Senate Global Warming Bill (With Room For Improvement) Advances

Not only is the House on the verge of passing a strong energy bill, the Senate's environmental committee yesterday cleared the first major attempt to comprehensively address the climate crisis by capping greenhouse gases. [1]

But while the Senate bill marks a significant political advancement, we should understand where the bill needs improvement if it is to actually solve the climate crisis.

The bill reasonably creates a "cap-and-trade" system. Companies are allocated pollution permits, the number of which declines over time, that can be traded.

That approach can work if the permits are auctioned off. Companies would have to pay to pollute the public atmosphere with carbon, giving them the incentive not to wantonly pollute.

It also raises revenue that can be put into building the clean energy economy, or given to consumers to ensure that renewable energy is affordable energy.

(Side note: NY Times columnist Tom Friedman recently said [2] no leading presidential candidate is serious about global warming because they don't propose a tax on carbon pollution. That's misleading, because auctioning off all carbon permits accomplishes the same goal, putting a price on carbon pollution. And all the leading Democratic candidates support an 100% auction.)

But the bill which passed the Senate committee initially only auctions off one quarter of the permits [3] (rising to three-quarters by 2036, a slight improvement over an earlier version [4].)

Europe has already made this mistake [5], feeling they had to initially give away free permits to garner corporate support. But it hampered the start of the cap-and-trade system.

The climate crisis is even more urgent now, and we should not risk wasted time repeating past mistakes.

There will surely be efforts to strengthen the bill on the Senate floor. And success is possible, with public support and political momentum squarely behind a clean energy economy.

But either a sufficient or insufficient global warming bill likely faces a veto from President Bush. The reality is that aggressive national efforts to combat the climate crisis won't be implemented until the obstructionist-in-chief vacates the Oval Office.

So the substantive damage of an insufficient bill, that at least moves the debate in the right direction, is minimal for the moment.

We should recognize that what we have now is in the ballpark, but not all the way home.

But the momentum continues to build for a clean energy economy. We can get home.

(A more critical take is offered at Open Left [6].)