the same lines, avoiding a war with Germany and Japan might have seemed a poor strategy in retrospect.
Two points on that one: first of all, the US military of
1920-1940 was notably small and cheap. The USA built the
ships and planes and trained the men it needed for WW2
once it really had a threat to deal with. And that worked
just fine. If Russia or China or Iran ever looks as though
it’s getting remotely competitive, you can ramp up. But
maintaining 10x greater spending than any potential opponent
at a time when any potential threat is a decade or more in
the future is crazy. I wear a raincoat when it’s cold and
wet, not when it’s sunny and 80F outside.
Secondly, “avoiding a war with Germany and Japan” was rather
precisely the official policy of the USA. It just didn’t
succeed in that policy, because Japan attacked at Pearl Harbor
and Germany declared war immediately after. But I’m not sure
what alternative policy would have been better: pretty hard
to imagine that the USA could have done better by building
a huge army and navy in 1935 and mounting a pre-emptive
invasion of Europe, which in any case would hardly have been
appreciated by the UK and France at that time …
June 24th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Well I personally tried my part in saving the world and dealing with climate change and the results sucked!
This country will be destroyed by a theory.
Here are my findings;
http://killpoke.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/the-problem-with-going-green/
June 24th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
“Wow, is that stupid. Todays threat may not be tomorrows and tomorrows threat may be anything. Is it not better to be prepared for any contingency than not?”
Which is why we review our plans every few years and change
our budget. The US didn’t have a 7-million-strong military
in 1940. When circumstances arose that made it necessary,
they built it. Yeah, maybe you need to be prepared today
for tomorrow’s threats; but you don’t need to be prepared
today for the threats of ten years from now.
“Oh please, you know what I meant. I guess I should have said national security. Sorry.”
And once you say “national security”, then I have absolutely
no idea whatsoever of what you actually mean. Defending
the USA’s territory against invaders is clear and makes
perfect sense (but can be done *very* cheaply). Sending
tens of thousands of troops off to Iraq and Afghanistan in
pursuit of some nebulous ill-defined notion of “national
security” is something else altogether.
“My sense is, is that you don’t feel that way about entitlements and other social spending. Hey at least your not consistent.”
Actually, I do. “Percent of GDP” is meaningless. I want
everyone to have a decent level of healthcare (especially
preventive healthcare). If that costs $X per person, then
I want to spend that money whether GDP/person is $10K or
$200K.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
[...] Think Progress, Matt Yglesias delivers the political assessment in support of the deals: If Waxman made them, they’re O.K., even if . . . : There’s simply nobody else in Congress whose record of progressive legislative [...]
June 24th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I said: Maybe we should just wait until 2011 and try again.
Richard Cownie replied: No. Since the effect of greenhouse gases is cumulative, and the costs of reducing emissions are less if you take it slowly, this is very much a problem where doing something half-assed right now is better than doing something slightly better later. The global politics make that even more true: you need to negotiate with China, and those negotiations are going to be long and slow, and they won’t even *start* until the USA shows it’s serious.
Well, this isn’t half-assed so much as altogether assless: according to an EPA analysis, even last week’s Waxman-Markey bill wouldn’t have lowered carbon generation before 2021.
And that was before it got watered down over the weekend (with the addition of 250+ pages of additional language that nobody will have time to read) and further this week.
I’m not sure how such a colossal joke will help us negotiate with India and China. But we can wait until 2011 to reduce carbon emissions in 2021. We might even get reductions in 2019 – whee!!
Besides, getting more Senate seats isn’t going to make an
ounce of difference if they’re clones of Baucus/Landrieu/
Nelson etc.
Actually, it does – though they probably won’t all be Baucus, etc. clones: two of our most likely pickups are in NH and OH. But the thing about having exactly 60 Dem Senators is that every last one of them knows you need his/her vote, and can wheedle every last concession they want.
But if we have, say, 64 Dem Senators in 2011, including a dozen Baucus/Nelson/Landrieu/Lincoln/DiFi/Conrad/Salazar types. We can do without the votes of four of them. That’s four who would get nothing in the bill, so the other eight would essentially be in a bidding war to get some of their desired concessions in the bill. And the bidders that least water down the bill, win the auction.
Game theory. Nothing to it.
June 24th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
“Well, this isn’t half-assed so much as altogether assless: according to an EPA analysis, even last week’s Waxman-Markey bill wouldn’t have lowered carbon generation before 2021.”
Even if that’s correct, it’s a hell of a lot better than letting
CO2 emissions *grow* in line with GDP, say at 2%/year, which
would get you to 26% higher in 2021 …
Anyhow, Waxman’s modus operandi has been to play a long game,
take what he can get at each stage and then ratchet it up
later. And he has an extraordinary record of success with
that patient strategy. There’s no one I’d trust more to
manage this.
“so the other eight would essentially be in a bidding war to get some of their desired concessions in the bill. And the bidders that least water down the bill, win the auction.”
Maybe. But I’m not sure that these idiots have such distinct
agendas that you can pick off one or two from the herd.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:25 am
@20 Njorl
I would agree that it is likely the Chinese have already surpassed the US in CO2 emissions. They are still building a coal fired plant every week. They have problems and those problems are no doubt likely to get worse, in the short term.
But China has begun to recognize “the problem.” It is inconceivable to us, but the Chinese are quickly making the Climate Change issue a national priority. $60 billion of their $600 billion stimulus package is going to subsidize wind power advances. $20 billion has been allocated for solar. They already have the world’s largest high speed rail network. By 2020 the total track mileage of their city’s subway systems will be double the rest of the world combined. They are trying.
And remember, as of now an electric automobile just needs a moderately sized solar panel to charge itself, and the technology is advancing so rapidly that a solar panel on the car’s roof will soon meet the cars total electric needs.
We don’t know this in this country because we choose not to know. Or perhaps the knowledge we can no longer compete with China on any level other than military might is too terrifying to contemplate.
June 25th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
“And remember, as of now an electric automobile just needs a moderately sized solar panel to charge itself, and the technology is advancing so rapidly that a solar panel on the car’s roof will soon meet the cars total electric needs.”
No, that’s just wrong. Peak insolation power is about
1kW/sq m. Solar cell conversion efficiency is about 15%,
so let’s suppose (generously) that a car is 10ft x 4ft for
about 40 sq ft ~ 4 sq m of solar cells. Then each day
you might get 12 hours x 1kW x 0.15 = 1.8 kWH of energy.
A gallon of gasoline has about 121MJ = 33.6 kWH. The internal
combustion engine is only about 15-20% efficient, so maybe
that’s comparable to 33.6*0.15 = 5.0 kWH of electricity.
So even with these very generous assumptions, solar cells
on the car, in sunny weather in summer, are only going to
give you the equivalent of about 0.36 gallons/day, maybe
enough to go 15 miles. More probably you’d be gatting only
3-5 miles on solar power (and at that level, you’d be better
off cycling).
Gasoline is good stuff for vehicles. Hybrids are a great
technology: a gasoline engine designed for constant load
can be much more efficient than a normal automotive engine,
and the high-torque-at-zero-revs behavior of electric motors
allows you to get acceptable acceleration with lower peak
power. Pure-electric vehicles aren’t going to work well
unless someone comes up with a much better battery (or
capacitor) technology.
On the general point that China is taking clean energy
seriously, I agree, and have heard various anecdotes -
apparently solar water heating is very common in China,
while still rare in the USA.
June 27th, 2009 at 2:13 am
Well put article:) will come back again soon!!