Yesterday I wrote about Claire McCaskill’s sad decision to join a cabal of Democratic senators out to derail the EPA’s authority to regulate green-house gases from industrial sources. Today we learn that their efforts have succeeded in delaying new EPA rules – which were devised in the first place to compensate for the unwillingness of the Senate to respond to our developing climate crisis.

The reason McCaskill and her fellow letter writers give for their delaying tactics is that they represent the interest of coal-dependent states. Of course, one goal of the EPA regulations as well as the the cap-and-trade provsions in proposed House legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), is to wean the U.S. from its coal addiction – currently 50% of U.S. electricity is coal generated.

Coal is definitely not a benign source of energy.  Its extraction destroys our natural environment, the fine particles produced by burning coal are harmful to human health, and, of course, coal constitutes one of the main factors exacerbating the climate crisis we face since coal-burning plants are the largest producers of CO2 emissions in the U.S.

So why is McCaskill, a politician who loves to claim that she shares the progressive values of the Democratic party – in fundraising letters at least – trying to prolong Missouri’s dependency on coal? Instead of whining about the short-term costs of moving us from coal dependency, shouldn’t she be exercising the leadership we expect from her?

I would suggest that McCaskill could learn from the example of Russ Carnahan, who, in his just released economic action plan, A Regional Approach to Job Growth, emphasizes the importance of legislation like ACES in guaranteeing Missouri’s continued, long-term prosperity:

Nations around the world are emerging as leaders in clean-energy production creating jobs in their respective countries because of the growing demand of these technologies. Clean energy technology can and must be made in America. The Clean Energy and Security Act – which was passed by the House of Representatives in June, 2009 – would create millions of jobs that cannot be shipped overseas, making America the global innovation leader; it would increase our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil; and it would preserve our planet by reducing the pollution that causes global warming.

Too bad McCaskill, who has signaled her opposition to ACES, doesn’t have this kind of vision or courage, but, instead, seems to be choosing to work against our long-term good to further the goals of the powerful coal-lobby and placate brainwashed rural voters.

 

Climate Progress reports  that the Murkowski amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill that I wrote about last Tuesday was debated yesterday and ultimately denied a vote, effectively killing it. The amendment was designed to do an end run around the EPA finding that carbon dioxide emissions comprise a dangerous pollutant. It would have prohibited the EPA from regulating emissions from stationary (industrial) rather than mobile (automotive) sources.

In one sense, it is unfortunate that this piece of drek was not brought to a vote, since it would have given us a chance to see whether or not Claire McCaskill’s inclination toward coal industry interests is steep enough for them to push her completely over when it comes to the  American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) act.  The fact that legislators like  Murkowski can try to undercut the ability of the EPA to do its job underlines the importance of persuading weak Democrats like McCaskill to put their votes where their progressive claims in fund-raising letters suggest they should be.

The furror over the Murkowski amendment reinforces the importance of ACES since, as Climate Progress points out, EPA regulation alone cannot substitute for strong congressional action to slow climate change:

1. It would be difficult for the EPA to enact a CO2 cap and trade without congressional cooperation,” as John Podesta, former Clinton Administration Chief of Staff and now CEO of CAP, recently said.  The endangerment finding is far better suited to addressing new sources that it is existing sources.

2. A subsequent president could trivially stop or endlessly delay whatever actions Obama was able to start with the EPA.

3. If Congress rejects the binding targets of W-M, then we have no basis for negotiating with other countries as part of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process.  Indeed, we would have no basis for a deal with China.  A promise by Obama that he would try to use the limited authority EPA has to commit to a modest cut in CO2 by 2020 – and deep cuts in 2030 and 2050 – would be seen as meaningless.

Nor do McCaskill’s stated reasons for trying to weaken the ACES cap-and-trade provisions hold up. Her claims that the legislation would “unfairly punish” coal-dependent Missourians shows (willful?) ignorance of what the legislation contains.  ACES ensures that coal-dependent states are provided with billions in subsidies to ameliorate the impact of cap-and-trade and develop alternatives.   Neither does it help her cause when she channels her inner Republican and claims that the United States can’t be expected to do more than developing nations like China and India – particlarlly since both of those countries have announced plans to take relatively major steps to curb emissions (see here and here).

It is great that the Murkowski amendment failed, and those of you who phoned McCaskill and did all the good things you do deserve huge credit, but we cannot keep fighting this battle over and over. We need Claire McCaskill to do her job and provide real leadership on the vital issue of climate change.  We need her to unequivocally support ACES so that retrograde lawmakers like Murkowski cannot continue to use the legislative process to serve the interests of their wealthy, corporate clients to our detriment.  

ADDENDUM:  Note that per Fired Up Missouri! Kit Bond tried to horn in on Murkowski’s act.  Nor were Bond and Murkowski alone in offering amendments designed to weaken environmental protections according to the New York Times.  You see what I mean about Republican intransigence and why we need ACES?

Blunt voted against the American Clean Energy and Security Act in committee today, after trying to gut it with a horrible amendment yesterday.

Good.

For those keeping score at home, Roy Blunt isn’t showing anyone that he has real ideas about energy policy or how to deal with climate change. An amendment he offered to the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the big cap-and-trade bill making its way through the House right now, was rejected in committee today. The amendment would have installed a self-destruct button in the cap-and-trade system if electricity rates rose. Well, electricity rates could rise purely on account of increased demand from an economic recovery. Should we install a self-destruct button on that, too?

The point of cap-and-trade is to make carbon emissions pricier and to reward efficiency and clean energy generation. This may mean temporary price increases, but it will also lead to cleaner and more stable sources of energy with fewer external costs related to energy generation, like respiratory disease. And the ACES, the legislation Blunt was trying to kneecap, actually allocates rebates to Americans to provide a buffer against any price spikes.

Back to Roy’s poison pill, electricity rates are rising all on their own. And other coal heavy states like Ohio and Virginia are seeing their rates rise quickly, despite their reliance on “cheap” coal. Perhaps he could legislate a self-destruct button on any energy company that raises rates for any reason over a short period of time.