The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which died June 6 in the Senate, would have done nothing immediate about currently soaring fuel prices; in fact, opponents could argue plausibly that the legislation would eventually push prices up, so it stood no chance this election year.
But some of the carbon-restricting elements of this legislation should resurface in the next Congress. While President Bush promised to veto Warner-Lieberman, both John McCain and Barack Obama have said they support some kind of carbon limits. An interesting facet of the debate was the general acceptance of the basic global warming premise, that the climate is warming dangerously, and that greenhouse gases need to be curtailed.
Putting a price on carbon is an essential part of any effective energy and climate policy, and we need that policy - desperately. Carbon pricing is tricky, and potentially transforming, so not rushing it through this year is no great loss.
But we can’t let this be sabotaged by people who think government has no affirmative role in this epic issue.
Warner-Lieberman would have required polluters such as power plants and oil refineries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions starting in 2012, by about 2 percent per year. That, said the bill’s backers, would have reduced emissions from major sources to 15 percent below current levels by 2020, and 70 percent by 2050. The bill also proposed auctioning pollution permits under a cap-and-trade system.
This was a complex and highly controversial proposal, but some form of cap-and-trade seems likely to pass eventually.
The idea, radically simplified, is that carbon caps are set for industries by government. Companies or plants that come in under their limit get to save the difference as a credit for future pollution, or sell the credit on the open market to other polluters, who will use the credit to offset their own carbon production. The big point is that it uses a mixture of government dictate and market incentives to limit emissions in a more flexible and effective way than simple caps or taxes. Versions of the system have worked to reduce acid rain in the United States, for example.
Campaigns and legislation in aid of more fuel-efficient motor vehicles, energy-efficient buildings and appliances, better public transit and greener behavior are aimed at the right targets, but they have had mixed results. We still waste colossal amounts of fuel, much of it imported a great direct and indirect cost, and we generate enormous greenhouse pollution.
Cap-and-trade tries to harness market forces to bring about much more far-reaching change.
We are seeing right now with painful clarity how the market drives behavior. Four-dollar gasoline will do more, if the the price remains that high, to push the country toward high-mileage vehicles, than all the regulations in Al Gore’s wildest dreams. The same cold be true for carbon trading.
The danger is not that unrealistic goals would destroy the economy, as critics claim, since such goals would never be enforced.
The danger is that failure to legislate carbon pricing successfully will cost us a great opportunity to reduce air pollution, conserve resources and improve our ruinous energy trade balance.
Let our Congressional delegation know how you feel about carbon trading.