After Summit, We Need the Senate to Act

• Author: Meghan McGuinness
• Position: Associate Director for Climate Policy at the National Commission on Energy Policy
• Pages: 50-50

Page 50 ❧ THE ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM Copyright © 2010, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, Match/April 2010

Th e fo r u m

After Summit,

We Need the

Senate to Act

M MG

The Copenhagen talks were

rescued from the brink

of failure when President

Obama and other key

heads of state stepped

in and drafted the three-page Co-

penhagen Accord. e agreement

provides a vehicle for major emitters

— most notably the United States,

China, and India — to formalize

mitigation commitments, establishes

requirements for verif‌ication and

transparency, and commits funding

to developing country adaptation

and mitigation. It thus represents an

unprecedented level of cooperation

between developed and developing

nations in the global ef‌fort to ad-

dress climate change.

However, the practical implica-

tions of the accord — and prospects

for further international cooperation

— will ultimately depend on the

follow-through of its largest signa-

tories, primarily the United States.

e necessary next step toward clari-

fying the regulatory environment for

business and maintaining momen-

tum in the international process is

passage in the Senate of bipartisan

legislation that places a binding cap

on greenhouse gas emissions.

On its own, the accord does little

to resolve the present regulatory

uncertainty facing U.S. businesses,

and after Copenhagen there remains

a great deal of uncertainty regarding

how international talks will progress.

It is reasonable to assume that in the

next few months, the eyes of major

signatories will be on Capitol Hill.

Under the accord, the United

States has committed to a target of

17 percent below 2005 emissions

levels, consistent with legislation

that passed the House of Repre-

sentatives. China and India have

committed to emissions intensity

targets (emissions per unit of out-

put), as well as provisions that will

promote transparency in monitoring

and verif‌ication. A lack of action in

the Senate will prolong the current

environment of regulatory uncer-

tainty, and also limit the willingness

of China and India to aggressively

pursue their own targets, potentially

crippling prospects for a binding

international agreement in Mexico

City later this year.

e good news is that through

his participation in Copenhagen,

emphasis on passing a comprehen-

sive climate and energy bill in the

State of the Union, and the formal

announcement of U.S. targets,

President Obama has sent a clear

signal to Senate leaders and the rest

of the world that his administra-

tion is serious about addressing

climate change. However, bringing

a suf‌f‌icient number of moderate Re-

publicans and Democrats on board

— particularly those from coal or

industry-intensive states — will re-

main a challenge.

While the commitments made by

China and India may help persuade

some moderate senators to more

aggressively support an emissions

cap, those who remain opposed

to climate legislation are likely to

question the veracity of the commit-

ments made by these two countries,

and continue to raise the complaint

that they are not “legally binding.”

Furthermore, enduring concerns

about the economy, jobs, and f‌i-

nancial markets, and the absence of

closure on health care, are likely to

further limit the willingness of the

Senate to tackle climate legislation.

Ultimately, successful passage of

limits on greenhouse gas emissions

will require sustained leadership

from both the president and key

moderates on the right and left, and

the careful crafting of a bill that

limits economic impacts and em-

phasizes energy security and jobs in

addition to climate.

Since Kerry-Boxer failed to get

suf‌f‌icient bipartisan support, the

fundamental form of a climate

program under a passable Senate

bill remains an open question. Will

there be enough support in the up-

per chamber for an economy-wide

cap-and-trade program, or will it be

necessary to scale back or address

sectors individually? How will the

U.S. program respond to a lack of

“commensurate” action by develop-

ing countries? To what extent will

the use of domestic and internation-

al of‌fsets be permitted?

Beyond the fundamental struc-

ture, important distributional and

budgetary questions persist. If the

bill raises revenues, how should they

be distributed among stakeholders

considering inequities in impacts be-

tween regions or industries? And if it

does not, or does so to a more lim-

ited degree than economy-wide cap-

and-trade, how will complementary

programs (that are likely necessary

for passage) be funded?

In the absence of climate legisla-

tion, EPA has triggered the process

to commence regulation of green-

house gases under the Clean Air

Act. While it is conceivable that

the agency could attempt to use its

authority under the act to achieve

the Copenhagen targets, it is almost

certain that any rules requiring sub-

stantial reductions will be delayed

by litigation, and it remains pos-

sible that Congress will intervene to

limit EPA’s authority with respect to

greenhouse gases.

For both the agency and the

potentially regulated, legislation

remains the preferred approach.

Senate action represents the best

chance for making real the reduc-

tions promised by the accord, re-

ducing regulatory uncertainty, and

continuing to advance international

cooperation.

Meghan McGuinness is the Associate Di-

rector for Climate Policy at the National Com-

mission on Energy Policy. Opinions expressed

are those of the author and do not necessar-

ily represent the views of the commission.