Skip to main content

The Waxman-Markey Bill Faces Congress

vc53 Today sees the vote in the House on the Clean Energy and Security Act, aka Waxman-Markey aka the climate change bill, likely to be a very near thing on a very tight vote margin. As you might imagine, this is last ditch time for those who want the bill and those who don’t.

Greenpeace says no:

Since the Waxman-Markey bill left the Energy and Commerce committee, yet another fleet of industry lobbyists has weakened the bill even more, and further widened the gap between what Waxman-Markey does and what science demands. As a result, Greenpeace opposes this bill in its current form.

Which sounds to us like Greenpeace’s lobbyists need a good talking-to.

Heritage’s Ben Lieberman says no:

Inflicting economic pain is what this is all about. That is how the ever-tightening emissions targets will be met.

Well, it probably isn’t about inflicting pain. The goal would seem to be to avoid inflicting pain.

The New York Times is going for yes:

The bill has shortcomings. But we believe that it is an important beginning to the urgent task of averting the worst damage from climate change. Approval would show that the United States is ready to lead and would pressure other countries to follow. Rejection could mean more wasted years and more damage to the planet.

Interestingly, the Times looks at the bill on a more global basis. A lot of the no’s see their opposiition more local terms.

The Washington Post tries yes, but:

Even if it passes today, Waxman-Markey is just a first step. With a flood of amendments to the House bill expected today and fierce battles to come in the Senate, the debate over how to design this fundamental shift in the American economy remains wide open.

We should know later today.

---

North_Carolina_State_University2 North Carolina State University is getting $5.9 million from the U.S. Department of Energy to conduct research on improving nuclear energy production and management.

And why?

“Energy researchers at N.C. State work hard to find more efficient and effective ways to generate and deliver energy to millions of people across the country,” said Louis A. Martin-Vega, dean of the College of Engineering. “These seven nuclear energy research awards are a tribute to the outstanding quality of our engineering faculty and will significantly enhance N.C. State's leadership role in providing solutions to the nation’s energy challenges.”

There are 71 of these grants. We congratulate NCSU and every other research outlet and school that receives them. Story here.

---

tarmar08 Don Safer is board chairman of the Tennessee Environmental Council. He has a post up at The Tennessean’s blog that is, from first word to last, completely false:

Concerning letter writer Mr. Haupt's comments: Mother Earth will not be thanking us, unless increased genetic mutations, birth defects and cancer are her way of thanking us for the increased radiation on the planet. Radiation causes all of these tragedies.

It’s been awhile since we’ve seen nuclear pushback so bluntly bankrupt of viable arguments. Read and marvel.

---

(To be fair, TEC is sponsoring a streambank restoration at Jerry Erwin Park in Spring Hill this Saturday. By all means, drop by and help. We’ve done this ourselves, so we can tell you this: you’ll get wet and dirty, but happy and satisfied.)

Comments

Here's my question: what's going to stop the people who just got done hosing the stock market from creating a speculative bubble in emissions permits?
Kirk Sorensen said…
I can't believe that I find myself in agreement with Greenpeace, but in this case they're right--this bill is trash and I hope it dies.

We need to do what Dr. Hansen advocates--a FULLY refunded carbon tax or an associated reduction in payroll taxes.
perpeterson said…
Kirk,

I'm pretty sure that this is a problem where incremental, evolutionary change is the most practical approach.

Our experience with sulpher emissions is that it took very little regulatory push to achieve a large reduction, because industry was very clever to identify low-cost approaches to achieve the goal.

The same applies to carbon emissions in the U.S. We are on the verge of completely changing our approach to producing energy, and what we need is a technology-neutral policy that says that technologies with low carbon emissions will be more profitable. This is much better than having Congress regulate the technical solution (e.g., renewable portfolio standards).

So I hope the House bill emerges, in the end, as U.S. policy.

-Per
Sulfur emissions can be mitigated without shutting down the offending power plant. The fossil fuel people talk a good game with sequestration, but the problem with CO2 is orders of magnitude harder.

A very easy, low-cost way to mitigate CO2 emissions is to do it the California way: create such a hostile business climate that your remaining industry either is put out of business or leaves. Then shut down the power plants that were providing electricity to those industries and claim the savings as a sound environmental policy--while importing the products they once made from China.

"Incremental, evolutionary change" is great when it's scalable and when you're incenting the right behavior. This bill does neither. It isn't a debate between cap and trade advocates and people who demand overnight results--we'd get a lot better results from a 25-year phaseout of coal-fired power plants, a ban on new fossil fuel-burning power plants, and a corresponding 25-year phase-in of motor fuels synthesized from coal (the process facilities, of course, would have to use clean heat for this to work). We'd get a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions while making the United States a petroleum products exporter and without putting one coal miner out of work--and it doesn't specify a technical solution.

If you're a policymaker and you have a policy goal that is in the proper range of governmental action, it doesn't make any sense to conceal it. Define the action you want, take input from stakeholders, come up with a mutually beneficial framework for this action, and specify what that framework is through legislation. Regulation doesn't need to be a choice between vagueness and socialism.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…