Live Q&A: Erich Pica, President Friends of the Earth (on Kerry-Lieberman)

[ProSense]

Live Q&A: Erich Pica, President Friends of the Earth

Q: Even though Senator Graham has already walked away from the bill, this appears to be legislation that's at best moderate and incorporates much of the changes Republicans have suggested over the
years. Do you see anything here to excite progressives?

EP: Senator Kerry is urging progressives and environmentalists to support the bill because he doesn’t think a stronger bill can’t overcome a Senate filibuster. His argument is that the next Congress will not have as large a Democratic majority and so now’s the time to move. (You can read his pitch to progressives here.)

That argument would make sense to us if the bill made at least incremental progress. But our reading is that on balance, the bill is actually a backward step. There’s a reason polluting corporations like Shell Oil and Duke Energy are supporting it. The bill rolls back key parts of the Clean Air Act, puts limits on the ways states can innovate, gives multibillion-dollar handouts to polluting industries, and expands offshore drilling. This bill sacrifices too much in exchange for inadequate pollution reduction targets that will likely be achieved anyway.

The theory was that these concessions might be enough to get polluting industries and right-leaning senators on board, but so far we haven’t seen that happen. Not a single Republican senator is supporting the bill, and many Democratic senators (on the left and in the center) don’t seem all that impressed either. So we’ve basically given away a whole bunch of stuff to the other side, and appear to have received nothing in return.

Q: If the bill came to the floor as currently written, would Friends of the Earth view it as a step forward or a step back? Would you support this bill?

EP: Our view is that this bill is a step backward, and we cannot support it in its current form. That doesn’t mean we wouldn’t support the bill later if it were substantially improved.

To be fair, there are some positive parts of this bill. There are some incentives for plug-in electric cars and for smart urban development, both of which would reduce emissions from the transportation sector. But really, I’m grasping for straws. Are we supposed to be excited over the fact that the bill only rolls back parts of the Clean Air Act, or that it gives states the option to veto drilling up to 75 miles from their shores, or that it will only preempt some state-level initiatives?

And there are alternatives. In particular, one that merits consideration is Senators Cantwell and Collins’ CLEAR Act. It isn’t a perfect bill, either, but it protects the Clean Air Act and doesn’t have all of these giveaways to polluting industries. And unlike the Kerry-Lieberman bill, it’s already got a Republican senator on board and has the interest of consumer groups like AARP, so it seems like it would have a better shot at getting 60 votes. Why hasn’t it received as much attention as Kerry-Lieberman?

In the end, if it’s impossible to pass a strong comprehensive, economy-wide bill in the Senate this year -- one that imposes rigorous limits on greenhouse gas emissions and isn’t chock full of giveaways -- then we shouldn’t be trying to push through a second- or third-rate product. The Clean Air Act and other tools already exist that can start the process of reducing emissions, while we build the support that’s needed to get senators on board with a real climate bill.

From the comments:

I just can't get over this line of reasoning

Our view is that this bill is a step backward, and we cannot support it in its current form.

How is putting a limit on carbon emissions a step backward? I mean, I have reservations with this bill as well, particularly with the domestic exploration provisions, but I simply don't think the permitted levels of international offsets truly makes this bill a "step backward".

A real step backward is not taking action, and I'm disappointed that the environmental movement is once again making the perfect the enemy of the good at a crucial moment in history.

link

Concerns about using Clean Air Act to...regulate carbon:

1. Wasn't written with carbon in mind -- wrong tool for the job.
   
   
2. EPA action is slow -- look how long it's taken Lisa Jackson to move. She's doing a great job but is hampered by rulemaking process.
   
   
3. EPA rules can be subverted by a Republican President. Look what Bush did to Appalachia simply by redefining "stream."]

Your response?

link

Concerns over the Clean Air Act

Thanks for the question RLMiller, here are a few thoughts. These are complicated questions here are few quick answers.

1. The Clean Air Act was intended to regulate all air pollutants and contemplates carbon dioxide in Section 103(g) which identifies carbon dioxide from stationary sources as a pollutant. So it’s flat out incorrect that the Clean Air Act isn’t intended to deal with CO2.
   
   
2. We are going to have rulemaking processes regardless of the regulatory regime. This bill will have rules on offsets, market construction as well as other areas that are being set-up and need EPA interpretation.
   
   
3. The environmental community has been quite successful in suing the EPA when it changes rules that violate the intent of the law. We will have to be vigilant under any regime or administration.

We shouldn't throw out the Clean Air Act for this bill.

"The environmental community has been quite...successful in suing the EPA <...>"

The environmental community just lost in a suit against the EPA giving Shell permission to drill in the Arctic.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37137262/ns/sports
It's up to Salazar now.

I wouldn't put my faith in the courts protecting The Clean Air Act in the future. All they have to do, is deem that EPA was doing a good job (Brownie).

Kerry: EPA Final Ruling Underscores Urgency for American Power Act

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), co-author of the American Power Act, today released a statement following the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announcement of their final tailoring rule, which targets the country’s largest emitters, such as power plants and oil refineries. The announcement is a key step in EPA’s efforts to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources beginning January 2011.

“Today we went from ‘wake-up call’ to ‘last call’ on the urgency of Senate action on comprehensive energy and climate legislation. The Obama Administration has again reminded Washington that if Congress won’t legislate, the EPA will regulate,” said Sen. Kerry. “Those who have spent years stalling need to understand: killing a Senate bill is no longer success. And if Congress won’t legislate a solution, the EPA will regulate one, and it will come without the help to America’s business and consumers contained in the American Power Act. That’s why businesses that have opposed every previous piece of legislation are supporting this one because the American Power Act will create millions of new jobs, move us towards energy independence, strengthen our national security, and give us cleaner air at the same time. These groups and companies are doubling down on a clean energy economy because they understand this isn’t a choice, it’s a necessity, and we need to get it done this year.”

Senator Kerry:

Clean Air Act: This part of the bill has generated a lot of commentary and reporting recently, and some of it has just missed the mark. Here's the deal: This bill does not take the EPA out of the mix on regulating carbon. In fact, it strengthens the Clean Air Act by expanding the authority of the EPA and making that authority permanent. First, the entire pollution-reduction program is under the authority of the EPA. The bill specifically requires the EPA to regulate large sources of carbon pollution, but it does not allow it to issue what in many cases would be duplicative regulation of the same sources. Essentially, what the bill says is that EPA should use the program specifically designed for making the deep reductions in carbon pollution called for in the bill. The bill preserves key Clean Air Act tools for sources not in the program, and it calls on EPA to continue setting tough emission standards to reduce global-warming pollution from cars and trucks. It also continues EPA's ability to set performance standards for old, dirty power plants to make sure they clean up.

[karynnj]

1. Reading the interview, Pica is making a big false assumption

The Kerry/Lieberman bill is a serious bill that has made the compromises needed to have a shot at getting 60 votes. That was not true of Kerry/Boxer, nor is it true of Cantwell/Collins.

Many on the left have liked Cantwell/Collins, and the Kerry/Lieberman bill was improved by using some of their ideas on refunding to the customers. Kerry in his Ghrist article highly praised their work and spoke of its impact on theirs - a gracious statement rare among politicians. However, as a NYT analysis said - there are regional inequalities that cause some areas of the country, most notably the entire coal plant fueled Midwest to be big losers. There is no way that bill, as written, could get the votes of the 14 Democratic coal Senators. Without them, 15 Republicans are needed - not 1. In addition, Webb is unlikely to sign on if there is no off shore drilling and no nuclear.

I think it also handles just the global warming piece - not energy. This means that there still would need to be an energy bill - and that would come from Bingaman. What this means is that he is comparing apples and oranges. Many things he dislikes in Kerry/Lieberman are from the energy piece.

To gain the same interest, Cantwell/Collins would need to have a comprehensive energy plan and make compromises that would lead people to think it had a prayer of getting 60 votes. Yet doing that would add in many things that Pica would have problems with - as K/L does.