So why would anyone be concerned over this legislation? 
Why do many environmental organizations have severe reservations about the bill? 

Isn't any bill better than no bill at all?

The answers to these questions lie in the need for urgency and effectiveness.  

If you believe as scientists such as James Hansen, Head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies does, that we must put an immediate moratorium on the construction of new coal-fired power plants that emit CO2 and completely end the use of coal within the next two to three decades if we do not want profound and irreversible climate change, then any legislation that permits and encourages the development of new coal facilities is fatally flawed.

Nearly 40% of all CO2 emitted by the U.S. comes from the combustion of coal.  Unless these emissions are severely reduced or eliminated, we have no chance of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere below dangerous levels.  Yet the Waxman-Markey bill, in its political compromise, rewards coal companies by providing them with:

• 35% of the emissions permits for free.

• A 2% allocation of funds raised by this legislation (from 2014-2017) to cover the costs of installing and operating carbon capture and sequestration technologies.

• 5% of the funds raised by the overall legislation by 2018.

In addition, the bill not only virtually guarantees the construction of new coal-fired power plants, it actually encourages this.  It does this by allowing new coal plants to be built between 2009 and 2020 providing they promise to capture at least 50% of their carbon emissions by 2025.

How would they capture that 50%?  Through carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), a technology surrounded by serious safety questions and whose implementation is at best still many years away from application on a commercial scale.  As the conservative Economist magazine noted in March of this year, there is not a single big power plant using CCS anywhere in the world, and the world's leaders are counting on a fix for climate change that is at best uncertain and at worst unworkable.  Also noteworthy, is a 2007 MIT study entitled "The Future of Coal" that stated the concept of building "capture ready" coal plants is as yet unproven and unlikely to be fruitful. $1 billion would go toward CCS demonstration and deployment each year, funded by a fee on consumers of fossil-based electricity

Another big win for polluting industries is the severe restriction that would be placed on the Environmental Protection Agency.  The bill would eliminate EPA authority under the Clean Air Act to set performance standards for CO2 or list any greenhouse gases as "criteria pollutants" or "hazardous air pollutants".

The Waxman-Markey bill sets a target of only 4% below 1990 levels in 2020. Phil Radford, Executive Director of Greenpeace says:

 "The science is clear:  the United States and the developed world must cut emissions 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 to avoid catastrophic climate impacts.  This legislation at best provides a 4 to 7 percent cut below 1990 levels in that time frame, and it is likely to get worse in the Senate.  While 4 percent is something, it's like building a 4-foot levee in New Orleans as the waters rush in at 40 feet."

 

While this mechanism offers ample opportunities for financial speculation and industry flexibility in how and where emission reductions are achieved, its effectiveness, especially in guaranteeing immediate reductions in CO2 emissions is certainly in question.  From 2005 through 2007, emissions from within facilities covered by the "cap and trade" Kyoto Emissions Trading Scheme actually increased by 1.8%.  

Numerous studies question the real additionality of many offset projects, noting that credits are often given for projects that would have happened anyway or only have a short-term effect.  A recent study by the General Accounting Office suggests members of Congress think carefully before letting companies use offsets as a means of complying with legislation to control CO2 emissions due to their limited assurance of credibilty.

Under Waxman-Markey, offsets could be used for up to 2 billion tons of CO2 emissions each year, or more than 27% of the U.S.'s total annual GHG emissions.  Depending on the assumptions made regarding price and availability, analyses vary widely as to the number of offsets that are likely to be used.  If offsets are less expensive to buy than reducing emmissions, then that's what's lkely to happen.  This is one of the reasons why projections for emissions reductions associated with the implementation of this bill are so low.

The Obama administration is determined to pass climate legislation this year - even if it is inadequate and counterproductive.  Advocates for effective and just climate action must be willing to speak louder, work harder and act more boldly.  We must be willing to "raise hell" in order to send a message to our leaders that what they call "clean energy and climate security" is neither clean nor secure.