From SSI@ucsusa.org Sun Mar 14 16:07:29 2004
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:43:49 -0500
From: SSI Mailbox 
Subject: 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!