Is this even a climate bill anymore?

John Kerry and Joe Lieberman have finally unveiled their "climate change" bill. It is very surprising that it does not have significant Republican backing as it hardly does anything good. It promotes nuclear power, regulates some offshore drilling, gives 2 billion dollars to the coal industry for research, among other things. It does not address the huge carbon footprint of industrial agriculture, as the entire agricultural sector is exempt from the carbon trading scheme. The bill does very little to promote renewable energy or public transportation, two central pillars of a green economy. It contains huge carve outs for industries that senate Democrats will need on board such as coal and natural gas. The bill sets a 17% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 as its goal, but this is exactly that, a goal.

This bill is in its current form because of bipartisan negotiations with Lindsay Graham, who pulled his support at the last minute due to his frustration about the immigration debate. I won't comment much on this move, but it does present a problem. If this is the starting legislation in the senate, the final legislation will be significantly more conservative than this. Anything more conservative than this will start to do more harm than good. I've always argued the most sound way to combat climate change is to restructure the economy through incentives to one that is more environmentally friendly. This bill really will not do this. It can be thought of as more of an "energy independence" plan. After all, that is why the authors named it the American Power Act.

With legislation like this, the argument for a piecemeal approach to climate change solutions grow. Harry Reid declared earlier this week that he is open to a smaller bill that is targeted at renewable energy such as wind and solar. To many environmentalists, this may seem like a non-starter. Though a piecemeal approach would ultimately be less effective, it would be a much more efficient way of doing things at the moment. Harry Reid claims there is bipartisan backing for a renewable energy bill in the senate right now. If he is right, we would do well to move a very progressive energy bill without 2 billion for coal stuffed in. This could be followed by increased energy efficiency standards from the EPA and other congressional measures to address agriculture, such as a sensible farm bill. One thing is for certain, this bill will not do.

Come on Obama, we need your leadership!

Harry Reid is now saying he will not commit to passing comprehensive immigration reform this year. Climate change legislation is now predicted dead in the senate. The public health insurance option died in the health bill. All of these are attributed to the failure of Obama to take a more aggressive stance in shaping the legislation that forms the core of his agenda. Many would say this is the sign of a president who knows where to wade into the fight and when to stay at the sidelines. This is a virtue, true, but you can't only get involved in the final push.

You can spend a year completing a health-care bill, but for every day you aren't shaping its direction it will move in the wrong direction. This will undoubtedly happen with the immigration and climate change legislation the senate is currently debating. Obama can't just clap his hands and pass anything that congress gives him. It is time for some backbone.

The Green Deal

In my last post I talked about the trouble that Democrats are having with the electorate. I may have said that at a bad time, though their messaging and platform need some work. When Americans talk about the direction that the country is going on, they will overwhelmingly tell you that the economy is their biggest concern. At this point, the Democrats have been content to just tinker at the edges, trying to preserve existing jobs. But what the American economic system needs is a makeover.

When Hillary Clinton was trying to win the presidential nomination in 2008, she proposed a "green deal", a spin on FDR's New Deal policies. I thought this was one of the better ideas she presented and one that is even more relevant today than when she talked about it. The core element of it is a state-encouraged boom in environmentally friendly technology that would begin in the United States and revive the manufacturing base. I think this is an extremely good idea. The goals of this Green Deal would be economic revival, carbon dioxide reduction, and better city planning. I will go through what I think this idea should consist of.

1.) Creating an incentive for environmentally friendly technology- The first step in transforming the economy would be to shift financial incentives away from fossil fuel use. This could include subsidies for renewable energy companies, a carbon tax, and higher fuel taxes. One of the most important things to do would be to redistribute capital away from coal/petroleum/automobile production and transfer it to public transportation/renewable energy utilities. Raising the gas tax would take more cars off the road and make those that are still on the road more fuel efficient. I have always argued that reducing petroleum use is a matter of national security as well. Another important step in this, one that is often overlooked, is to design a new Farm Bill that focuses exclusively on organic agriculture. Our current agriculture used 8 units of energy for every 1 unit of food. It also does not support local farmers and economies. It would be easy to simply shift subsidies away from big agribusiness.

2.) Stop manufacturing jobs going overseas- This is very important. The way our current system is designed to shift any increase in manufacturing jobs to other countries. We have to end tax breaks for countries that shift jobs overseas. We may also consider erecting trade barriers to international wind turbines, solar panels, hybrid cars, etc. This is not necessary though. Without significant change to our problem with outsourcing, there would be no benefit to the middle class from any economic boom in the United States.

3.) End the suburbs and promote public transportation- It is quite obvious that our suburban model of living is broken. Suburbs lead to urban decay, high consumption levels, excessive farmland conversion, loss of natural habitats, congestion, the list goes on. With more and more people living close to the cities and using public transportation, our oil use could be substantially reduced. It would also improve our educational systems, environment, health-care systems and general quality of life. With middle-class and upper class Americans moving to the inner cities, there would be an influx of tax revenue that could lead to urban renewal and investment in public education.

I'm not saying that this model is perfect. In fact, it is far from solving all of our problems. If the Democratic Party could transform the economy along these lines, it could actually lead to a significant improvement in the standard living in this country. It could lead to long-term, sustained job growth. It could also lead to an economy and population that is prepared to deal with a possible peak oil crisis on the horizon.

The problem with lines in the sand? They get washed away by the tide.

As many of you may recall, back in the early stages of the health-care debate, the Congressional Progressive Caucus claimed they had drawn a metaphorical line in the sand over whether the bill included a public health insurance plan. To the disappointment of many liberals, they eventually caved and voted for the bill lacking this public option. Many have accused Rahm Emanuel as being the architect of Obama's "ignore liberal demands and they will still vote for the bill" strategy. Sadly to say, Rahm Emanuel is completely right.

Now The Hill is reporting that house liberals are jettisoning this strategy and encouraging the negotiations in the senate over the climate change/energy bill. That isn't to say for those of us who favor a strong cap and trade bill, or even a carbon tax, this is bad news. The public option fight over health-care actually did win many concessions, such as funding for community health centers. Without the appearance of a strong liberal bloc, the bill will lurch to the right.

I don't actually think that liberal lawmakers are weak for not putting their foot down over cap and trade. The fact of the matter is that republicans and conservadems don't even want a climate change bill in the first place (with a few notable exceptions). The conservative democrats at least would probably just wish Obama would not bring up any sticky issues at all. Many of their constituents don't even believe in global warming. It is one thing to negotiate with people with the same concerns as you, it is another to negotiate with those who don't even want a bill in the first place. Drawing a line in the sand will only kill the bill, and the liberals are the only ones who don't want that to happen.