Greenhouse bill heats business debate
A new Senate bill would cut U.S. greenhouse emissions by 70 percent. Most lawmakers agree on the goal but debate remains over how to design a system that's fair to businesses. Sam Eaton reports.
Molten aluminum metal is poured into a mold made of compacted sand at the El Monte Non-Ferrous Foundry in City of Industry, Calif. (Sam Eaton / Marketplace)
More on Sustainability
Links
Eric Williamson, owner of El Monte Non-Ferrous Foundry Inc. in City of Industry, Calif.
TEXT OF STORY
Kai Ryssdal: John McCain said last night he's going to skip a big Senate vote next week on climate change. No word yet from the Obama and Clinton camps on whether they'll show up to weigh in on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.
If it does pass, it'd cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions nearly 70 percent by 2050 and it would do it by putting a price on carbon.
Most lawmakers do favor cutting CO2 emissions. The debate, though, is how to do get that done fairly once carbon's not free anymore.
From the Marketplace Sustainability Desk, Sam Eaton reports.
Sam Eaton: In a carbon-constrained economy, like the one proposed under the Lieberman-Warner bill, Eric Williamson would be deeply affected. The three dozen employees at his Southern California aluminum foundry hand craft everything from skateboard axles to electric motor casings.
Eric Williamson: And so you're basically constantly spending money on energy, whether it's air, electricity, welders, ovens, furnaces. That's all we do. That's all we do.
A cap on greenhouse gas emissions would trickle down to businesses like Williamson's in the form of higher energy bills and shipping costs. Despite that, Williamson still supports Lieberman-Warner.
Williamson: If it is beneficial to Planet Earth and it's beneficial to human beings, I cannot oppose it. You know what I mean? I have kids. I have family. I want this world to do well.
But if that same legislation doesn't help companies like his adapt to the new low-carbon economy, Williamson says he'd have no choice but to close up shop. This is a major dilemma facing Senators as they begin to debate the climate bill.
Steve Cochran is with the Environmental Defense Fund.
Steve Cochran: This is a transition that were talking about and what government policy will be attempting to focus on is how to manage that transition; how to ease that so that costs don't fall disproportionately on companies.
Basically it boils down to a question a fairness. The Lieberman-Warner bill would place a limit or cap on all greenhouse gas emissions beginning five years from now. Over several decades, that cap would gradually increase, giving polluters a simple choice: Clean up or pay for every ton of CO2 they emit beyond their government-issued quota. In order to ease big emitters into the new system, Congress would give some industries their emissions quotas, otherwise known as allowances, for free in the beginning.
But not everyone's happy.
Lou Hayden: This bill, just on its face, chooses winners and losers. I mean, it's very obvious.
Lou Hayden is with the American Petroleum Institute, the main trade group for big oil.
Hayden: Some emitters get some allowances in year one to soften the economic burden on them. However, we found that how these are distributed seems to be a political decision.
Hayden says oil companies have gotten the short end of the stick in the allocation of free allowances. That means they'll be forced to pay for most of their greenhouse gas emissions from the outset.
But Environmental Defense's Steve Cochran says that's the point of not giving too many allowances away for free.
Cochran: They become the commodity, they become the currency by which the value of these reductions is measured and by which we can manage and monitor and evaluate and ultimately succeed in changing our energy economy.
Federal sales of emissions allowances are expected to generate nearly $6 trillion in revenue by mid-century. That's money the government can use to help both consumers and industry ease the transition to a low carbon world -- think tax relief for individuals and hundreds of billions of dollars in incentives for industrial efficiency projects.
But Cochran says with a bill that touches nearly every corner of the American economy, it's impossible to please everyone.
Cochran: More money to help consumers could mean less money to help business.
Cochran says inequities like these may be a political reality, but they pale in comparison to the cost of business as usual. A study out this week by Tufts University predicts the U.S. economy would suffer a $4 trillion annual hit by the end of the century if nothing is done to curb global warming.
In Los Angeles, I'm Sam Eaton for Marketplace.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From Akron, OH, 05/30/2008
What is wrong with you people!!?? I listened to this story with casual interest only to come to the conclusion that I am frightened as hell. We are talking about giving $6 Trillion dollars to a government represented by politicians - many of whom can't seem to balance even their own check book.
This whole subject opens a new economy over which we have NO CONTROL. Who determines the value of a carbon credit? Who decides how to distribute the "TAXES". Who determines "fairness"? Where are the checks and balances? What if - in 5 or 10 years - we determine that we are actually in a global cooling cycle? How does this "carbon market" relate and respond to that reality?
Global warming may, indeed, be occurring. Over the past 15,000 years it has happened several times. At the end of each ice age - global warming has taken place - WITHOUT HUMAN INTERACTION. We can't even predict tomorrow's weather accurately. How can we possibly believe we can control global climate?
In the past 50 years we have begun to collect data (via satellites and digital measurements) that humans have never before been able to do. Because we are now able to see ONE piece of the puzzle we believe we can see AND assemble the entire, complex jigsaw puzzle. How egotistical and grandiose... how insane. So with this minimum amount of information we are willing to change the our entire economy to be based on "carbon"?
I DO believe we should be more conservative with our resources and understand how these things interact. I do believe we should consider altering our actions as we learn more. But this appears to be a power play by humans who see an opportunity to gain riches and power over other humans. We've seen this before. Not everyone playing in this game has good intentions. Instead - I believe many have only self interest at the base of their actions. When has there EVER been a time in human history when a government has managed huge sums of money (Tax dollars) without ramped corruption and mis-management? Can we expect global leaders to come together for "the good of the people"? Come now...
To parrot a phrase - "Are you people stuck on stupid?"
From Toledo, OH, 05/29/2008
There is a level of truth in the Inconvenient Truth. There is merit behind what the Senate considers Monday. There is a lack of leadership if the presidential candidates are not present to impact the decision of the Senate. Perhaps the US does not set an example on this issue yet there is further shame if we outsource the skateboard axle castings, electic motor housings, ... offshore at the loss of US jobs only to be made with more adverse impact to the global envirenment.
From Eagle, ID, 05/29/2008
Unless the Lieberman-Warner Bill includes provisions for tax incentives to industry to develop and use alternative energy sources, ie.nuclear power; solar,wind,hydro, etc.,that are clean energy sources, then all it amounts to in the end is another tax on US industries. It will discourage companies from doing business here and, once again, contribute to the US being a non-producer in the global marketplace.
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.