Updated at 1:55 p.m. on Sept. 30.
The U.N. climate change summit last week in New York served as a precursor for the upcoming December talks. After his speech, President Obama was criticized for being long on rhetoric and short on details, while leaders from China and Japan won praise for offering specific goals on emission reductions. Consensus is also growing around the idea that countries may adopt their own domestic climate change policies in lieu of an international agreement.
How successful were the gathered leaders -- particularly our own -- in laying down a foundation for Copenhagen? What role should the U.S. play in the upcoming talks? Will Congress need to pass an energy bill by then? Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and White House science czar John Holdren are optimistic. But if Congress remains in the thrall of health care reform, passing a bill may not happen within the next three months. Will it be detrimental to the administration if it goes to the U.N. talks without a bill in hand? What responsibility do you think the U.S. has to work in coordination with other countries, especially China and India?
Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and John Kerry, D-Mass., are unveiling a bill in the Senate today that would cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, a steeper cut than the 17 percent specified in the bill the House passed this year. Do you think the Senate bill will provide the momentum some say the U.S. needs for Copenhagen, whether it passes or not? Does it do enough to address the international aspects of climate change? Click here for the draft version of the bill that was circulating Tuesday.
In other energy news, climate change is slated to be high on the agenda for President Obama's trip to China in November. What type of cooperation do you think these two countries need in order to combat global climate change effectively? How should the U.S. proceed in developing renewable energies in order to quell concerns that China will far surpass the U.S. in this industry?
-- Amy Harder, NationalJournal.com
14 responses: Eileen Claussen, Gene Karpinski, William O'Keefe, Bill Meadows, Andrew Wheeler, Carl Pope, Steven Stoft, Dirk Forrister, Frances Beinecke, Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., Paul Sullivan, Daniel C. Esty, Kevin Knobloch, William O'Keefe
The Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration last week rolled out their joint standards to curb greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. Federal officials predict that the regulations will increase fuel economy by 5 percent every year from model years 2012 through 2016 and conserve 1.8 billion barrels of oil. They say that the new requirements will reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil, cut greenhouse gas emissions and help save the average car buyer $3,000 in fuel costs.
However, Senate Environment and Public Works ranking member James Inhofe of Oklahoma argued that the new standards "will not enhance America's energy security, and, in fact, will make new cars more expensive and less safe."
Are the regulations too ambitious? Should they be stricter? Do you think they're emblematic of how the administration will curb greenhouse gases -- through regulation rather than legislation? What changes would you recommend?
-- Amy Harder, NationalJournal.com
10 responses: Richard Revesz, Kateri Callahan, Mark Cooper, Frances Beinecke, Jeffrey Breneman, Kevin Knobloch, Thomas Gibson, Steven Stoft, Arjun Makhijani, William O'Keefe
Updated at 1:34 p.m. on Sept. 16.
Last week, House Natural Resources Chairman Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., introduced legislation that would change the ground rules for oil and gas development on federal lands. The bill would create a new Interior Department agency to oversee oil and gas development and would scrap the existing federal royalty system. It would also push oil companies to speed exploration on federal lands, rather than holding leases for prolonged periods of time.
Rahall's bill is the latest offering in congressional efforts to reform federal minerals policy law. Proponents say the changes are needed in response to charges last year that Mineral Management Service employees were involved in a sex and drug scandal involving oil and gas company representatives. Also last year, Congress lifted a federal moratorium on oil and gas drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf.
In light of those events, should Congress overhaul federal mineral policy law? What impact would Rahall's bill have on resource development in the U.S.? What parts of the bills do you support? What changes do you recommend?
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced today that he is terminating what he referred to as the "controversial" royalty-in-kind program, under which the government accepts oil and natural gas from producers instead of cash for use of federal land. In his testimony before the House Natural Resources Committee, Salazar said his department will phase out the program and begin "an orderly transition over time to a more transparent and accountable royalty collection program."
How do you think this changes the landscape for Chairman Rahall's legislation? Do you agree with this termination or not? Why do you think Salazar decided to terminate it and what type of program do you propose he replace it with? In his testimony this morning, the secretary didn't offer more details of its replacement other than that it will be "more transparent."
-- Margaret Kriz Hobson, NationalJournal.com
9 responses: Jack Gerard, Barry Russell, Frances Beinecke, Thomas J. Pyle, Jack Gerard, Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., David Holt, Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., William O'Keefe
Scientists say the best way to keep coal-powered electricity alive while cutting U.S. greenhouse gas emissions is to store the power plants' carbon dioxide emissions underground. But sequestering the pollution raises sticky legal questions:
• Who should be liable if the sequestration project harms local groundwater or if the carbon dioxide escapes from the ground?
• Should Congress or the states allow companies to store carbon dioxide gases deep underground without first getting permission from citizens who own the land above those storage caverns?
• Which federal agency should regulate the underground storage sites and the transportation of pollution from the power plants to the caverns?
• Should Congress advocate legislation and money for capturing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel plants and storing them underground? Is it worth the effort?
-- Margaret Kriz Hobson, NationalJournal.com
5 responses: Skip Horvath, Paul Sullivan, Bill Johnson, Steven Stoft, William O'Keefe
