Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Steven Mufson had a must-read piece re influencing in today’s Washington Post, High-Stakes Quest for Permission to Pollute: Interest Groups Press Congress for Cap-and-Trade Allowances in Climate-Change Legislation.  The article begins with a rather concerning story on changes to the bill and the impacts.

During the final days of the drafting of a 946-page climate bill, Rep. Gene Green (D-Tex.) won support for an amendment that deleted a single word and inserted two others. The words could be worth millions of dollars to U.S. oil refiners.

The Green amendment deleted the word “sources” and inserted “emission points.” In the arcane world of climate legislation, that tiny bit of editing might one day give petroleum refiners valuable rights to emit carbon dioxide when it otherwise might not have been allowed. Refiners could get the extra allowances in return for cutting carbon emissions by 50 percent at a single point of a vast refinery complex instead of slashing emissions by 50 percent for the entire facility.

The one word struck / two words item is likely, to be honest, simply an example of what might be embedded throughout this bill, which is now totaling out at more the two reams of paper.  While others might have clearly understood this one word deleted / two words inserted item (in its full implications) prior to its insertion, this is a ‘fraud’ (yes, I think fraud is an appropriate word) put into the bill that I had no clue of impact while reading through it.   Maybe this one word deleted / two words added was clearly understood by all players and clearly explained to interested parties, but excuse my cynicism for doubting that.  …

But, follow me after the fold for two clear example of where I differ in my read / discussion of the implications with how the bill is ‘being sold’.

Before going to those examples, time to highlight some other ways where those with a large Hill presence have had their interests protected over the interests of the American people.

Of course, it isn’t only the Green item for refineries.

There is the auto industry.

An item inserted at the behest of Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) would give the auto industry $1.4 billion worth of extra allowances starting in 2012 when the cap-and-trade system takes effect, according to an estimate by the Union of Concerned Scientists.  The allowances Dingell won for the auto industry would be worth $12 billion over six years, according to Point Carbon.

Of course, there is coal.

Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) led the effort to protect coal-fired utilities and mining firms. He persuaded Waxman and Markey to accept a more modest reduction in emissions overall and to set aside 35 percent of allowances to help residential and industrial consumers of coal-fired power. He also won agreement for extra allowances and money — about $1 billion a year — to develop carbon capture-and-storage projects that will eventually be needed to cut carbon emissions of coal plants.

Within this support for the coal industry is an element, supported by Republican members, that might just merit the term “light-switch tax”, as there is a fee imposed on polluting electricity (perhaps $6/year for average household) that is dedicated to this Clean Coal fund.

Republican opponents of climate legislation have been telling the public that a cap-and-trade bill would impose a “light switch tax.” It was a witty and effective slogan used to scare voters during a recession.

The political irony is that Boucher, together with 20 co-sponsors including Republican climate-bashing Reps. Joe Barton and John Shimkus, have imposed a light switch tax of their own, with 100% of the proceeds earmarked as an enormous hunk of pork for coal-fired utilities.

Sigh. Back to Mufson and a look at those two issues.

Point Carbon, a market analysis firm, estimates that the current House draft earmarks $254 billion in allowances — one sixth of the estimated total value of allowances from 2012 through 2030 — and gives them to industries most sensitive to carbon pricing, including coal-based electric power generators, energy-intensive manufacturers vulnerable to foreign competition, oil refineries and the automobile industry.

Okay, pretty bad in total but it is ‘only’ 16.6666% of the allowances being given away.

The biggest chunk of free allowances, worth $500 billion, would go to local electricity and natural gas distribution companies, with strings to make sure the firms use them to shield consumers from higher costs.

This is being distinguished from giveaways to companies because it is to go to consumers.  Simply put, if the above 1/6th represents direct subsidies, this additional 30+% (sticking with Mufson rather than going to bill, for convenience) are implicitly indirect subsidies because they reduce the consumer (whether business, local government, individual household) price motivation to move from polluting to non-polluting energy practices.  I have been, privately, challenged (I would say “attacked”) for “wanting consumers to pay more” when I call these allowances subsidies (indirect subsidies) for polluting energy interests. I don’t, however, see any other way to describe these other than a path for subsizing polluting behavior.

Here is another quite major fault line that differentiates between traditional “environmentalists” and “environmental justice” aware environmentalists:

Supporters of the bill say its key component is an iron-clad cap on the nation’s emissions that drops over time. They said it doesn’t matter how allowances are distributed.

Of course it matters — do we do something that reduces or increases social inequities in American society?

Yes, there is much in this bill that is good (such as energy efficiency standards, resources for tropical forests, allocating resources for clean energy in developing world).  I recognize that.  But, as I look at the bill, the extent of poison pills (both horse pill sized ones that are impossible to miss and one word deleted/two word added hidden ones that I (and many others) don’t understand/aren’t aware of) should distress us all — even if we disagree about whether the extent of poisoning simply will sicken us via a overly costly and not as effective as possible approach to tackling global warming or will kill off any meaningful chance to avert utterly catastrophic climate chaos.

Where are the progressives?

In the health care debate, progressives are calling for single payer and made it quite clear, in a united fashion, that a public option is an absolute minimum requirement. Progressives have made it quite clear that just passing a reform bill (even a universal coverage bill) is not enough. They’ve put a public bottom line front and center. And they appear to be making progress on it.

Where is that similar call when it comes to Energy / Energy Efficiency / Global Warming legislation?

At the America Future NOW conference, after hearing strong statements about the need to keep demanding what is right (single payer) on health care, that pressure “from the left” made it easier to negotiate a better deal, I asked “What about energy? What about similar calls for strong legislation on climate to help make ACES stronger?” Representative Jared Polis stated, essentially, “Congressman Waxman is a progressive. He is one of us and an excellent legislator. If this is the best he could do, this is the best that could be done and I will support it.” The bill is still developing. Will strident calls like Polis’ increase the chance for a stronger bill or keep the door open for weakening measures like Green’s?

And, there are more Green-like one word deleted / two words added items, we should ask what is the bottom line for progressives on climate legislation?

We should fight, hard, to foster a bill worthy of support rather than watching as Green and Dingell and Boucher and X undermine our chances of achieving a prosperous and climate-friendly society.

What should be there?

There are three core principles for climate legislation:

1. Scientifically Sound
2. Polluters Pay
3. Socially Equitable

The fossil fuel influencers have had their way, undermining any substantial basis for claiming that ACES fulfills these three.

Groups are stepping up

Today, a group of organizations (1Sky, MoveOn, ACORN, Democracia Ahora, Environment America, Green For All, Health Care Without Harm, Oxfam, Rock the Vote, the Sierra Club, and USAction) sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi calling for floor amendments to strengthen ACES.

They are calling for three items

• Increase the Renewable Electricity Standard to no less than 30 percent by 2020
• Keep the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants as a path to hold polluters accountable.
• Allocate more resources to clean energy jobs and fewer resources to subsidizing polluting industries

These are meaningful changes to call for and work for.

Add your voice to this call.