Senate freezes climate legislation
while the world continues to warm

(August 2010)  In July 2010 Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that the U.S. Senate would put off dealing with a climate bill until after its August recess. Realistically, the Senate will probably wait until next year before it considers any proposal that deals with climate change.

Within days of the announcement, news of a massive ice sheet melting in Greenland, devastating fires in Russia, and disastrous flooding in Asia all served as reminders that the planet is not waiting for politicians to act. It’s been more than a year since the House narrowly passed a 1,200-page “cap and trade” bill; sponsors of a Senate counterpart could not even manage to bring their bill to the Senate floor. If natural disasters and months of record-breaking heat do not motivate U.S. lawmakers to pass effective and comprehensive climate legislation, what will? 

As long as climate change legislation remains such a politically divisive issue, it will be difficult to pass a bill that puts a price on global warming pollution. After numerous and unsuccessful attempts to pass complicated “cap and trade” legislation, it’s time for a new approach. When (and if) Congress decides to take up climate legislation again, these three themes will be crucial to passing an effective bill:

• Don’t ignore global warming. “Cap and trade” advocates branded their bills as “green/clean energy” and jobs legislation. Supporters should remember that the real reason for passing a climate bill is for the climate’s sake. Their message can be this simple: we must pass effective climate legislation because it is the only way to even begin to reduce global warming pollution. Period.
• Don’t let polluters and Wall Street traders write the bill. Complicated “cap and trade” proposals were designed primarily to benefit polluting corporations and Wall Street traders, not the public or the environment. Rather than creating a new carbon trading market and providing more polluter giveaways, climate legislation should effectively reduce carbon pollution and protect taxpayers’ pocketbooks.
• Keep it simple!  Climate legislation does not have to be thousands or even hundreds of pages long. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) introduced a “cap and dividend” bill this year that was fewer than 40 pages in length. This bill would decrease carbon pollution in just three steps: 1) place a price on carbon emissions by requiring polluters to buy permits; 2) gradually reduce the number of permits, which will increase their price; and 3) most important, return the revenues generated from permit sales equally and directly back to every American.

MEIC executive director Jim Jensen with WA Sen. Maria Cantwell, sponsor of the CLEAR Act now before the Senate.

It is unclear when, and whether, Congress will muster enough political will to revive climate legislation and pass a bill that effectively addresses global warming pollution. What is certain is that supporters need a different game plan than the failed “cap and trade” approach. The winning game plan will focus on global warming, omit giveaways for polluters and Wall Street, and be as simple as possible.

What is the Economic Impact of CLEAR in Montana?

(Click on the map for a graph that shows how all Montanans with low-middle incomes will get more money in dividends than they pay in higher energy prices as a result of CLEAR’s “cap and dividend” approach. This means that 80% of Montanans will come out ahead as a result of this climate policy.)

For more information about the CLEAR Act go to www.supportclearact.com.

The chart below (click for larger version) is a summary comparison of the CLEAR Act and the American Power Act (APA).

• Read the full text of the CLEAR Act
• Support the CLEAR Act
  
• Read MEIC's official statement on the CLEAR Act (for state and national press)
• Read Fact Sheet on the CLEAR Act
• Read more detailed memo from Sen. Cantwell's office on the CLEAR Act
• Read editorial in support of CLEAR Act (by Peter Barnes,  14 DEC 2009)
  

• READ A COMPARISON OF "CAP & TRADE" VS "CAP & DIVIDEND"

IN THE NEWS: 

• Effort to Block EPA Fails, Revealing Murky Path for Carbon Bill (by Evan Lehmann and Dina Fine Maron, ClimateWire, June 11, 2010)
• In D.C., Flathead Residents Press Senators on Climate Change Bill (by Dan Testa, Flathead Becon, 05-23-10)
  
• No one fond of Senate’s global-warming bill (by Tom Lutey, Billings Gazette, May 18, 2010)
  
• Beyond the Limits of Earth Day: Turning Up the Heat on Climate (by Denis Hayes, 12 APR 2010, Yale Environment 360)  This month marks the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, an event that has attracted millions to environmental causes. But winning passage of meaningful legislation on climate change requires more than slogans and green talk—it demands intense, determined political action.
  
• Bringing the Heat:  Forget cap-and trade. This is a climate bill you can love.  (by Bill McKibben, April 5, 2010.  Posted by The New Republic)   "In compensation for its flaws, the Cantwell-Collins bill is the kind of legislation you could actually campaign around...."
  
• Washington Post Editorial Supports "Cap & Dividend aproach:  How Congress can get a smart climate-change bill passed (April 5, 2010).  . . . the 100 percent auction option need not hurt most Americans' budgets; Congress could rebate most of the revenue from allowance auctions directly to Americans, making the vast majority of them whole -- or better. Cutting a check to every one of your constituents: Now there's something lawmakers straddling the fence on climate-change legislation should be able to cheer.
  
• Newsweek gives nod to "dividend" approach:  "Changing cap-and-trade to the far more sensible cap-and-rebate (in which polluters' fees go straight back to the public as checks) could make it very popular—and confirm the role of clean energy in rebuilding the economy." (March 26, 2010)
  
• Senate offers some hope for legislation to combat climate change (editorial in The Washington Post, Wednesday, February 10, 2010)
  
• Sen. Graham Slams Push for a 'Half-Assed Energy Bill' (by DARREN SAMUELSOHN of Greenwire, February 3, 2010)

• Climate Change Bill a Tough Sell in Montana (by Dan Testa, Flathead Beacon, 09-02-09) 

• Scientific-American Endorses Cap & Dividend (July 2009)

• Montana PSC Vice-Chairman Ken Toole promotes "Cap & Dividend" as better option for the nation.

• Scientific-American calls upon Congress “to set a cap on fossil-fuel production before Copenhagen, phase in a price on carbon at its source, and send the proceeds back to the taxpayer.”
  
• U.S. in Historic Shift on CO2; Businesses Brace for Costly New Rules as EPA Declares Warming Gases a Threat (by Jonathan Weisman and Siobhan Hughes, Wall Street Journal, April 18, 2009)

For more information:

• See Friends of the Earth online advertising campaign in opposition to the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill moving through Congress.
  
• Read "Why do U.S. environmentalists remain irrationally committed to a losing strategy?"  GRIST blog by Ken Ward, 9 June 2009.
  
• Read letter to House Ways & Means Committee Chair Charles Rangel urging serious changes to the Waxman/Markey "Cap & Trade" bill.  Among the changes requested is a "dividend" provision to rebate money back to American citizens.
  
• Read letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi from the Alliance for a Fair and Effective Climate Policy advocating measures to strengthen the Cap & Trade bill before Congress.
  
• Visit www.capanddividend.org
• Read Cap and Dividends fact sheet