Failed a procedural vote which required a 60-vote supermajority for passage: 06.06.08
The Legislation:
The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 establishes a market-based cap-and-trade program to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. The program establishes an upper limit on nationwide emissions and then issues allowances, which are rights to emit a particular amount of greenhouse pollutants. The allowances can be bought and sold: polluters who do not use all of their allowances can sell them to emitters who want to emit more than their credits allow. There is thus a financial incentive to reduce emissions.
The Climate Security Act’s cap-and-trade program subjects producers, processors, manufacturers, and importers of certain greenhouse gas-emitting fuels like coal, natural gas, and petrols to a declining cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Starting in 2012, emissions would be capped at approximately 4% below 2005 emissions levels increasing to 71% below 2005 levels in 2050. Three quarters of the allowances would be issued to emitters for free in 2012 and one quarter would be sold at auction. Over time, the percentage of the allowances auctioned off would increase. A Carbon Market Working Group would oversee the GHG emissions trading market, which would be open to entities that do not emit greenhouse gases and in which allowances could be bought, sold, traded, and borrowed. A national GHG registry would track and inventory GHG emissions. In certain cases, the legislation allows polluters to release additional emissions using domestic and international offsets, which represent an equivalent reduction in emissions achieved through unrelated pollution-reduction projects. Additionally, the Act contains measures to mitigate sharp increases in the cost of allowances. The legislation requires importers of primary goods – such as iron, steel, aluminum, and paper – to purchase special international allowances to cover GHG emissions related to the production of those goods if the country of export does not have comparable emissions standards.
The Climate Security Act uses free credits and the proceeds from auctioned allowances to encourage energy efficiency and to mitigate the negative effects of the emissions cap on workers and emitters. Funds are, in part, directed
• to worker training programs in energy efficient and renewable energy jobs;
• to the construction of energy-efficient buildings, electronics, households appliances, and hybrid cars;
• to transition assistance for carbon-intensive manufacturers, the owners and operators of fossil-fuel-fired electricity generators, and the refiners of petro-based fuel;
• to protect consumers from increases in energy costs;
• and to mass transit projects.
Some proceeds are also directed to pay down the deficit. The bill also includes other environmental measures, including subsidies for coal plants that use carbon sequestration to trap emissions underground.
The Middle-Class Position:
Middle Class Supports. Human-caused climate change brought about in large part by greenhouse gases increasingly threatens Americans’ standard of living. A report recently released by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, supported by the findings of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, warned of more heat-related deaths, increased risk of Lyme disease and West Nile virus, more extreme weather, and disruptions in population growth at the local level due to climate change. An American economy built on greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuels is unsustainable. By setting meaningful, yet achievable, goals for emissions reduction, the Climate Security Act is an important step to reorient the American economy towards sustainable growth. Though change will likely bring increased energy prices, the legislation appropriately directs funds to programs that will mitigate the pain felt by consumers and individuals working in affected industries. In particular, the creation of the Climate Change Worker Training and Assistance Fund is a forward-looking measure that will help American workers adapt to jobs that not only support energy efficiency, but pay decent wages as well. Funds to encourage energy efficient technology and mass transit projects are a further demonstration of a commitment to a sustainable and efficient economy.
From the Experts:
“[P]assing Lieberman-Warner will lead to increased energy efficiency, more electricity from renewables, and reduced oil consumption. We have known for some time that a firm limit on global warming pollution with an accompanying market would produce jobs, provide manufacturing opportunities and spark innovation. – Dan Lashof, Director of the Climate Center, National Resource Defense Council, 6/6/2008
“The America’s Climate Security Act will enhance U.S. competitiveness. Given what the peer-reviewed science tells us about climate change, we must move quickly from our current economy to one in which our greenhouse gas footprint shrinks even as our standard of living increases. That will require a profound worldwide technological revolution. The United States can and should be leading that revolution, and positioning itself to reap the economic benefits associated with decreased dependence on foreign oil and increased export potential of low carbon technology. We currently are not leading, however, and federal R&D subsidies alone will not change that. An appropriate price on greenhouse gas emissions, in combination with ‘technology push’ policies, will.” – Eileen Claussen, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 11/15/2007
Beyond this Bill:
Though the Climate Security Act demonstrates a willingness on the part of Congress to confront the generational challenge of global warming, the legislation itself contains significant flaws. First, the emissions reductions mandated by the legislation are insufficient. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change advises that industrialized nations need to reduce emissions to 80% of 1990 levels by 2050 in order to stabilize concentrations of GHGs and prevent the worst environmental consequences. The EPA projects that the current bill would only reduce emissions to 25% of 1990 levels. Additionally, the legislation carves out billions of dollars in unnecessary subsidies to industry by allocating emissions allowances for free. Auctioning these allowances to polluters would create revenue for the federal government without passing along the cost to consumers. Finally, the legislation allocates funds for programs of dubious worth such as “clean coal” whose worth as energy-efficient technologies has not been proven.
Despite more support for this major climate change legislation than in the past, the bill still failed. Congress must act promptly to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Estimated total costs from hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy-sector costs, and water costs associated with global warming, if present trends continue, in dollars: 1.9 trillion
Estimated losses in damaged or destroyed residential real estate as a result of rising sea levels, in dollars: 360 billion
Projected percentage growth of U.S. carbon emissions between 2006 and 2030: 16
Number of states that are projected to face water shortages in the next five years: 36
Number of U.S. mayors that signed an agreement to meet or beat Kyoto Protocol targets for emissions reductions, as of June 2005: 141
Number of U.S. mayors that signed an agreement to meet or beat Kyoto Protocol targets for emissions reductions, as of June 2008: 850
Date on which President Bush sent a letter to U.S. Senators voicing his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol: March 13, 2001
Climate Assessments from the U.S. Government’s Global Change Research Program
Search
Search our analyses of legislation
significant to America’s current and
aspiring middle class, and find out
how members of Congress voted on
those bills.
