The Climate Group’s Michael Allegretti and Evan Juska consider the impact of a new pro-environment Energy & Commerce committee in the US
On 20 November 2008, the Democratic Caucus of the US House of Representatives voted to replace John Dingell (D-MI) with Henry Waxman (D-CA) as Chairman of the Energy & Commerce Committee - the committee responsible for developing the US response to climate change
Like Barack Obama’s election, this development represents a fundamental shift in the way the US will address global warming. However, unlike Obama’s election, whether or not this will ultimately be a positive development remains to be seen.
Waxman’s decision to challenge Dingell for chairmanship of the powerful committee was largely motivated by fundamental differences between the two men on the design of a US cap-and-trade program. Waxman, a long-time ally of the environmental community, favors stringent short-term emissions reduction targets, auctioning emissions allowances, and very limited cost-containment mechanisms, such as offsets. Dingell, a long-time ally of the automobile industry, favors more lenient short-term targets and a certain amount of emissions allowances given for free to regulated companies to help them adjust to the increased cost of doing business that will result from climate policy in the near term.
Because a US cap-and-trade program needs to pass the Energy & Commerce Committee before the rest of Congress can vote on it, the Committee Chairman has significant power to frame the issue. Last month, Dingell, along with Congressman Rick Boucher (Democrat from West Virginia), released a draft bill outlining a cap-and-trade program that was intended to serve as the starting point for debate in the next Congress. With Waxman at the helm, the climate change debate will now likely start from his more progressive platform.
The question is: what does this mean for the US response to climate change in 2009?
Environmentalists may view this development as exactly what is needed to quicken the pace and strengthen the ambition of the US commitment to reduce its emissions, bringing it in line with what the international community expects, and thus, strengthening the prospects for an international agreement in Copenhagen next year. But whether or not this change is ultimately a good thing for US climate policy will depend largely on Waxman’s ability to secure the votes needed for the bill to pass through Congress.
And, the problem with previous Congressional cap-and-trade proposals has not been a lack of support from progressive elements, but instead, a lack of support from conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans, many who hail from the Midwest and South. Lawmakers from these regions have real concerns about what a price on carbon will mean for their struggling economies, which are built upon the manufacturing, energy and agriculture industries.
Waxman will need to reach common ground with this group of lawmakers to be successful. Now, more than ever, there is an important role for progressive business and government leaders to help bring the two sides together and ensure that Waxman’s ambitious vision can develop into a US commitment and can serve as a starting point for negotiations next year in Copenhagen.
Comments
The problem here is that there is too much focus on hoping for change at the legislative level and not enough emphasis being placed on enlisting the support of the public at-large. Legislators are, after all, politicians. They are primarily motivated by votes and job security. Do not expect them to do what’s right (i.e., stringent cap-and-trade, gas tax and oil tariff measures), and do it quickly, without massive public pressure.
At this point, the green “revolution” is still largely confined to a relatively small (but growing) elite - a 20s- to 40s-something group of well-educated individuals and companies (who see ways to profit from the green movement). This is not meant to suggest that this group is not having a positive impact on the climate-energy crisis. It is, but not fast enough to force politicians to effectively address the crisis before it is too late. We need a true revolution, not just a green party.
The Climate Group, USGBC, the Sierra Club and other well-respected groups like them are in the best position to lead the way and help take this message to the streets. The public needs to be mobilized. It needs to demonstrate its concern in large numbers, before Congress will act in a meaningful way.
Imagine the impact of 500,000 energy-climate concerned everyday Americans converging on Washington this coming July 4th, demanding change. The media attention would be phenomenal. Politicians would have to begin to take notice and do the right thing or risk losing their jobs at the polls. This is the kind of public outcry that’s missing - and is needed, if we are serious about making things happen before it’s too late.
The world is waiting for America to step up and be a leader. If we fail to do it now, and do it quickly, America loses. So does the rest of the world and our collective future generations.
That there is a need for both political leadership and public support - as Mr Koladis writes - is an important point.
For The Climate Group, it means both working to catalyze business and government leadership on climate change, and working to engage the public through innovative new initiatives, like ‘Together.’
But there is no doubt that the public has a crucial role to play in ensuring that its government representatives address the issue.
Add your comment
The Climate Group welcomes all relevant comments but retains the right to remove any inappropriate submissions.
« New HCP research: Governments worldwide should do 'fair share' to reduce global emissions
Obama to US Governors, global climate leaders: “New Ally in White House” »