A Global Warming Bill We Can Work With

Last month, a bipartisan global warming bill from Sens. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., and Arlen Specter, R-Penn., was uniformly rejected by environmental organizations, because it kept down the cost for creating carbon pollution, making it impossible to reduce enough pollution to resolve the climate crisis.

This month, a new bipartisan bill from Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va. is being praised as a "huge breakthrough" by dedicated environmentalist Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California.

While the response from environmental activists is more mixed (Hill Heat is tracking the discussion) it's not being widely rejected out of hand like Bingaman-Specter was.

Why the relatively more positive overall reaction?

Because the bill hits, at least in part, the benchmarks laid out by Grist's David Roberts at YearlyKos.

• Some of the tradeable pollution permits are auctioned off, instead of given away. (Free pollution credits can simply be sold for a profit, rewarding polluters instead of providing financial incentive to cut emissions.)
• The money raised from the auction is invested into efforts to further cut carbon pollution.
• The bill contains costs on companies without an escape hatch which would render the pollution targets meaningless.

Why then are some environmentalists cautioning that the Lieberman-Warner still falls short of what we need?

• Only a quarter of the pollution credits will be initially auctioned off (rising to about half in 30 years). Sierra Club's Carl Pope sees this as "oriented toward meeting the needs of the coal, utility and auto industries" instead of doing what's sufficient to end the crisis.
• The targets aren't aggressive enough for some. Lieberman-Warner would cut carbon emissions 10% by 2020 and 70% by 2050. Joseph Romm at Climate Progress approves, saying that "starts quickly" and has a "credible 2050 target." But the League of Conservation Voters contends we need "at least 15-20 percent by 2020 to reach the goal of at least 80 percent reductions by 2050."

Union of Concerned Scientists concurs with both criticisms. The Natural Resources Defense Council agrees with the need for the more aggressive targets, but still calls Lieberman-Warner a "Big Step Forward."

Both the most important point is, according to the critical US PIRG and the optimistic Sen. Boxer, the bill represents a positive "starting point."

The cap-and-trade debate in Congress is just beginning, and it's going to ramp up after this month, once Congress finishes work on the current energy bill. We'll need to be heard on the Hill if we to strengthen what comes out of Boxer's committee.

Thankfully, Step It Up 2 is set for November 3, rallying the grassroots behind an 80% cut in carbon emissions, as well as a moratorium on new coal plants combined with a green-collar jobs program. A big turnout will counter special interest lobbying and help improve the bill.

And we have something that can be improved upon. The congressional debate is now fully within reality-based territory. Lieberman-Warner -- having at least a sound skeletal structure -- is far better than last month's Bingaman-Specter bill to represent the conservative flank of reality-based debate.

Other blog takes from Climateer Investing, Plenty magazine's Political Climate, Open Left, Local Warming, Down to Earth and Energy Outlook

Views expressed on this page are those of the authors and not necessarily those of Campaign for America's Future or Institute for America's Future