Online global warming townhall meeting with Sen. John McCain

[phantom power]

Date of Webcast: Thursday, June 17, 2004
Time of Webcast: 1:30pm EST/10:30am EST

Please join us for our live townhall meeting on global climate change with special guests Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT). Senators McCain and Lieberman are leading the fight to undo global warming with the historic, bipartisan Climate Stewardship Act (S. 139), and are joining us for this special online event to bring thousands of concerned Americans together as the US Senate prepares for a vote on the bill.

Environmental Defense President Fred Krupp will host this lively townhall meeting. Sens. McCain and Lieberman will also take your online questions.

Register here:
http://www.vodium.com/login/envdef/registration.asp

[punpirate]

1. When I first saw this...

... the immediate question which came to mind is one of differences between this and Kyoto, i.e., why have separate legislation if it's pointed in the same direction? Why not encourage the Senate to ratify Kyoto?

Has anyone had time to read S.139 and mark the changes from the Kyoto Protocol? Sorry, but I'm a bit mistrustful--I don't trust either of these guys to come up with anything which has any teeth in it regarding major CO2 sources such as cars and power plants, especially if there's tax money or breaks allowed for major industry.

[phantom power]

2. those are good questions

maybe you could bring them up at the meeting?

I'm also skeptical, since most legislation is definitely "toothless". I figure, at least these guys are acting like there's a problem to be solved. That puts them leagues ahead of Bush and the other neocons.

[punpirate]

3. Sorry, I'm just now trying to familiarize myself...

... with the legislation. Not sure I'll have time to read all of it. But, it seems mostly devoted to establishing research money ($17 million + some increased amounts for NSF incentive grants), to include research on Kyoto impact on American business. The rest of it is protocols--establishing a greenhouse gas emissions database, reporting requirements, and the rest of it seems to be the structure by which credits can be traded, along with some mention of reforestation (the latter I think the Clinton administration negotiated into Kyoto, anyway). If there's nasty stuff in it, it's going to be in the credit trading practices and the timetable for meeting standards. But, when I see the title of section III ("MARKET-DRIVEN GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS"), I know we're not going to be making any great improvements soon. There are also provisions that allow the credits to essentially be traded as a commodity, which means, if there's insufficient oversight, say, "hi" to Enron again....

Here's one part that's got me a bit confused. This apparently sets the 2009 target (research can continue through 2008, I think) as the number of emissions credits authorized (1 credit equivalent for one metric ton, I believe):

(1) for calendar years beginning after 2009 and before 2016, equal to--

(A) 5896 million metric tons, measured in units of carbon dioxide equivalence, reduced by

(B) the amount of emissions of greenhouse gases in calendar year 2000 from non-covered entities;

Here, the bill defines non-covered entities as:

(d) NON-COVERED ENTITY- In this section:

(1) IN GENERAL- The term `non-covered entity' means an entity that--

(A) owns or controls a source of greenhouse gas emissions in the electric power, industrial, or commercial sectors of the United States economy (as defined in the Inventory), refines or imports petroleum products for use in transportation, or produces or imports hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride; and

(B) is not a covered entity, determined by applying the definition in section 3(4) for the year 2000 (for the purpose of subsection (a)(1)(B)) or the year 1990 (for the purpose of subsection (a)(2)(B)).

The exception noted in this section is for single entitles producing less than 10,000 metric tons during 2000 or 1990, with some other qualifications.

The actual target in the beginning year could be rather small, if emissions from power plants, refineries, etc., were large in 2000 and 1990.

It's kinda complicated. I'll have to look at again when I'm a bit more fresh. But this "market-driven" credit-trading scheme sounds suspiciously like Bush's Clear Skies Initiative, which most environmentalists say will drastically slow down improvements in air quality. Can't say for now if the same is true of this plan, with the above provisos.

Cheers.