by Daniel J. Weiss
Despite speculation from a
few Beltway pundits, recent events suggest that there is momentum for the
passage of a comprehensive clean energy and global warming legislation in 2010.
Sen. Lindsay Graham’s (R-S.C.) commitment to work with Sens. John Kerry
(D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) to craft legislation is a significant political
breakthrough.
Sen. Graham voted
against earlier global warming bills, including those authored by his friend
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Recently, Sen.
Graham recognized that reducing carbon pollution by putting a price on it
would “allow alternative energy sources
to become more economically viable resulting in a cleaner environment. It is in
our own national security interests to achieve energy independence and curb our
pollution problem.”
The Copenhagen
Accord, while far from perfect, also sets the stage for Senate action in
2010. President Obama’s leadership led
to China and India’s first
ever agreements to reduce their pollution rates. The accord also includes a
compromise between the United States
and China
to verify pollution reductions according to rigorous and transparent guidelines
depending on the source of financing for the reductions. All reductions are
subject to “international consultation and analysis.” These agreements should address the concern
that the United States will reduce its pollution while
these and other developing countries do little to reduce their emissions.
The public continues to support action to reduce global
warming pollution despite the worst economy in 70 years, the brouhaha over
emails stolen from climate scientists, and $100 million in scare mongering ads
by big oil and other special interests. The Washington
Post-ABC News poll released the week of Dec. 14 showed
that by more than 2-1 Americans want to “regulate the release of greenhouse
gases from sources like power plants, cars, and factories in an effort to reduce
global warming.” The Post poll found that three of five voters would support reductions
in greenhouse gas pollution even if it “raised your monthly expenses by 10 dollars
a month.” And 55 percent would still
support reductions if it “raised your monthly energy expenses by 25 dollars a
month.” The Associated Press-Stanford
University poll found
similar results.
The mainstream
media has written the obituary for
comprehensive clean energy legislation at every step of the process. Such nay saying occurred after House Energy and
Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and House Select Committee on
Energy Independence and Global Warming introduced the American Clean Energy and
Security Act, before the House Energy Committee passed the bill, and before the
full House of Representatives passed it in June. Chair Waxman noted (subs. req.) that “On every issue that I’ve worked on this year, people have said it
can’t happen and it’s dead for the year.” Claims
about the death of the Senate global warming bill are also greatly exaggerated. The Senate is on track for a spring debate
and passage of legislation to create jobs, increase American energy
independence, and cut pollution.
Related Links:
Obama seizes the energy opportunity
Q&A: what will happen with climate legislation in 2010?
What might Sen. Byron Dorgan’s retirement mean for climate legislation?
