Energy & Environment

Via The Washington Independent comes news that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Chairman of the House Energy Commerce Committee and lead author of cap and trade legislation pending in the House, is moving towards a substantial compromise on emissions targets and permit allocations.

At issue is what percentage (if any) of the "permits" allowing emissions will be given away to energy intensive industries at first. Waxman now seems willing to capitulate to at least one of industry's key demands: 40% of permits allocated to "local electricity distribution" companies and 15% directly to the hardest hit industries. Over time these numbers would gradually move towards zero.

Waxman's also reportedly willing to lower his emission reduction targets. The bill initially called for a 20% reduction by 2020; Waxman's now open to either 14% or 17%, depending on which report you believe. (Here and here.) The overall goal of 83% reductions by 2050 seems safe for now.

At first glance this seems like a big blow to environmentalists. But I'm not so sure--if the compromise will lead to the successful implementation of the cap-and-trade regulatory structure, it wouldn't seem too hard to tweak the target numbers in future years. In any event, the bill was stalled with the high targets, and this compromise seems more comprehensive than Waxman's last reported effort...

Liberal action group MoveOn.org launched a fundraising plea Monday to target centrist Democrats who are demanding changes to the Waxman-Markey climate change bill.

The group, which more frequently targets Republicans than Democrats, sent an email to supporters asking them to help raise $192,000 to air ads in the districts of centrist Democrats who are holding up passage of the lgislation.

"We've only got one shot at at this thing. If the bill gets watered down now, it'll be really hard to strengthen it later," the group wrote to supporters. "So we've put together an ad to run in key Democrats' home districts, showing how clean energy can rebuild the American economy one community at a time."

In particular, the group is focusing on swaying at least four centrist Democrats named in a New York Times report last week as opponents of the climate change legislation in its current form: Reps. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), Charles Melancon (D-La.), and Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas).

"MoveOn's got a critical role to play in supporting and strengthening the bill

The Republican Party still isn't sure global warming is man-made, one of the top Republican lawmakers on the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming said this Earth Day.

"I don't know that there is a party position on this issue," Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) said Wednesday during an appearance on the Fox Business Network. "I think that there is some debate on whether global warming is in fact being caused by man-made greenhouse gases."

Shadegg is the second-ranking Republican lawmaker on the special House committee, which was established to help curb carbon emissions and global warming.

"Most Republicans would probably acknowledge that global warming is occurring; they're not certain the science yet is there on the issue of whether it's man-made," Shadegg said.

The Arizona lawmaker's comments come after House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said this past Sunday that the idea that carbon dioxide is affecting the global climate is "comical."

The comments also fall on today's "Earth Day" holiday, which is meant to highlight environmental stewardship.

For his part, Shadegg argued that the government should pursue green energy in addition to increased oil and gas exploration.

"If you start with those things that would give you a dual benefit," Shadegg explained, "that way if it later turns out it's not man-made greenhouse gases that are causing global warming -- if it's sun spots or something else -- we've still gained a benefit by reducing our reliance on all energy, and foreign energy in particular."

Shadegg said he preferred a straightforward carbon tax to the cap-and-trade system favored by the Obama administration, and accused congressional Democrats of arranging political favors to win the necessary votes on the cap-and-trade legislation.

Americans have very high expectations for President Obama on environmental issues, much higher than they had for President George W. Bush when he took office, according to a new poll.

The Gallup Poll, released Wednesday on Earth Day, found that nearly eight in 10 respondents think Obama will do a good job handling the country's environment. Just more than half thought Bush would do the same.

Gallup notes that the difference is not a result of Obama having a higher general approval rating that Bush. At this point in their administrations they received similar marks.



Obama gets high marks on the environment across party lines. Sixty-five percent of Republicans say he'll do a good job on the issue. That's suprising considering ony 32 percent approve of his job performance in the same poll.

There was a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points in the poll.

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

The Bush administration's former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, vocally backed President Obama's cap-and-trade proposals to curb carbon emissions and climate change.

Whitman, a centrist Republican, said that the health benefits to be gained by cap-and-trade would outweigh any costs, and that anyone who promised more energy at the same cost was being deceptive.

"The point here is that the health benefit and every other benefit we get in the long term will offset this," Whitman said during an appearance on CNBC. "We're going to pay more for power; anybody who's out there telling you that we're going to meet this 21 percent increase in demand for electricity by 2030 without having to pay more is blowing smoke."

Whitman said that the business community would actually gain from federal legislation on carbon emissions, because different standards in different states have driven up compliance costs for corporations. She additionally claimed that a number of businesses were ready and waiting to move into the carbon emissions market.

The former New Jersey governor also pointed to the EPA's experience in the 1990s regulating sulfur dioxide using cap-and-trade as a reason for why it should be used to reduce carbon outputs.

"Cap-and-trade is something -- was done in 1990 to get out sulfur dioxide and the Clean Air Act amendments worked very well. In fact, it didn't cost nearly as much as all the prognosticators said it was going to cost," she explained.

Watch a video of the interview below: