Future of the climate-change bill

By Jim Roth | Phillips Murrah P.C. | The Journal Record

[ JULY 27, 2009 - OKLAHOMA CITY, OK ] - Democratic leaders in the U.S. Senate have pushed back the timeline for introducing their version of a climate bill until September. Maybe the Senate has a full plate with health care and a Supreme Court nomination. Possibly they need time to craft a better bill or perhaps recruit supporters. For whatever reason, it will be a few months before we see what Congress does.

There will be pressure to have something on President Obama’s desk before the December meeting of world leaders, who will try to agree on steps to address greenhouse emissions after the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. President Obama sent two of his cabinet secretaries to China recently to deal with the question of global warming.

During the Senate recess, interest groups will be applying pressure for support of their economic or environmental hopes. Regardless of the rhetoric to put aside partisanship, the House vote shows that political harmony isn’t likely on the climate issue. The Republican campaign slogan was “drill baby, drill.” Most Republicans still feel it is necessary to increase production of fossil fuel energy to protect economic and national security interests. Most Democrats view the passage of the climate bill in the House as a historical achievement and they feel the need to achieve a victory in the Senate for President Obama, a “greener” economy and the environment.

Sen. Barbara Boxer has indicated the bill from her committee will be much like the House version. Sen. James Inhofe has said categorically that such a climate bill “will be dead in the water” in the Senate. With divergent interests and political opinions ranging from Inhofe’s view that climate change is a hoax, to Rep. Ed Markey’s belief that the climate bill is as historical as a combination of the Apollo Project and the Civil Rights Act, what will the final bill look like? I’m hopeful the House version is improved upon and that cleaner fuels, like natural gas, are preferred over the House scheme that continues to subsidize dirty coal.

If the bill is to be reasonably comprehensive and economical, there are a number of key parts that must be included. First, President Obama’s goal of cutting emissions 80 percent by 2050 is consistent with what most scientists tell us will stabilize the climate at safe levels. That should remain a top priority.

It must create certainty about the cost of carbon emissions. Cap and trade is bound to be a contentious issue, but it seems compromise is possible. Many Democrats and their environmental supporters will want to auction emissions permits to generate revenue that can be returned to consumers and invested in clean technology. Energy and manufacturing industries along with Republican supporters will want most permits allocated for free or to receive large rebates in order to offset the new costs. A compromise is possible and although difficult, it must prevent large windfalls to the worst polluters.

A bipartisan climate bill would acknowledge the reality of the international climate debate. The U.S. must take the first step to demonstrate leadership, but it also must insist that other major emitters take action. Climate change has to be a part of strategic dialogue with China and a part of our partnership with India. International participation will lead to a more inclusive and effective agreement and lessen concerns over domestic competitiveness.

With a few exceptions, the days of the global warming deniers are gone. An Exxon Mobil spokesman said “the risk is serious and action should be taken.” It is no longer about whether climate change is real, but about how and when to meet the threat.

If the majority is wrong and a bill is passed, it will cost us unnecessarily but we will have a cleaner environment. If the minority view prevails and a bill is not passed, and they are wrong, the results will be catastrophic. We can’t afford gridlock on climate change. Attorney General Drew Edmondson made the ramifications clear when he said, “The decision should rest with generations yet unborn who will reap the advantages of action or the disasters of inaction. Our efforts must be on behalf of those generations who cannot speak now for themselves.”

In politics compromise is almost always necessary to pass legislation of this magnitude. After all, it is truly Earth-changing.

It’s your future, and your voice should be heard. Don’t let your Congress representatives sit it out. Let them hear you and let them get to work on our behalf.

Jim Roth, a former Oklahoma corporation commissioner, is an attorney with Phillips Murrah P.C. in Oklahoma City, where his practice focuses on clean, green energy for Oklahoma.