Steve Burns: Climate bill: Is this the wrong year?

The debate forming around legislation to deal with the threat of global climate change seems simple enough: environmentalists want climate-protecting legislation and corporations, especially Big Oil and Big Coal, are opposed to it. But a recent New York Times article explains that major polluters have good reasons to push for quick enactment of climate legislation this year, raising serious questions about the type of legislation we may get, and even whether it's a smart strategy for the environmental movement to work for a climate bill now. The article reports:

Many businesses concluded years ago that... limits [on greenhouse-gas emissions] were inevitable, and they have been calling on Congress to define the exact rules they will need to follow.

Businesses, it seems, want action now to lock in climate regulations and forestall more draconian limits on emissions that might come later, as public pressure builds to take action to protect the world's climate.

One of the big supporters of climate legislation is James E. Rogers, the chief executive of Duke Energy, a power company described in the Times report as "a major emitter of carbon dioxide."

[Rogers] says that clear rules are needed to ensure that companies relying on coal-fired power plants can finance their transition to lower-carbon fuels, like natural gas or nuclear power... “A well-designed cap will provide a smooth transition to clean electricity."

Why should this concern us? Shouldn't we celebrate the fact that even Duke Energy, a coal-heavy power company, is now conceding the need for climate action? Perhaps, but we should also ask this question: Which problem is Congress actually solving with this legislation? Will we end up with legislation that does more to address corporate needs for a "predictable regulatory environment" than it does the planet's needs for real reductions in global emissions?

Consider, for example, the centerpiece of both the House and Senate climate bills: a "cap and trade" system which requires large emitters of greenhouse gases to secure a government permit for those emissions, while allowing those who are able to reduce their emissions below their permitted amount to sell the "surplus" on a carbon-trading market. Over time, the permitted amounts would be reduced, and the market (at least in theory) would reallocate these lower levels in the most "efficient" manner possible, limiting emissions without stifling the economy.

The effectiveness of any "cap and trade" system in actually reducing emissions depends on two factors: 1) The stringency of the emissions caps (Europe's first try at cap and trade set limits that were much too lenient, allowing polluters to reap huge profits while making few reductions in emissions) and 2) whether the permits are sold to generate income to fund clean energy initiatives or simply given to polluters. The current House legislation includes emissions caps that would require only a 4% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020 (.pdf), as compared to the European Union commitment of 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, and proposes to give 85% of the permits to large greenhouse-gas-emitters, free of charge, based on their current emissions levels, perversely rewarding those industries that have cut their emissions the least.

And that's the danger with legislation that is primarily the result of deal-making between political and economic elites rather than the result of a genuine grassroots movement. Yes, millions of Americans have mobilized to call attention to the problem of climate change, many of those people have changed their personal consumption habits to limit their climate impact, and environmental groups have generated thousands of calls and emails to Congress and the White House to demand climate action now. But it would be a mistake to think that the American public is as yet fully engaged in the climate issue. The public is facing many issues of more immediate and personal concern, such as a real unemployment/underemployment rate approaching 20%, a home foreclosure crisis, and tens of millions of people lacking access to health care. This is why corporate polluters may see now as such an opportune moment to push through a climate bill that grants them, at no cost, the right to pollute while preempting stronger action later (Remember, that 17% cut in emissions you get today is also an 83% guarantee of future emissions.)

As much as we'd like to believe otherwise, the truth is that the public is a long way from demanding strong action on climate change. A December 3 CNN poll (.pdf) found, for example, that 45% of those polled believed the earth was warming and that this was "mostly" caused by human activities, while 23% agreed that the earth was warming but thought it was primarily due to natural effects, and another 31% believed that climate change was an "unproven theory." This prompts the question: If 59% support of a "public option" for health care doesn't get us the public option, and 62% opposition to the war in Iraq doesn't end the war in Iraq, why should 45% support for at least the scientific theory of climate change get us legislation to prevent climate change? Could it be that climate legislation is moving through Congress mainly at the behest of corporate interests?

A smarter course for the environmental movement would be to oppose any climate bill this year that enacts limits on greenhouse gas emissions (or demand deep cuts and refuse to accept less, which would have the same effect) and instead promote those measures which, if enacted now, would not foreclose stronger action later. Legislation to promote "green jobs", for example, enjoys strong public support and could be enacted now, buying time for the environmental movement to build public support for stronger caps on emissions. It's a risky strategy, to be sure, but the polluters are supporting climate legislation today because they're sure they'll get a worse deal in the future. We should consider the possibility that they're right about that, and be willing to call their bluff.