The climate issue has become more intense than ever this week, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair's efforts again stonewalled by President Bush in their meeting at the White House, and with the front-page revelation in Wednesday's New York Times that the chief of staff of Mr. Bush's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has made dozens of changes in official research documents with the aim of creating doubt about findings that most climate experts regard as settled. [1]

Like many top Bush Administration officials with jurisdiction over environmental matters, the CEQ official, Philip Cooney, comes from industry. Until his appointment in 2001, Mr. Cooney was "climate team leader" and lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's leading trade group. The Times article reported that Mr. Cooney has no scientific training. [2]

Meanwhile in the Senate, a flurry of climate-related proposals is still being sorted out. Whether any will actually gain a majority of Senate votes is uncertain--and even then, any amendment would have to survive a conference committee with the House bill. In 2003, House leaders blocked a provision that merely encouraged voluntary efforts to address global warming.

Among the proposals is a new version of the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act. It calls for a mandatory cap on carbon dioxide emissions, but would allow companies that don't meet the targets to buy pollution credits from those that exceed them.

Although defeated 19 months ago, McCain-Lieberman did better than expected. It is now recast as an amendment to the energy bill.

The downside for McCain-Lieberman, among some leading environmental groups, is that a subsidy of more than $5 billion for the nuclear industry has been added in hopes of attracting a few undecided senators. Ironically, notes Kevin Curtis of the National Environmental Trust, "We're not aware of one additional vote this provision could pick up. It's shifting the focus to industry handouts, and away from the real solution--a strong, market-based program."

Among other climate-related proposals is a more industry-friendly offering from Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb), which would not impose any caps, but would earmark many millions for corporate incentives to spur development of clean energy technologies.

Somewhere in between the two is a watered-down cap-and-trade amendment proposed by New Mexico Democrat Sen. Jeff Bingaman. Based on recommendations from the National Commission on Energy Policy--a coalition with representatives from industry, labor and the environmental community--the Bingaman proposal would require companies to begin slowing the growth of their greenhouse gas emissions. But it would not actually reverse the upward climb of emissions until 2030.

Critics say the Bingaman-NCEP plan does not go far enough to reduce emissions, and that it would discourage innovation: fewer companies would make the front-end investments in clean technology--investment with a long-term payoff--if it's cheaper in the short term to simply pay $7 per ton of emissions, the limit set in the amendment's cap-and-trade plan.

In short, as the energy bill heads for the Senate floor, the outlook for any positive provision on climate change appears bleak.

###

SOURCES:
[1] "Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming," New York Times, Jun. 8, 2005.
[2] Ibid.

###
This story was jointly produced by BushGreenwatch and Grist Magazine.