The Lieberman-Warner Conundrum

Wed, 2008-02-20 14:00Chris Mooney
Chris Mooney's picture

The Lieberman-Warner Conundrum








So instead, groups like Friends of the Earth want to see stronger emissions cuts, on the order of 80 percent by 2050--which is what Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are calling for--and they want a 100 percent public auction of the initial allowances, with the funds raised then used for a variety of investments in clean energy.



But here the debate takes another turn, because the environmentalists who don't want to see anything happen this year seem to be banking on the idea that the U.S. Congress we'll have in 2009--to say nothing of the new president--will be more inclined towards strong climate action. So why strive to pass a bill right now, in an election year?






  3. However, I do think the political "climate" will be better for a climate bill in 2009, especially in light of the way things are shaping up politically right now. We're going to have a presidential race between John McCain and either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Any of them would be better on global warming than George W. Bush; and any of them would be more likely to sign a serious climate bill into law. And as for changes in Congress--given the current momentum for global warming action, it is hard for me to see how we would get a new set of reps who are less inclined towards action than the current ones. In fact, congressional climate bad guy number one--Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe--may even be gone in 2009.




By going forward this year and seeing what happens, Congressional Democrats will gain valuable political knowledge about how (or how not to) get a greenhouse gas bill passed--who will vote for it, who won't, and what kind of compromises will be necessary to get legislation enacted. And, as long as they really won't settle for something too weak, where's the harm in that?



Thanks for your post. You make a lot of good points. You're right that Congress may not be so different in 2009, and if we can pass a strong bill now we should. Moreover, the longer we wait, the more costly it will be to do what we all know we need to do. Waiting just two years doubles the annual cuts in emissions we'd have to make to get to the same place by 2020. We posted a detailed analysis of the price of delay on the Environmental Defense blog Climate 411:

Sheryl Canter
Environmental Defense


It's unfortunate, but government tends to work in increments. It would be best if government did what was needed immediately, but it just isn't a reality. Therefore, better to pass this bill now and make improvements to it in the near future. It's better than getting nothing done at all.

"...better to pass this bill now and make improvements to it in the near future."

Exactly. As Chris says, we'll have four decades to make improvements. An important strength of the CSA bill is its short-term targets, which are more aggressive than any other bill before Congress. That's crucial - we must start as quickly and aggressively as possible.


Sheryl Canter
Environmental Defense

Three or four years of delay in getting a stronger bill passed will far outweigh the difference between this year and next year. Remember that the present bill will confer economic rights that the recipients will then act on. I find it hard to take seriously the idea that it wouldn't be at least very difficult to partially or completely retract those rights just one year after they were conferred.

Indeed, political considerations aside, would not taking away those rights (to emit CO2, remember) amount to a taking? I can't see why not.


What Chris said about the Environmental Defense position is correct. We need to get started now - we cannot wait - and our immediate cuts need to be as aggressive as possible. That's the "prime directive", as they say in Star Trek. If we stall waiting for the perfect bill, we'll be much worse off.

Sheryl Canter
Environmental Defense

The message seems to be that you'll approve of pretty much any bill. IMHO that's a pretty bad mistake in this case. If the Dems put forward a clear minimim standard for what they find acceptable in a bill, hopefully ED won't press them to compromise even more (since of course their opening position will already be a substantial compromise relative to the need).

I've read various press accounts that the big emitters want a deal this year because they'll ger a worse one (from their POV) next year. ED's position seems especially blindered in light of those. Of course the emitters will also be looking for a bill that is as much of a poison pill as possible with regard to future stronger legislation. Is ED effectively assisting them in achieving that goal?

Everytime I hear the phrase Stop Global Climate Change I ask the speaker if possible the following question: How will we know when we've stopped it?. It rarely gets answered with any rational words.



Thanks for your post.






read more