From SSI@ucsusa.org Sun Mar 14 16:07:29 2004 Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:43:49 -0500 From: SSI MailboxSubject: SSI Update: Climate Stewardship Act *****************EXECUTIVE SUMMARY***************** In the fall of 2003, the US Senate held an historic vote on the Climate Stewardship Act (CSA), S. 139. Although the bill did not pass (by 43-55), the vote signified a significant change in the climate debate at the federal level. The bill received strong bipartisan support, and Senators McCain and Lieberman, the bill's chief sponsors, are fully committed to moving forward with the bill. This spring, Senators McCain and Lieberman are pushing for another vote in the Senate on the CSA, with the intention of having this version pass. In addition, Representatives Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-MD) and John W. Olver (D-MA) are planning to introduce a companion bill in the House of Representatives. While it is doubtful the House version will receive a floor vote in the current Congress, this is nonetheless a very important step in national climate change policy. Scientists' voices are particularly needed over the next few months to ensure that their elected officials are aware of the best scientific information available on the climate issue. This SSI Information Update includes: ** About the Climate Stewardship Act (CSA) ** Current Political Context ** The Role of Science and Scientists ** Next Steps ** More Information on the CSA ************************************************************ ** ABOUT THE CLIMATE STEWARDSHIP ACT (CSA) In January 2003, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) introduced the bipartisan Climate Stewardship Act (CSA) in the Senate. The CSA would set mandatory limits on emissions of greenhouse gases from relevant sectors of the US economy. This would be done in a way that would provide significant flexibility to the affected industries in how they reduce their emissions. This type of market mechanism applied to achieve emissions reductions goals is often called a "cap and trade" system. The CSA calls for a reduction in emissions of heat-trapping gases to 2000 levels by the year 2010. The bill creates a market-based system of tradable allowances to achieve this reduction. The market-based system was based on the widely successful system of sulfur dioxide emission permits, which was created under the 1990 Clean Air Act. An independent study from economists at MIT (see link below) showed that the Climate Stewardship Act would have a modest economic impact of $20 per year per household. The CSA approximates an "economy-wide cap and trade" approach to limiting heat-trapping gas emissions. It has several different components that together reduce heat- trapping gas emissions while simultaneously allowing emitters (companies) considerable flexibility to cost- effectively achieve these reductions. Here's how it works: Major emitters from the manufacturing, commercial, and electric utility sectors must hold a permit for each ton of greenhouse gas they emit. (See definition in parentheses, below.) The bill also encompasses all such emissions from the transportation sector by requiring refiners of transportation fuel to hold a permit for each ton of greenhouse gas that will be emitted by the combustion of their fuel. (One ton of greenhouse gases means one ton of carbon dioxide or a quantity of another greenhouse gas that has the same global warming effect as one ton of carbon dioxide. The bill covers the same gases as the Kyoto Protocol: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.) * A cap on total heat-trapping emissions by all the covered companies is maintained by limiting the number of permits created (i.e. tons allowed) by the government each year. * The government distributes the permits to companies partly by grant and partly by sale. Proceeds from the sale go towards reducing impacts on consumers facing higher fuel costs, on workers in affected industries such as coal mining, and on their communities. * Companies are allowed to buy and sell permits from each other. * Trading is allowed with other countries that have emissions caps. * Carbon emissions reductions, sequestration due to changes in forestry and agricultural practices, and geosequestration can all be used to offset a company's emissions, so long as these activities would not have occurred without payment from the company. For example, the CSA creates incentives for new forest protection projects in the US by recognizing that they reduce logging-caused emissions. The CSA involves political and pragmatic compromises. For instance, the bill applies only to major emitters (those that emit over 10,000 metric tons of carbon-equivalent heat- trapping gases a year) in the four covered sectors (manufacturing, commercial, and electric utility sectors; and refiners of transportation fuel), rather than to all businesses and individuals. This avoids onerous requirements on small businesses and individual citizens while bringing at least 75% of net U.S. heat-trapping gas emissions under the bill's caps. ** CURRENT POLITICAL CONTEXT * In The Senate A Senate vote on the CSA occurred on October 30,2003. Although the measure failed by a 43-55 vote, strong bipartisan support for the bill was a great step forward. The vote forced Senators to take a public stance on this issue for the first time since 1997. Because of the vote, a large and bipartisan group of senators are now publicly on record supporting action to reduce emissions. Equally important, the vote highlighted that a number of Senators who, although they voted "no" and are not yet ready to support this particular piece of legislation, nonetheless acknowledged the reality of climate change and expressed an openness to working with the sponsors on climate legislation. Senators McCain and Lieberman viewed the debate as a positive beginning and are fully committed to moving forward with the bill. Specifically, Senators McCain and Lieberman have announced their intention to push for another vote on the bill this spring. With the possibility of passage also comes an increased effort to defeat the bill. Senate passage of the CSA would stand in stark contrast to the Bush administration's policy of waiting until 2012 to consider moving beyond voluntary- only action on global warming. This contrast means that Senate Republicans are likely to face increased pressure from party leadership and the White House to vote against the CSA. [To see how your senators voted in the October 2003 Senate vote, please see the "more on the CSA" section, below.] * In The House An effort is underway by Representatives Gilchrest (R-MD) and Olver (D-MA) to introduce a version of the bill into the House of Representatives. The first step in this process is to secure a bipartisan set of co-sponsors prior to introduction. While it is very doubtful that the legislation will be brought to a floor vote in the House during the current Congress, this effort is important for several reasons. First among these is that the House of Representatives has not debated any climate change-related legislation in many years. As a result, House members and their staff are not particularly well informed on the issue. Introducing the CSA in the House of Representatives will provide an opportunity for many House members and staff to learn about the issue of climate change, and, in the process, build support for future efforts. A second reason to work in the House at the current time is so leaders on this issue can demonstrate that there is broad support in Congress for climate change mitigation efforts. In short, a strong showing of support for the Climate Stewardship Act in both the Senate and the House will dramatically improve the climate debate on Capitol Hill. ** THE ROLE OF SCIENCE AND SCIENTISTS As was demonstrated during last fall's Senate debate, climate science continues to influence how policymakers reach their decisions. On the one hand, some Senators still question the overwhelming agreement of climate scientists that climate change is real and serious. In that debate, the most significant challenge to climate change science came from Senator Inhofe (R-OK), who claimed that climate change was a "myth and a hoax." He dismissed the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and others by noting that scientific findings since 1999 are "overridingly on the side that global warming in fact is not occurring and, if it is occurring at all, is not a result of man-made or anthropogenic gases." Senator McCain, on the other hand, championed the scientific consensus on climate change by referring to the findings of the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the recent The State of Climate Science: October 2003 letter, which was circulated by UCS and signed by over 1,000 scientists. Any debate this spring will likely see more challenges to climate change science. House members may be particularly vulnerable to misinformation on climate change science because of their relative lack of experience on the issue. Therefore, it is vitally important that scientists with expertise in climate change science or impacts ensure that their Representatives are aware of the true state of climate change science. While Senators have had more opportunity to learn about the science of climate change, it is still very important that they hear from constituent-scientists on the issue. For the CSA to prevail in the upcoming vote, six or seven senators need to switch from a "no" vote to a "yes," and even some who voted "yes" last October will need support to vote that way again. * Examples of Skeptical Science Used in the CSA Debate The Bush Administration appears to be using a deliberate strategy of encouraging the public to believe that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of heat-trapping gases. A confidential memo prepared for Republican leaders by consultant Frank Luntz -- and obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organization -- contains these quotes from Mr. Luntz: "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science." .... "Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate." The weeks leading up to the CSA debate proved fertile ground for sowing such uncertainty and confusion. Opponents of climate change mitigation legislation sought to provide cover for Senators opposing the CSA by emphasizing scientific uncertainty. This uncertainty was then reflected in the Senate floor debate. Here are three examples: (1) During the CSA floor debate, research was presented to dispute the human-causation of the current climate-warming trend. This research, by Dr. Sallie Baliunas and Dr. Willie Soon -- who are senior scientists with the conservative think tank the Marshall Institute -- was published in Energy and the Environment. The arguments in this article were highlighted by Senator Inhofe in his statement that scientific findings since 1999 are "overridingly on the side that global warming in fact is not occurring...." (2) Senators speaking against the CSA also referenced a second study that was published in "Energy and Environment" and was highlighted in an op-ed in USA Today, which ran on the first day of the CSA floor debate. The article and op-ed took issue with the reconstructed temperature record put forth in the journal "Nature," by Dr. Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, which found that the late-20th century was unusually warm. The authors of the "Energy and Environment" study, Stephen McIntyre, a statistics expert who works in the mining industry, and Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Ontario, claimed that when they "corrected the errors" in the Mann study, "the late 20th century was not unusually warm by historical standards." Although the McIntyre-McKitrick study was quickly discredited in scientific circles, the op-ed in USA Today was clearly timed to influence the CSA debate in the Senate and was mentioned during the debate several times by those Senators looking for an excuse to oppose the CSA. (3) Another example of scientific misinformation influencing the debate was the publication of an op-ed in the Washington Post (7/7/03) by James Schlesinger, former head of the US Department of Energy and currently affiliated with the George C. Marshall Institute. In this op-ed titled "Climate Change: The Science Isn't Settled," Mr. Schlesinger suggested that many fundamental aspects of climate science remain highly unsettled and that policy action taken under such uncertainty is unwarranted. Many scientists quickly rebutted the inaccuracies in Mr. Schlesinger's op-ed with published letters-to-the-editor. Still, Mr. Schlesinger's op-ed was quoted during the Senate debate, again to provide political cover for CSA opponents by misrepresenting climate change science. * What Scientists Can Do Overall the fall 2003 Senate debate did highlight the strong scientific consensus on climate change. The State Of Climate Change Science: October 2003 statement, signed by over 1,000 U.S.-based scientists, was referenced in several floor speeches and was officially entered into the Congressional Record by Senator McCain. Also noteworthy were the several Senators who voted against the CSA but publicly stated their strong belief in the scientific consensus on climate change. During the upcoming debate this spring, climate change scientists will need to be vigilant for new misinformation designed to provide cover for opposition Senators. Scientists can help counteract misinformation efforts by contacting the office of their Senators with information about their scientific credentials and their understanding of the state of climate change science. In the House of Representatives, where members and staff are less likely to be knowledgeable about this issue, scientists may want to contact the environmental legislative assistant of their Representative, speak with them about climate change, and offer to be a resource on the issue. Scientists interested in a more intensive action should try to set-up an "in-district" meeting with their Representative. ** NEXT STEPS UCS's Sound Science Initiative will keep you informed of upcoming floor votes on the CSA, as well as any climate change misinformation efforts that are brought to our attention. We will also be working more intensively in a few targeted states where senators might change their "no" votes, and in certain House districts where representatives are believed to be concerned about the issue. SSI members in these areas will receive additional actions. For members in non-targeted areas who wish to be more active, please feel free to contact us. We will offer assistance on an as-available basis. If you are in a non- target district but would like to organize an "in-district" meeting with your Representative and fellow SSI members, please let us know. We try to accommodate any requests to put SSI members in the same district in contact with each other. ** MORE INFORMATION ON THE CSA Senate vote results: Ayes Akaka (D-HI), Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Cantwell (D-WA), Carper (D-DE), Chafee (R-RI), Clinton (D-NY), Collins (R-ME), Corzine (D-NJ), Daschle (D- SD), Dayton (D-MN), Dodd (D-CT), Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Graham (D-FL), Gregg (R- NH), Harkin (D-IA), Hollings (D-SC), Inouye (D-HI), Jeffords (I-VT), Johnson (D-SD), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Leahy (D-VT), Lieberman (D-CT), Lugar (R-IN), McCain (R-AZ), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Nelson (D-FL), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Rockefeller (D-WV), Sarbanes (D-MD), Schumer (D-NY), Snowe (R-ME), Stabenow (D- MI), and Wyden (D-OR) Nays Alexander (R-TN), Allard (R-CO), Allen (R-VA), Baucus (D- MT), Bennett (R-UT), Bond (R-MO), Breaux (D-LA), Brownback (R-KS), Bunning (R-KY), Burns (R-MT), Byrd (D-WV), Campbell (R-CO), Chambliss (R-GA), Cochran (R-MS), Coleman (R-N), Conrad (D-ND), Cornyn (R-TX), Craig (R-ID), Crapo (R-ID), DeWine (R-OH), Dole (R-NC), Domenici (R-NM), Dorgan (D-ND), Ensign (R-NV), Enzi (R-WY), Fitzgerald (R-IL), Frist (R-TN), Graham (R-SC), Grassley (R-IA), Hagel (R-NE), Hatch (R-UT), Hutchison (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Kyl (R-AZ), Landrieu (D- LA), Levin (D-MI), Lincoln (D-AR), Lott (R-MS), McConnell (R-KY), Miller (D-GA), Murkowski (R-AK), Nickles (R-OK), Pryor (D-AR), Roberts (R-KS), Santorum (R-PA), Sessions (R- AL), Shelby (R-AL), Smith (R-OR), Specter (R-PA), Stevens (R-AK), Sununu (R-NH), Talent (R-MO), Thomas (R-WY), Voinovich (R-OH), and Warner (R-VA), Not Voting Edwards (D-NC) and Nelson (D-NE). (Senator Edwards was not present in the Senate the day the vote occurred. However, he has publicly declared his support for the bill.) To read the bill, go to the Library of Congress' Thomas site: < http://thomas.loc.gov/ > (enter S 139 in the "Bill Number" box) or < http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.00139: > UCS' Sound Science Initiative (SSI) Information Update on the Climate Stewardship Act < http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate_change/page.cfm?pageID=1096 > (When prompted for username and password, enter username - "ssi"; password = "aristotle" - all in lower-case.) MIT Study on the economics of S-139, the Climate Stewardship Act: Emissions Trading to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the United States: The McCain-Lieberman Proposal Direct Link to Report - < http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_Rpt97.pdf > For more information on the "Cap and Trade" concept, see the US EPA's "Trading Basics" page: < http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/trading/basics/index.html > [This SSI Information Update was prepared by Jason Mathers, with review and feedback by UCS staff Julie Anderson and NancyCole. February 2004] ********************************************* THE SOUND SCIENCE INITIATIVE This Information Update was prepared for and distributed to UCS' Sound Science Initiative (SSI). SSI is an effective email-based vehicle for scientists to familiarize themselves and the public with environmental issues of global significance, with a special focus on climate change and loss of biological diversity. SSI also provides the tools for individuals to respond to and influence fast-breaking media and policy developments. Membership in SSI is open to professionals and graduate students in the physical, natural, and social sciences. To learn more about or join SSI, please visit our website at: < http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=939 >, or email us at < ssi@ucsusa.org > THE UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS The Union of Concerned Scientists is a nonprofit partnership of scientists and citizens combining rigorous scientific analysis, innovative policy development and effective citizen advocacy to achieve practical environmental solutions. To learn more about UCS, please visit us on the web at: < http://www.ucsusa.org > This report may not be reprinted or posted to electronic networks without permission and acknowledgement. CHANGE OF EMAIL ADDRESS: Help us keep you posted! If your email address will soon change, or if you'd like us to use a different address, please let us know by sending a message to < ssi@ucsusa.org > with your new email address. Thanks!