skip to main content

→ Top Stories:
Clean Power plan
Safe Chemicals

Frances Beinecke’s Blog

Washington Picks Up the Pace on Climate Action

Frances Beinecke

Posted April 22, 2009

, , , , , , , ,
Share | | |

Countdown to CopenhagenWe have 228 days until the international climate negotiations begin in Copenhagen, but today stands out among them. It is Earth Day. And though I nodded in agreement when I read Energy Secretary Steven Chu's comment in the New York Times Magazine "that from here on in, every day has to be Earth Day," today is still significant for me.

Later this morning I will be testifying before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce about draft climate legislation. These hearings will add to the momentum we so urgently need as we head toward the Copenhagen talks. We may not have a lot of time before then, but the last six days show that progress can move swiftly.

The quickened pace started last Friday, when the EPA officially recognized that carbon pollution is harmful to our health and to the climate. This conclusion requires the agency to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act. 

The EPA's decision is not surprising. After all, in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that carbon emissions from cars qualify as air pollutants and ordered the EPA to determine--based on scientific considerations alone--whether those pollutants are dangerous to human health or welfare and if so, issue standards for them. (Read my NRDC colleague David Doniger's--one of the attorneys in the Supreme Court case--thoughts on EPA's decision here.)

With last week's announcement, the EPA finally did what it was supposed to do all along: follow the science and the law.

But the timing of this inevitable conclusion is significant for the climate debate in Congress. Before the EPA's Friday announcement, people could say that if Congress did not act on climate, then nothing would happen. Stonewallers and filibusterers could hope for the last word.

Inaction is no longer an option. Something is happening, and the question now becomes: will national climate action be driven by EPA regulation alone? Or will it also be driven by a comprehensive Congressional effort that unleashes the full economic potential of building America's 21st century energy infrastructure?

The hearings I am participating in today will address those questions. Congress holds a lot of hearings. Some are for information gathering, and don't lead to action, but the one I am going to is specifically designed to move legislation forward.

Congressmen Henry Waxman and Ed Markey scheduled four days of hearings to gather feedback on their draft language for the American Clean Energy and Security Act. It's the Committee's chance to get into the nitty gritty of the issues, and after listening to the testimony, Rep. Markey will introduce a revised version of the bill.

The themes of the various panels offer a preview of the issues that will be debated as climate bills move through the House and Senate. These range from maintaining American competitiveness to regulating a carbon market when skepticism of markets is running high right now.

One key panel will take place on Thursday. It's on allocation--in other words, when we put a cap on carbon emissions, polluters will have to acquire pollution allowances to release carbon. How do we distribute those allowances? How many will be distributed based on a formula?  How many will be auctioned, and how will the revenue be used? 

NRDC, together with our partners in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, reached agreement on A Blueprint for Legislative Action, which identifies principles to guide the fair and equitable allocation of pollution allowances. NRDC has developed some more specific recommendations consistent with the Blueprint that we hope will be helpful to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce when it revises the bill.

The Committee has 60 members, including some swing votes who have not yet committed to supporting action on climate. My hope is that the hearings will convince them that passing climate legislation is the smart thing to do for the economy and the environment.

I will be monitoring the Committee's progress closely to see if that is the case. Rep. Waxman has pledged to report a revised bill to the House by Memorial Day. That leaves us only six months until Copenhagen, but if American voters keep the pressure on our lawmakers to pass a climate law, that will be enough.


Share | | |


Jim Bullis, Miastrada Co.Apr 22 2009 01:13 PM

We need to actually look for something better to take to Copenhagen than that which seems to be shaping up.

Any meaningful kind of cap and trade is going to cost a lot of money. It is hard to know what can be sold to the American public, but I suspect the majority will figure out that they, the general public, will get to pay the bill, sooner or later.

Arguments about the ultimate cost are not proceeding well. The EPA offered an analysis that was especially not convincing, especially at the end where it claimed that there would be jobs in engineering coal fired power plants to not produce CO2. That argument leads me to worry that EPA might not be technically up to the job they now have.

Ultimately, it seems probable that there will be a cap and trade bill of virtually no significance. We will present ourselves at Copenhagen as the leading coal fired economy of the world, trying to cap our true naked nature with a Kleenex.

Curiously, a different angle on all this is that the most effective solution to global warming could come from conservative thinking,(note: small c, no religious overtones) which may be brought on us by the economy. People are quite forcefully made conservative when they have no credit. Then they have to save (conserve) before they can buy anything. If people have to carry the money in to buy an SUV, that transaction won’t happen very often. I can stop worrying about a future of plug-in Hummers and Fiskers also. Not very many will think about spending an extra $10,000 to stuff extra batteries in the back of their Prius hybrids; leaving them to work as hybrids as they should.

Maybe the conserving buyers will look around for a car they can buy for a lot less, that would still get them around in a way suited to their needs. The global warming problem would be solved without government action of any kind!!! If government wanted to help, the best action would be to subsidize only the very low energy forms of plug-in cars.

More action is needed however, to satisfy Copenhagen expectations. If we were to present an affordable plan leading to very low energy use based on production of high efficiency vehicles and high efficiency distributed electric power systems we might be a bit more inspiring to the others at Copenhagen, who must generally regard us as wasteful fools.

Ron JohnsonApr 24 2009 07:27 PM

If you want real progress on AGW, go for the low-hanging fruit which will produce immediate results, and which many grass-roots right-wingers would support:
(1) eliminating/reducing soot from inefficient wood/coal burning stoves and coal-fired industrial plants in Asia which are blown into mountains and pack ice, where they absorb heat and thus melt the ice.
(2) DO SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE with the CO2 pumped out by combustion industrial plants. Feed it to algae and then (depending on the kind of algae) eat it or squeeze out the oil.

Comments are closed for this post.


Switchboard is the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the nation’s most effective environmental group. For more about our work, including in-depth policy documents, action alerts and ways you can contribute, visit

Feeds: Frances Beinecke’s blog

Feeds: Stay Plugged In