July 15, 2008

It’s all about power

The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (L-W) that proposes to cut carbon emissions by two-thirds by 2050 was delivered stillborn on the Senate floor in early June, as expected. Faced with public outcry over record-high gasoline prices, no senator was able to breathe life back into a bill that is estimated to cost the economy $6 trillion through 2030. In the end, proponents of the bill deferred L-W until next year under a procedural vote rather than admit defeat. Mark Twain aptly described such a decision as “Never put off until tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow.”

 

Senate sponsors of the bill appeared disorganized and unprepared to answer critics’ charges that this bill will drive our already soaring energy costs even higher. The lackluster debates also failed miserably to persuade the American people that passage of this bill is essential when sharply rising unemployment, energy, and food prices are issues that hit closer to home. It was the wrong legislation debated at the wrong time. In the end, its sponsors were able to patch together only 48 of the 60 votes required to overcome a Republican filibuster and force a vote.

Dueling analyses

The number of “authoritative” reports and hyped press releases circulating during the unusually short debate was mind-numbing and of little help in understanding the issues. Here are a few examples:

• The “progressive think tank” Center for American Progress Action Fund noted that, “Once again President Bush acted as big-oil lobbyist in chief to help block debate over the Lieberman-Warner [bill].” Great hyperbole, but just another outspoken regulatory policy group that knows so little about our industry: The U.S. generates only about 1% of its power by burning oil, so I fail to see the connection between carbon controls and big-oil interests. And Bush controlling the Senate debate? Get real.
• The Natural Resources Defense Council responded to criticisms of the bill’s costs by reporting the results of an internally funded study. Its results are fanciful—the “do nothing option will cost our economy $3.8 trillion annually by 2100 in today’s dollars”—and are followed by the inevitable: “The report’s findings are undeniable—we must act now.”
• Wood Mackenzie, an international energy research and consulting firm, concluded that L-W “will raise natural gas prices by up to 90% and will negatively impact the economy $2.8 trillion through 2030.”
• The conservative National Association of Manufacturers hyped the results of its study that concluded L-W would cause “national employment losses of up to 4 million jobs, electricity prices increases of up to 120%, gasoline price increases of up to 145%, and a loss of household income of up to $6,752 per year.”

If such pronouncements were presented in a criminal court, a jury would surely find that there is more than a reasonable doubt about the bill’s impact on our economy and citizens— no matter how flawed these and many other similar studies are. Congress owes us a thorough and comprehensive public debate on the 491-page L-W bill—not just a cursory debate punctuated by a quick vote that’s followed by senators hitting the campaign trail strutting their newfound environmental cred.

---