Christina Switzer

October 19, 2007

This year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC") and Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change." Six days later, on October 18, Senators Joseph I. Lieberman (ID-CT) and John W. Warner (R-VA) introduced a global warming bill in the Senate's Environmental Public Works ("EPW") Committee. The bill, entitled "America's Climate Security Act," directs the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to implement a national cap-and-trade program for heat-trapping air emissions.

The bill aims for a 63% cut in green house gas emissions (including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride) by 2050 with mandatory limits on six greenhouse gases. Under this program, EPA would issue polluters emission permits based on the polluter's past history and would allow polluters to purchase carbon offsets rather than make actual reductions. The bill is the most middle-of-the-road approach so far, but still garnered little support from critics on both sides of the debate. Many lawmakers and environmental groups argue that the bill does not reduce emissions fast enough considering the results outlined in the IPCC 2007 report. The report concluded that we will need an 80-90% cut in emissions by 2050 if we are going to mitigate the worst scenarios. On the other side, senators such as Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a member of the EPW Committee, argue that the bill will hurt Americans by increasing energy prices and causing industries to flee for countries with less regulation.

Currently, there is no comprehensive, nation-wide program to deal with greenhouse gas emissions. While Congress has taken steps to address global warming through energy bills, it has not gone so far as to make changes mandatory. In the absence of federal legislation, California recently took the lead and passed its own climate bill. The California bill requires a cut in global warming emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. To reach this goal, it orders the California Air Resources Board to set up appropriate regulations, including a cap-and-trade program if the board decides it is necessary. While many have lauded California's efforts to lead the way, it remains unclear whether federal legislation would pre-empt California's efforts.

At this point, time will tell whether the federal bill will make it out of committee and what it will look like if it does. Senator Boxer, chairwomen of the EPW Committee, expressed support for the bill, calling it "a turning point in the fight against global warming." She emphasized that the bill is a model for going forward and that she hopes to have a bill before the Senate by the end of the year.

Sources:

Nobel Peace Prize 2007, http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007 (last visited Oct. 19, 2007).

Fabian Nu--ez & Fran Pavley, AB 32: Global Warming Solutions Act; A Fact Sheet of the Union of Concerned Scientist, http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/centers/enrlp/pdf/AB-32-fact-sheet.pdf.

World Resources Institute, A Comparison of Legislative Climate Change Targets in the 110th Congress (2007), http://www.wri.org/climate/pubs_description.cfm?PubID=4343.

America's Climate Security Act, S. 2191, 110th Cong. (2007).

Union of Concerned Scientists, Lieberman-Warner Bill a Serious Start, But Must Go Further to Avoid Global Warming's Worst Consequences, Science Group Says, Oct. 18, 2007, http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/lieberman-warner-bill-a-0069.html.

Mark Hertsgaard, Which Climate Bill on Capitol Hill?, The Nation, Oct. 12, 2007.

Darren Samuelsohn, Senate Bill Seen Spurring Cap-and-Trade Debate, Greenwire, Oct. 18, 2007.

Darren Samuelsohn, Cap-and-Trade Debate Gets 'Out of the Starting Gate,' Greenwire, Oct. 19, 2007.