United States: Federal Activity On Climate Change Presents New Opportunities For Industry To Join The Dialogue

As the 110th Congress moves into only its second month of business, key members of the new Democratic majority are hurrying to paint themselves and their committees as the most "green": from a seemingly subtle name change for the former House Resources Committee (the Democrats have changed its name to the Natural Resources Committee, as it was before the previous twelve years of Republican rule in the House), to the creation of a half dozen new subcommittees devoted to renewable energy and global warming. While most observers expected that Democratic control of Congress would lead to an increased emphasis on climate change, the initial flurry of legislative proposals and hearings indicate that Congress is on an even faster track than initially anticipated. Although it remains unclear whether any final legislation will emerge from all this activity, interested parties must consider whether to get involved in the debate now or risk being left out as the process inevitably moves forward.

As soon as the 110th Congress convened, Democrats in new congressional leadership positions embarked on a restructuring campaign intended to announce their agendas and assert their jurisdiction over the climate change debate. In the Senate, Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is taking the lead on climate change legislation. Global warming also remains a top priority for Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chair Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), though he has said that his committee will cede jurisdiction on this issue to the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Infighting for control of the climate change agenda erupted most fiercely in the House of Representatives after Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced her intention to establish a new Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Though the Speaker insisted the new panel would merely "support the work of the authorizing committees,"¹ key House chairmen viewed her proposal as a threat to their committees’ jurisdiction and power. After weeks of jockeying, Speaker Pelosi finally reached an agreement earlier this month with Chairmen John Dingell (D-MI) and Henry Waxman (D-CA), with Pelosi promising that the new committee will have no legislative authority, will expire by October 30, 2008, and will give traditional committees the priority in scheduling witnesses for hearings.² Still, the conflict revealed how territorial and aggressive the new Congress may be on global warming.

A crowded schedule of congressional hearings further demonstrates how many committee chairs want to stake their claim on climate change. Senator Boxer’s Environment and Public Works Committee jumpstarted the debate last month with a daylong hearing that uniquely featured comments solely from fellow Senators.³ Future hearings for Boxer’s committee will invite testimony from celebrity leaders and experts, including Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Former Vice President Al Gore. House Committee Chairs Dingell and Gordon also plan to harness Al Gore’s expertise and credibility on the subject for a March 21 joint hearing between the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Science and Technology Committee.⁴ Meanwhile, Senator Bingaman’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee is focusing more on specific issues, with a session on the economics of climate change slated for later this month.⁵

Other committee chairs, including Representative Waxman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, have used their hearings so far to criticize the Bush Administration’s stance on global warming by investigating alleged censorship of government climate scientists over the past few years.⁶ But the White House has hinted recently at a new acceptance of the political and scientific realities of climate change. This January, President Bush mentioned "global climate change" for the first time ever in a State of the Union Address. The simple act of using that phrase earned a standing ovation from most Democrats in attendance, who viewed it as a strong signal of openness to discussion.⁷

Since the President’s Address, White House officials have mostly maintained that Bush remains strongly opposed to emissions caps. However, Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell recently left some wiggle room by admitting that nothing is completely off the table and that a change in the Administration’s cap-and-trade opposition is "possible."⁸

Private industry has also begun a crucial new dialogue with Congress, working lately to develop a pragmatic and nationwide approach to climate change. Most significantly, a group of corporations – including DuPont, Alcoa, General Electric, and Duke Energy – formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership ("USCAP"), issued a detailed set of recommendations, and began urging Congress to pass cap-and-trade legislation.⁹ Even more businesses, such as Wal-Mart, have joined the discussion by praising USCAP’s work and by voluntarily adopting their own climate change goals.¹⁰ With industry, environmental groups, and Congress collaborating to find a solution, USCAP represents an noteworthy development for climate change policy in the United States.

Steady Stream of Legislative Proposals, but Uncertain Outlook

At least six significant legislative proposals mandating greenhouse gas emissions caps are already under serious consideration in the 110th Congress, with as many as a dozen more climate change plans expected in the coming weeks. Key features from the early offerings include:

• Lieberman-McCain (S. 280): cuts emissions to 65% below 2004 levels by 2050

• Earlier versions were voted down in 2003 (43-55) and in 2005 (38-60).
• Contains controversial provisions promoting nuclear energy.
• Labeled "the Presidential Bill" since three prominent 2008 Presidential candidates (Senators Obama, Clinton, and McCain) are cosponsors.¹¹

• Sanders-Boxer (S. 309): cuts emissions to 83% below 2004 levels by 2050

• Referred to as the "Gold Standard" by environmentalists and by Senator Boxer herself, given it is the most aggressive proposal.¹²

• Feinstein-Carper (S. 317): cuts emissions to 41% below 2004 levels by 2050

• Focuses solely on cutting emissions from power plants.
• Supported by several electric utilities (e.g., Calpine, Entergy, and PG&E).

• Bingaman (discussion draft): holds emissions to 16% above 2004 levels by 2020

• The least stringent plan, focuses on increasing nuclear power production.
• Proposes a "safety valve" to limit total costs to the U.S. economy.

• Olver-Gilchrest (H.R. 620): cuts emissions to 65% below 2004 levels by 2050

• Considered a companion to the Lieberman-McCain plan, though slightly more aggressive on cuts and slightly less supportive of new technology.

• Kerry-Snowe (S. 485): cuts emissions to 65% below 2004 levels by 2050

• In addition to an economy-wide cap-and-trade system, it promotes standards for vehicle emissions and fuel: by 2016, all gas stations would be required to have at least one pump selling 85%-ethanol blended fuel

In the Senate, Environment and Public Works Chair Barbara Boxer has tried to dampen expectations of producing comprehensive legislation by the spring. Boxer faces several emissions-cap opponents on her own committee (led by Senator Inhofe (R-OK), who has consistently called global warming a "hoax"¹³), and she acknowledges that her own legislative proposal is unlikely to win support. Instead, she will first concentrate on a "small confidence-building bill"¹⁴ before trying to reach a broader compromise. She has also suggested that it might take several smaller bills, rather than a single large bill, to accomplish her goals. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chair Bingaman agrees that the Senate will have to move somewhat slowly at first.

Meanwhile, in the House, Speaker Pelosi has challenged her committee chairs to produce legislation by early June and to pass legislation by July 4.¹⁵ House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Dingell has publicly indicated he will meet the Speaker's schedule for reporting legislation to the full House of Representatives. However, given the challenging nature of the issue – both the science and the politics – establishing total consensus by the summer may be too ambitious a goal.

In fact, despite all this activity, it remains unclear whether the 110th Congress will produce and pass final legislation, let alone win President Bush’s signature. With the 2008 Presidential Election cycle already underway and several members of the House and the Senate already announced as candidates for their parties’ nominations, this Congress faces a challenging time crunch as the election nears and monopolizes more and more of its time and energy. By 2008, controversial legislation will have little chance of getting through what will by then be a very distracted and divided Congress; 2007 may be the unofficial deadline for any substantive climate change legislation.

The 2008 Presidential Elections may already be impacting the climate change debates in another manner. Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) – himself a candidate for President – has warned that legislators might intentionally delay climate change legislation, either in the hopes of waiting to elect a more eco-friendly President or in an effort to preserve climate change as a campaign issue. Dodd and other presidential contenders have promised not to give in to such campaign tactics and to act now. As Senator Clinton remarked, "I don’t think we have a day to waste. I don’t think we should be waiting around for January 2009."¹⁶ For their part, some Republicans and industry sources are also suggesting privately that the time to act is now. Their theory is that they will get a better deal through legislation that must be signed by President Bush than they would through legislation signed by whomever the next president may be, either Republican or Democrat. And indeed, all signs so far indicate that Congress is wasting no time in starting the discussion that will shape the future of climate change policy in this country.

Senators’ Perspectives on Global Warming: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, 110th Cong., January 30, 2007

Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 110th Cong., February 13, 2007

Press Release, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, "Committee Holds Hearing on Political Influence on Government Climate Change Scientists, January 30, 2007

Nancy Pelosi, Remarks at the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ Opening Session, January 26, 2007

U.S. Climate Action Partnership, "A Call for Action," 2007

Wal-Mart, Statement Commending US-CAP Proposal, Jan. 19, 2007

Senators’ Perspectives on Global Warming: Hearing Before the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works, 110th Cong., January 30, 2007

Press Release, James Inhofe, Climate Update, January 4, 2005

Press Release, Office of the Speaker, "Pelosi Announces the Creation of Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming," January 18, 2007

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.