3-D US Electoral Map (Image by: Alexander O'Neill)

Article By Guest Contributor: Lynann Butkiewicz

As Congress convenes in the weeks before the mid-term elections, there is likely to be one final push for a comprehensive energy bill, although the chances of it passing are slim. Congress will be looking to pass top priority legislation addressing the key issues concerning the American public including job growth and an increase in credit for small businesses. Politicians will shy away from highly politicized issues, such as climate change, and vote for legislation that will rally the base.

Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he would like to push for the new energy bill vote in the Senate before the elections, but he also told reporters he would allow a vote on blocking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from curbing carbon emissions sometime after the elections this year.

Environmentalists had hoped that if the energy bill does not pass in Congress then the EPA could be a last resort in order to cut back on carbon emissions. An expected Republican majority in Congress after the elections would not only vote down the energy bill but also likely pass the vote on limiting the EPA. A Wonk Room survey reported this week that only one of the 37 Republican candidates up for Senate seats this year believe that climate change is manmade. With winds shifting the nation toward a Republican majority, the prospect of passing comprehensive climate legislation is doubtful.

The proposed Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act is significantly different to the last failed energy bill. In the 2009 bill, that was passed in the House of Representatives and killed in the Senate, there was a measure to price carbon, indicating the potential for a US national carbon market. The 2009 legislation barely passed, including 44 Democrats rejecting the bill.

This new proposed bill does not address pricing carbon, leaving open the question of if and when cap and trade will become a reality in the US and whether this energy bill will make a significant impact on climate change regulation in the lead-up to the negotiations in Cancun in November. If Democrats cannot pass comprehensive climate legislation with a majority in Congress before the elections, then the chances of having a national carbon market and clear carbon mitigation target are doubtful for the next several years.

Instead, this bill includes a Home Star rebate system in order to encourage consumers to purchase energy efficient upgrades, similar to the debated Cash for Clunkers scheme introduced in 2009. It also includes a measure for BP to pay for the damages caused by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The recession has put the brakes on carbon trading expansion worldwide, and the US is no exception. Opponents claim that new energy taxes will stifle job growth in the private sector and force the US to rely more on foreign oil, exactly the type of legislation the Democratic Congress is looking to avoid in an election year.

As former Bill Clinton strategist James Carville said in 1992, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

If the Democratic-majority Congress wants to succeed in passing climate legislation before the anticipated Republican majority takes over, it needs to be framed toward economic recovery.

The very title of the “Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act,” indicates that the bill will stimulate job growth and add accountability for BP’s role in the Gulf oil spill. Democrats will try to highlight this when lobbying for support of the bill before the elections, but Republicans are not looking for votes that will frame Congress as making progress. Instead, a tactic could be to make the Democratic-majority Congress look as if it is not getting legislation passed, encouraging voters to make a change in the establishment at the polls.

The Republican strategy up until the elections seems to be based on passing legislation in the House of Representatives and then killing it in the Senate, which was the fate of the last climate bill. If this continues to happen through to November, and Republicans sweep Congress, then climate legislation may not only be impossible for 2010, but also for the next several years.

As of July 22^nd , the second effort to enact a Climate Change bill in this congress failed. Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reid announced that the ‘We know that we don’t have the votes’ for a comprehensive reform. Instead, the focus will be on a slimmer package focusing on household efficiency and the gulf oil spill.

Continue reading…

An Indian voter with his voter id. Courtesy Flickr/KKalyan

‘We will protect India’s natural environment and take steps to rejuvenate it.’  (Congress party election manifesto).

 ’One earth, green earth: Creating the right environment.’  (BJP party election manifesto)

Consensus in election manifestos is the last thing one would expect during the national elections in India. But as it turns out, India’s leading political parties – from the far right all the way to the left seem to have very similar views on the environment and climate change this election season. 

Three political party election manifestos are examined in this post: the ruling coalition leader, the Indian National Congress; the leading opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP); the Communist Party of India (Marxist). A few common general areas of focus emerge from the manifestos.

Firstly, climate change: building upon last year’s work, the Congress party emphasizes the national action plan as their strong point. Their manifesto reads “It is an acknowledgment of our responsibility to take credible actions within the overall framework of meeting the development aspirations of our people for higher economic growth and a higher standard of living. This action plan will be implemented in letter and spirit.”

Let’s not forget that the missions announced in the action plan highlight the importance of technology transfer and sustainable technology as key drivers of climate change action in India.  The BJP’s manifesto follows on a similar vein but is a little more specific. Arguing that “mitigating the threat by building a low carbon economy is the biggest economic opportunity of the 21st century,” BJP candidates “look at ‘Climate Change’ in the context of the promises made by the international community for technology transfer and additional financing since Rio, which have remained unfulfilled.” The CPI-M too, endorses sustainable technology by calling for “steps to control emission of greenhouse gases through energy efficient technologies and effective regulation; Promoting solar and other non-conventional energy sources”. The CPI-M’s manifesto differs from the rest in that in addition to the common themes, it calls for transparency in the EIA process as well.

The similarities don’t end there. On the subject of water management, the policies are effectively unanimous: strengthening the nation’s water management capacities, cleaning up rivers (the Congress has named the Ganges as a ‘national river’ in order to prioritise it’s sustainable usage, the BJP has pledged to clean all rivers and the CPI-M promises to regulate riverine pollution) and protecting the coastal areas emerge as priorities for all three parties. Biodiversity management and conservation are also common preoccupations that find mention in the manifestos.

 So why is it that these three parties that have such disparate policies on other issues can come together on questions of climate change? Perhaps one reason is that there is very little awareness at the political helm on the subject that would otherwise push these parties to take differing views. This week, the Times of India produced a series of polls on the environment as part of their election coverage. Their statistics note that 81% blame political ignorance and interference for the state of the environment; 46% feeling that politicos are “clueless about the extent of the damage or significance of the problem” and 35% feel that our leaders have “colluded with timber mafia, poachers; added to the problem”. Moreover, neither the Congress-led UPA incumbent coalition nor the BJP led NDA coalition addressed the problem very well; 36% thought the BJP was better than the Congress in this regard, while 26% though the opposite. A little over a third of those asked felt neither party fared well.

Secondly, climate change policy tends to get frequently coupled with other policies (as is the case in the BJP manifesto, where environmental concerns are coupled with national security and development) such as national and energy security, self-sufficiency, investment and development that may require different priorities. As such political parties lack a long term sustainable vision in this regard. It is easier to lie low on environmental issues as they aren’t really hot election topics. 

As I’ve mentioned before, beyond issues of pollution, wildlife conservation and ecology, environmental awareness in India has been fairly limited. Forget about the politicos – beyond specific fora, there is very little debate or awareness on the subject in the public domain. Nevertheless, lest there be too much negativity in this post, environmental issues, whether in the garb of rapid developmental externalities or as cost saving concerns, are creeping into the political mainstream. The national action plan drawn out by the Congress stood apart from previous environmental action as it came at a time when there was a lot of international pressure on India to take a stand on the issue, and awareness on climate change was slowly filtering into the minds of young urban Indians (Indeed, the inclusion of the environment in this election’s manifestos has been seen by many as a way of attracting India’s youth). Perhaps there was also a desire to cash in on the investment potential. 

So where next? According to the poll, 63% of the people questioned call for better administration on environmental issues. One hopes this burgeoning public and political awareness will bring increasing scrutiny on the environmental performance of which ever government wins at the polls. The Congress’ action plan came out a year ago and we are yet to see any remarkable action. If they win, will their environmental policies develop or will they remain platitudes? Will a BJP led government stick to its promises? At the very least, hopefully an inclusive debate on the subject with a long term national perspective will ensue.  

Yesterday, Obama appointed John Holden as his Chief Science Advisor and Jane Lubchenco to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which carries out most of the government research on climate change. Both have advocated greater government action on climate change.

“This is a superb appointment,” Sir David King, former UK chief scientific advisor, told the Observer. “Holdren is a top-rate scientist and his position on climate change is as clear as you could get. This is a signal from Barack Obama that he means business when it comes to dealing with global warming.”

Holdren has described the Bush Administration’s current approach to climate policy as like “being in a car with bad brakes driving towards a cliff in the fog.” (hat tip to Treehugger)

Alongside Steven Chu and Carol Browner, Holdren’s announcement puts three big-hitters advising Obama on climate change policy, so it will be intersting to know who will have the most sway with the incoming president.  It is likely that it will not be Holdren, as he does not control a government agency nor administer a large budget.  Additionally, in his new position he can be called upon to testify before congress, which means that Obama will be less likely to share politically-sensitive information with him. (hat tip to New Scientist)

My ‘most influence vote’ would go to Browner, who headed up the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) during the Clinton Administration.  She will have “forceful support” in Congress according to the New York Times, and being located in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue* can’t hurt her chances!

In subtle recognition Al Gore’s work, Obama said during his announcement, “It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient.”

* that’s the White House for those not in the know!