Greenhouse gas woes
November 23Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) recently sponsored a bill that would increase regulation of carbon dioxide emissions, but the bill was defeated in the Senate. With a vote of 55 to 43, Senators defeated a bill that would have classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant for the first time. The vote was largely split across party lines, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed to the regulations. The bill would have required reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 2000 levels by 2010 and 1990 levels by 2016 by capping overall greenhouse emissions from electricity production, transportation, industry and commerce. The legislation would have also created a market for tradable pollution permits, allowing companies with higher abatement costs to buy pollution permits from companies able to reduce pollution cheaply. But the act's opponents worry that it could have detrimental effects on the recovering economy. The Bush administration said the bill would cost 600,000 jobs, cause electricity and natural gas prices to rise by half, and contribute $100 billion to the federal deficit by 2025. Estimates by the Environmental Protection Agency suggested that the act would require firms to purchase allowances at $14 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted -- effectively raising the cost of gasoline by nine percent, the cost of natural gas by 20 percent and the cost of coal by 100 percent. Coal, oil and natural gas currently supply 86 percent of all energy used by Americans. But McCain and Lieberman were still encouraged by the vote. "We've lost a battle today, but we'll win over time because climate change is real," Sen. McCain said. "And we will overcome the influence of the special interests over time. You can only win by marshaling public opinion." Backers limited the bill's scope so that it would not include residential or agricultural sources of greenhouse gases or firms that emit less than 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. They also cited a study by researchers at MIT, which showed that the direct annual costs associated with the proposed legislation would amount to $20 for each American household. But opponents were not convinced of its feasibility. Many Congressional opponents of the bill claim that any effort on behalf of the US to regulate carbon dioxide emissions would be ineffective on a global scale as long as developing countries continue to industrialize with no intention of limiting their own emissions. "With the economy just coming out of a recession, this [bill] is not something that a bipartisan majority in the Senate was likely to support," Tufts Republicans President Phillip Tsipman said. Massachusetts senators Edward Kennedy and John Kerry supported the proposed legislation. Ten Democrats crossed party lines to oppose the bill, while six Republicans supported it. The fight over carbon dioxide regulations is not new. Twelve attorneys general, two cities, and 14 environmental groups are currently suing the EPA for refusing to regulate the gas under the Clean Air Act. Democrats and Republicans have clashed since 2001, when President Bush withdrew the United States from the Kyoto Protocol. According to NASA predictions, the Arctic ice cap will continue to retreat at a rate of nine percent per decade if current climate trends persist, and it could disappear altogether by the end of this century -- with disastrous effects for coastal areas. But some environmentalists said that the McCain-Lieberman bill, if passed, would not go far enough in limiting emissions. To stabilize current atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, worldwide greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by at least 60 percent, according to Resources for the Future (RFF), an independent institute that analyzes environmental, energy, and natural resource topics. "The McCain-Lieberman act may have helped to put infrastructure in place to begin reducing carbon dioxide levels, but it may send the wrong message," said Anja Kollmuss, the outreach coordinator for Tufts Institute of the Environment. "If people think that the goal is to reduce emissions by single digit percentages, we will not achieve the larger goal [of preventing climate change]." According to Kollmuss, the McCain-Lieberman bill does not adequately address the problem because it does not require the development and use of alternative energy sources. The proposed legislation could be more effective if it were part of a package that reduced subsidies for fossil fuel programs and invested in renewable energy sources.

