JONATHAN COHN OCTOBER 25, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
This is the third in an occasional series examining how Republican control of Congress might affect policy debates in the next two years. (Part 1, Part 2)
First, a question: Have the last two years, with Obama in the White House and Democrats running Congress, really been that great for environmental policy? It depends how you look at it. There was that debacle in the Gulf, which obviously wasn't handled well. Then the Senate failed to pass a climate bill, and the Copenhagen talks dragged along without much resolution. But it hasn't been all grime and tar: Obama's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is ratcheting up fuel-economy standards and knuckling down on air pollutants from coal-fired plants—including greenhouse gases. And the stimulus kicked in $80 billion for clean-energy and efficiency projects, which was a hefty sum by historical standards.
So when Republicans take over the House and expand their Senate numbers this fall, there's plenty of room for major shifts on the eco-front. Things can always get worse. That's especially true when you consider that, by and large, the new crop of conservative candidates doesn't believe in global warming (quite a few of them even believe that climate scientists are engaged in a sinister conspiracy). So here's a rundown of what to expect from a GOP Congress in the next two years:
Cap-and-trade is dead. Okay, a cap on carbon emissions fizzled out this year, too. But it at least passed the House and had a decent base of support in the Senate. Next year, cap-and-trade certainly won't go anywhere in a Republican-controlled House. In the upper chamber, meanwhile, John Kerry has said he'd like to keep toiling away on the issue, but the Senate's not getting any greener. (That's true on both sides of the aisle, by the way. Just look at West Virginia: Robert Byrd may have had a deathbed conversion on coal, but the Democrat hoping to replace him, Joe Manchin, recently cut an ad where he was blasting away at cap-and-trade legislation with a rifle.)
The knives come out for the EPA. Right now, Lisa Jackson's EPA is the country's last defense against endlessly rising carbon emissions. Thanks to a 2007 Supreme Court decision, the agency is supposed to start regulating greenhouse gases as soon as next year. That's not a perfect substitute for cap-and-trade—realistically, agency officials estimate they could only cut emissions 5 percent below 2005 levels by 2020—but it's a start. (Here's my primer on what EPA action would entail.) What's more, the EPA is unfurling a number of rules on pollutants like sulfur-dioxide and nitrogen-dioxide, all of which could force utilities to shut down their oldest, dirtiest coal plants in the coming years.
That is, unless Republicans can stop the EPA. And they'll certainly try. Yesterday, the likely head of the House energy committee, Fred Upton, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Times declaring war on the new pollution rules. For one, Republicans will try to pass resolutions stripping the EPA of its authority over greenhouse gases; Kit Bond, for one, has promised to attach just such a rider to every new bill that moves through the Senate. Granted, Obama can veto these bills—and, as Jon Chait points out, he's in a good position to win p.r. battles over the environment, just as Bill Clinton did in 1995. But this will come up again and again.
Slashing green budgets. If House Republicans can't neuter the EPA directly, they can always try a sneakier, less overt approach—mucking with the budget. Back in 1995, Newt Gingrich's crew managed to slash EPA funding by 25 percent, forcing the agency to cut back on inspections and criminal enforcement. And those budget cuts can have a big effect on policy: That same year, the GOP also managed to block funding necessary to enforce the Clinton administration's new fuel-economy rules. Expect similar fights over the Interior and Transportation budgets.
Chaining Lisa Jackson to the witness stand. The other option is to make Lisa Jackson's life a living hell. Republicans have already promised to drag her in for hearings as often as possible once they control the congressional committees—Frank Lucas, the ranking GOP member of the House agricultural committee, has said he expects EPA oversight hearings once a week. “It will diminish her free time, shall we say,” one former energy staffer told Politico.
Endless "Climategate" puffery. In the House, we still don't know what fate awaits Nancy Pelosi's special global warming committee—which Ed Markey mainly used to hold hearings on arcane energy issues and to take members on climate-related educational trips (visit the melting glaciers, etc.) Upton wants to disband it. But the panel's ranking Republican, Jim Sensenbrenner, has suggested he might want to use it to "investigate" the science of climate change. And the new head of the House oversight committee, Darrell Issa, wants to launch yet more inquiries into those Climategate emails in an attempt to prove some sort of scientific conspiracy—even though plenty of independent reviews have concluded that there's nothing there.
By the way, this is one reason I'm not quite as sanguine as Dave Roberts about climate skepticism simply fading away. True, most Americans aren't on board with climate denialism. But conservatives will now have a megaphone for amplifying every last pseudo-scandal. For a good template, look back to 2006, when Joe Barton led an inquiry into the "hockey stick" temperature graphs. Did Barton reveal anything interesting about paleoclimatology? Not particularly. (The critics made a few helpful suggestions on statistical methods, but subsequent studies ended up confirming Michael Mann's work.) Yet Barton helped vilify an entire field and fostered a generation of keyboard jockeys obsessed with proving that the hockey stick is a fraud.
Possible compromise legislation? Okay, this might get filed under "wishful thinking," but it's not totally impossible that some useful bipartisan energy legislation could emerge from the next two years. For instance, Indiana Republican Richard Lugar has put forward a proposal to reduce carbon emissions by giving utilities incentives to retire coal plants early. Lindsey Graham is a fan. So is Lisa Murkowski. Lugar's plan has a number of glaring flaws in it—see my summary here—but it's potentially fixable. Who knows?
Recently, Obama told Rolling Stone that he'd like to see clean-energy legislation move "in chunks" next year. That seems like wishful thinking. For instance, the Breakthrough Institute recently sketched out a proposal for $25 billion per year in R&D for low-carbon energy. Presumably this would be an easier sell than pricing carbon. Except that the last time Republicans controlled Congress, they repeatedly slashed funding for renewables and efficiency (and that was back when we were talking about piddling dollar amounts). And, with climate deniers filling the GOP ranks, it's hard to see this dynamic changing. Sure, funding for battery research and new appliance standards may sound sensible, but if it's all to address a problem the base doesn't even think exists, then why bother?
(Flickr photo of Fred Upton explaining how Pelosi's job-killing energy tax will eat your babies, credit: republicanconference)
6 comments
Bradford, you must first make the case that the environment is on a dramatically different (and better) path under democrats. That is a very hard case to make. Obama EPA? Not at all different from Bush. Obama respect for drilling in sensitive areas? He expanded drilling compared to Bush. Obama fuel economy targets? Very modest (10%) increase compared to Bush. Obama CO2 targets? Pushed way out from election promises. And it leaves later administrations to really do the heavy lifting. This administration just punted. Obama alt energy? Again, not at all dramatically different from Bush. In fact, in spite of money kicked towards alt energy as part of the stimulus, the total installed alt energy (relative to total generation) might have actually shrunk under Obama due to the economy. CO2 emissions? The EU likes to brag about their 17% reduction since 1990, but in fact a recent study found that if you considered goods CONSUMED instead of goods PRODUCED, then in fact the EU CO2 output has climbed by 40%. In other words, relying on China to make more of their stuff allowed them to claim they produce LESS. In fact, China produces more on their behalf. You really believe the planet would be dramatically different in 200 years from Obama's efforts? Hah. Laughable. And that includes having his own congress. He didn't have to fight anyone to get what he wants. it's like the environmental version of don't ask don't tell. He could make whatever laws he wanted. When push came to shove, he opted to do nothing. PS. His guy Chu gets it, though, that nuclear is pretty much our only way out of this IF CO2 is in fact a problem.
- seattleeng
October 25, 2010 at 11:41am
"You really believe the planet would be dramatically different in 200 years from Obama's efforts?" No. Which is why I didn't write that. Obama's environmental track record is mixed. But it's not the same as Bush's. On the stimulus, the EIA certainly thinks it will have a decent impact on non-hydro renewables (ARRA is projected to double wind power capacity over what would otherwise be the case, for instance): http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/stimulus/summary.html And the greenhouse-gas regulations are a big departure from Bush (even if they're no substitute for climate legislation), as is the enforcement of Clean Air Act rules on nitrogen-oxide, sulfur dioxide, coal ash, wastewater... Those are all moving forward, they're expected to have a sizeable effect on power generation in this country, and if the new Congress stops those regulations from being enforced (which is quite possible), that will be a significant change.
- Bradford Plumer
October 25, 2010 at 11:58am
A greater example of short term gain for long term loss I can not think of. In 10 years, when the evidence plays out in real world catastrophe everyone of these Republican assholes will find themselves on the short end of the stick. Sadly, for the world, it will be too late, however Inhofe will likely live long enough to see himself villified as an evil fossil. I would not want to be him for anything.
- blackton
October 25, 2010 at 12:29pm
seattleeng, CO2 is pretty much a foregone conclusion that it is a problem and is speeding up climate change. Look at Tibetan Plateau glaciers, and watch how that is going to play out on the geopolitical stage. Sadly, it is probably too late to change the receding glaciers there. India, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh will suffer the massive consequences. So yes, in the U.S., nuclear power must be financed significantly, since it can definitely power cities who need lots of energy. Individual buildings and homes could add solar and wind. We need decentralization of electrical grids too, but that is a project that the age of austerity will probably never undertake, and I doubt nuclear will be undertaken either. Clean Air Act enforcement would be done better if they replaced the grandfathered coal plants that still pollute way more than modern coal plants (post-CAA). But that won't happen. Essentially, policy is failing us in the way of improving our air, water, and electrical systems. Individual action is our only savior since the volatility of the political climate won't get us anywhere.
- RedState
October 25, 2010 at 1:35pm
Bradford wrote: "No. Which is why I didn't write that. " You wrote that the republicans taking office there were plenty of room for major shifts on the eco-front. Combined with the headline, the implication is is that things were bad under Bush, great strides have been made under Obama, and they are getting ready to all be undone if repubs win. Did I draw a wrong conclusion? If that conclusion is reasonable, then I'm asking for the major changes that Obama has sweat over that have redirected the arc. Not things that he has kicked down the road for someone else later to do. But what has he done that has hurt that has dramatically altered our course? "On the stimulus, the EIA certainly thinks it will have a decent impact on non-hydro renewables" Look at the graph. it's a one time shot on in the arm. Under Bush non-hydro renewable doubled from 80 MKWH in 2000 to 160 MKWN some time in 2011 (these are pre-stimulus numbers). So 11 years to double. In 2013, the EIA graph you linked shows a bit more than 300 in 2013, and 11 years later it is far short of doubling again. So, absent the one time shot in the arm, where has the arc been altered? In fact it has slowed. The president wasn't just supposed to BUY his way into alt energy. He was supposed to alter the landscape so that it wants to grow faster than ever before on its own. "And the greenhouse-gas regulations are a big departure from Bush" Yes, for someone else to implement down the road. All the hard stuff with Obama seems to be that way. He builds the framework, and then leaves it so a successor to actually close the jaws of the vice. Guess what? Future leaders, dem or repub, will not be the ones to close that vice. They will not be the ones to say "Under my watch, we are going to increase fuel costs by a lot to help the environment" If this really is an emergency, then I'd expect Obama to say "we are going to drop the hammer on my watch with my dem majority to help. Taxpayers will probably fire us all. But it's the right thing to do. Starting next month, there is a $2/gallon surcharge on gas, and that extra money is going straight to alt energy investment and subsidies. The game has changed. We must get off fossil fuel."
- seattleeng
October 26, 2010 at 1:21am
Red State: "seattleeng, CO2 is pretty much a foregone conclusion that it is a problem and is speeding up climate change" Yes. And who is acting like it is a problem? The wealthy that have already grabbed their piece of the pie? Folks like Gore and Clinton? Hell no. They are living the high flying lifestyel. They fly whereever they wish, whenever they want. Hollywood? Because they dont' need to actually fly all over and consume 4X the average per-capita to do their job? Hell no. Not them either. They have movie premiers in cities all over the world. Gotta pay the bills. Can't get there by boat. Rock stars, who earn a living by convincing you to get in your car and drive to see them? And pay them even more money? 4M people saw U2 on their last tour. How do you think they got to the show in most cases? How much CO2 was pumped out so that Bono could earn another dollar that he very definitely doesn't need. The snobby climate scientist that is certain he is right? Hell no. He still flies all over to conferences and drives as many miles as you and I. Who then? If the biggest voices in this debate will not live the lifestyle? Who will? The single mom making $42,000 a year? Is she the one that must forgo any vacation travel becuase it will become to expensive? Is she the one that must stop sending her daughter across town to the private school for which she earned a music scholarship but can no longer afford to drive because gas prices are too expensive? Tell me one person that has sacrificed to reduce CO2. I keep hearing we need to do it. But nobody is doing it. Everyone thinks it's the other guy that will do it. That never works.
- seattleeng
October 26, 2010 at 1:29am