March 2009 Archives

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey, D-Mass., just released draft legislation aimed at addressing global warming and increasing the use of renewable energy in the United States. The 600-page proposal includes everything from a comprehensive program to cut greenhouse gases to mandates requiring the production of low-carbon transportation fuels and the use of renewable sources of electricity.

Does it make sense to combine the climate and energy proposals into one package? What's the best thing about the proposal? What part is guaranteed to draw the most opposition? Can it get to President Obama's desk?

-- Margaret Kriz, NationalJournal.com

12 responses: Chuck Gray, Jon A. Anda, Margaret Kriz, Jon A. Anda, Donna Harman, Jon A. Anda, Bill Meadows, Larry Schweiger, Linda Stuntz, Rodger Schlickeisen, Kevin Knobloch, Carl Pope

Should U.S. climate change legislation include protective trade provisions for American industries? Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently suggested that the U.S. could impose import "carbon tariffs" to eliminate the competitive disadvantage that domestic manufacturers might face if the United States adopts legislation to cut its greenhouse gas emissions while major trading partners -- such as China and India -- do not.

How should Congress address the possible trade inequities? Could such a tariff result in a trade war? What is the biggest mistake that policymakers could make when it comes to trade issues and the environment?

-- Margaret Kriz, NationalJournal.com

3 responses: Richard Revesz, Bill Kovacs, Margo Thorning

Is environmental protection a luxury, something the nation must skimp on during economic hard times?

According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans stung by the economic recession are changing their tune on the importance of environmental values. A little more than half of Americans polled told Gallup that economic growth should be given priority, even if it means the environment will suffer. By contrast, only 42 percent of the public would place a higher priority on the environment. The results marked the first time in Gallup's 25-year history that a majority of Americans favored economic growth over the environment.

The poll was released just as Congress begins work on comprehensive climate change legislation that some lawmakers argue would raise energy prices and prolong the nation's economic recession.

Should government policies focus more on economic growth and less on the environment? Does the nation have to choose between policies that will create jobs or that protect the environment?

-- Margaret Kriz, NationalJournal.com

9 responses: Larry Schweiger, Kevin Knobloch, Denise Bode, Richard Revesz, Bob Dinneen, Kateri Callahan, Bob Bendick, Rodger Schlickeisen, Paul Portney

Should the states or the federal government have the last word on whether to build high voltage power lines to bring renewable energy to consumers?

Congress and the Obama Administration want to expand the use of clean electricity like wind, solar, and geothermal, which they say will curb global warming and help resuscitate the economy. But many renewable energy projects are located thousands of miles from major population centers that need the electricity. How can we overhaul the national electricity grid to bring green energy to market?

-- Margaret Kriz, NationalJournal.com

11 responses: Bill Kovacs, Margo Thorning, Paul Portney, Bill Meadows, Margaret Kriz, Bob Bendick, Denise Bode, Chuck Gray, Skip Horvath, Kevin Knobloch, Linda Stuntz

How should emission credits be distributed under a climate change cap-and-trade program? President Obama's budget would require companies to buy federal permits in order to continue emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Hardest hit would be coal-fired power plants, which produce electricity for half of the U.S. population.

But industry groups oppose Obama's proposal to auction off all of the permits. They argue that emission allowances should be distributed for free -- at least initially -- to coal plants and other companies that emit global warming pollution. Free permits are needed, they say, to ease the expense of adopting cleaner technologies. Who's right?

-- Margaret Kriz, NationalJournal.com

14 responses: Marvin Odum, Jim Kerr, Richard Revesz, Kevin Knobloch, Donna Harman, Mark Bernstein, Chuck Gray, Frances Beinecke, Rich Wells, Bill Meadows, Cal Dooley, Rodger Schlickeisen, Jim Rogers, Jon A. Anda

President Obama has proposed reinvigorating the Superfund hazardous waste site cleanup program by reinstating excise taxes on the chemical and oil industries. Those taxes, which lapsed in 1995, would be restored in 2011 "after the economy recovers," according to last week's White House budget documents. The administration predicts that the taxes would raise $1 billion to pay for cleanups when no polluters could be found or when those responsible failed to pay. Is this a good idea?

-- Margaret Kriz, NationalJournal.com

6 responses: Frances Beinecke, Richard Revesz, Marvin Odum, Carl Pope, Bill Kovacs, Cal Dooley