GLOBAL CLIMATE DEBATE

Sen. Inhofe: GOP Beware: Though Now Stalled, Cap-and-Trade is Alive and Well

September, 14, 2009

Now that the debate on cap-and-trade has stalled indefinitely in the Senate, inquiring minds are wondering: what’s next?  While there’s no question the Democrats have declared a cease fire on cap-and-trade—many of them want nothing to do with the issue—their allies outside the Beltway are preparing a massive $20 million campaign to push legislation forward.
 
This effort should serve as a wake-up call to anyone who believes cap-and-trade is dead and buried—it is very much alive.  So Republicans remain ever vigilant, preparing to defeat any cap-and-trade energy tax that will drive up unemployment, slow our economic recovery, and make America less competitive in the global marketplace.
 
A key component of this pressure group campaign will be the so-called “endangerment” finding now under review at the White House.  This finding under the Clean Air Act will declare that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, and thus will trigger a cascade of new regulations that will crush small businesses and raise electricity, food, and gasoline prices. 
 
Green groups and the Obama Administration are threatening Congress with this finding, arguing that the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, or any cap-and-trade bill, will take care of it.  They argue that cap-and-trade is more efficient than command-and-control regulation. But this is a smokescreen for the truth: cap-and-trade would simply substitute one bad policy for another, as Congress would be replacing one energy tax with another.  Republicans reject both, and both should be defeated.
 
Meanwhile, EPW Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) continues to seek votes for her climate legislation, the introduction of which has been delayed twice in the last two months.  This is no surprise, as the politics of climate legislation in the Senate are daunting.  Several members of the Democratic caucus have expressed outright opposition to cap-and-trade or hesitation about consideration of cap-and-trade this year.   The latter is due in large part to health care reform, which has, in the view of many, “poisoned the well” for cap-and-trade.  “It's a difficult schedule," Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said last week, adding that many members are already “anxious” about health care reform.   "We have enough on our plate at the moment (with the fight over healthcare reform).  It's questionable to open another front,” Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said.   Sen. Kent Conrad, (D-N.D.) added, “Given everything that has happened and all the things there are to do, it is a little hard to see how there is sufficient time on the floor to do it.”
 
So in the coming weeks, expect Sen. Boxer and her supporters to cut any and all deals to secure votes.  Those deals will appear to be major concessions on such issues as nuclear power, coal, trade, and manufacturing.  But once one scratches the surface, those concessions will come to light as nothing more than fig leaves.  For instance, one can legitimately question the sincerity of Sen. Boxer’s commitment to a nuclear title.  That’s because in 2005 she voted against the McCain-Lieberman bill specifically because it included pro-nuclear language.  As she said in a floor statement at the time, “Nuclear power is not the solution to climate change, and it is not ‘clean.’ The nuclear industry has not solved its waste and safety problems. By subsidizing the creation of new nuclear plants, we are condoning the creation of more waste and turning a blind eye to the hazards associated with nuclear power.”  
 
As Sen. Boxer looks for votes, the Administration will press forward with its strategy for international climate change talks in Copenhagen in December.  The key focus of that strategy will be to convince a skeptical U.S. Senate that China can agree to emissions reductions on a scale and timetable comparable to Waxman-Markey, or similar cap-and-trade legislation.  But China simply won’t agree to climate restrictions that meet the Senate’s Byrd-Hagel test, which states that no treaty can get 67 votes for ratification if it causes significant harm to the U.S. economy or if developing countries are left out. 
 
President Obama will travel to China in November, and will likely lay the groundwork for some sort of bilateral agreement, in which China will agree to implement a climate regime—but it won’t require mandatory reductions and won’t make a dent in global greenhouse gas concentrations. 
 
Those following the cap-and-trade debate should expect a busy fall, with lots of activity in the Administration, Congress, and beyond the Beltway.  Republicans will argue that cap-and-trade legislation is a bad idea that the Senate should reject.  Green groups are repackaging cap-and-trade as “clean energy legislation.”   But the American people won’t be fooled, and they will call instead for the GOP energy policy, which reduces our dependence on foreign oil, creates jobs, and grows our economy.

Inhofe is the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

• Login or register to post comments