By Julianne LaJeunesse, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service

With only three weeks until the United Nations’ Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, experts say that an unready United States will have to show the international community that it is still committed to long-term solutions.

“On this front, the U.S. is a bit tardy in terms of delivering its commitments but it hasn’t quite got an incomplete yet,” said Jack Schmidt, International Climate Policy Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, who spoke Monday on a conference call with reporters.

President Barack Obama said that time for negotiations has run out for the U.S. in terms of forging agreements at the Summit. Obama said he favors a Danish proposal, which outlines commitments while postponing deadlines on emission targets, financing and technology transfer. In Singapore yesterday, Obama said he remains committed to reducing U.S. emissions by 80% and endorsed a goal of reducing global emissions by 50% by 2050.

Schmidt said that “prompt-start financing” could reflect U.S. resolve. The financial commitment builds trust between developed and undeveloped countries by providing the means to invest in infrastructure for undeveloped countries that want to use clean energy technology in product and energy creation.

“We need to stay focused on the fact that a number of the key countries across the world, including the major developed countries, over the past year… have brought forward commitments and have signaled that they’re going to take steps,” Schmidt said.

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) stated Friday that he is frustrated by the pace at which climate policy is developing in the U.S.

“It’s fairly clear at this point that we’re not going to be in a position to make a significant, new legislative achievement between now and the time of the Copenhagen meeting,” said Daschle during a telephone briefing with reporters, referencing December’s United Nation’s climate change conference.

“Time is wasting, work needs to be done,” he added.

Daschle acknowledged that health care reform has monopolized a great deal of Congress’ time, but expressed hope that after work on the issue is completed, legislators will give greater focus to climate change legislation.

“As we go forward, this will become more and more central,” said Daschle. “The House has acted, and there’s every expectation the Senate will as well.”

The American Clean Energy and Security Act passed through the House in June. The Senate moved the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, sponsored by Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer, through the Environment and Public Works Committee in early November.

By Julianne LaJeunesse – University of New Mexico/Talk Radio News Service

On Wednesday, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works met for the second of three days to hammer out the details of S.1733, otherwise known as the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.

Senator Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) seemed focused on the need for global climate change policy, and less on Republican criticisms that the Kerry-Boxer legislation would pose financial risks to individuals and businesses.

Cardin suggested that industries that believe they would be negatively affected by the legislation, “take a look at what this bill does in its entirety.” The Maryland Democrat called on leaders to create enforcement measures in December, when the international committee meets in Copenhagen, to deal with global climate change.

“I would hope that we would get the support of industry here, working with our colleagues around the world, to say ‘look, we do need an enforcement in the Copenhagen agreements,’” Cardin said. “It would be far better if Copenhagen deals with enforcement so that there’s an international regime that says that if a country does not do its obligations internationally, such as China or India, or any other countries… that there will be an assessment on that cost of what the carbon reduction should have been.”

Senator Kit Bond (R-Mo.) disagreed with Cardin, arguing that the legislation could have unforseen impacts on families.

At one point, Bond presented a giant stack of cards that he said were delivered to him from over 30,000 of his constituents. According to Bond, those who signed the cards did so because “they want to live with reasonable and responsible regulations, not burdensome mandates.”

Thursday marks the final day of hearings on the bill.

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu says in his testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that the Kerry-Boxer bill would be the first step to drive clean energy investments. (0:21)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:21m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) says during a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing that Congress needs to pass climate change legislation and that the Kerry-Boxer bill will help the economy. (0:34)

 

 Standard Podcast [0:34m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

David Doniger, former EPA climate change director under President Bill Clinton, says Americans are at a consensus on climate change. Doniger says that is why legislation such as the Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer bills are currently on the table.
:32

 

 Standard Podcast [0:32m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Barbara Finamore of the Natural Resources Defense Council says the United States is in a great position, if ready, to take advantage of China’s new green technology market.
:13

 

 Standard Podcast [0:13m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

By Julianne LaJeunesse – University of New Mexico

The Economic Policy Institute held a briefing Thursday with Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), environmentalists, and members of industries that would experience financial and physical changes under proposed climate change bills like the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill and the Kerry-Boxer “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.”

During the briefing, Robert Scott of EPI talked about his recent report “Climate Change Policy—Border Adjustment Key to U.S. Trade and Manufacturing Jobs.” He found an audience in Brown and Leo Gerard, President of the United Steelworkers, when he suggested that U.S. jobs and a competitive U.S. industry presence can be recognized through stronger bill language on “border adjustments” as found in the Waxman-Markey bill.

Border adjustments are fees that are charged to countries who use an unregulated amount of carbon to create exported products. That charge is used as a way to level the playing field for countries whose emissions are regulated.

Brown said he appreciated Waxman-Markey’s included adjustments, but said the allowed level of presidential discretion in the bill is questionable.

“This needs to be done in a way that is automatic… not allows a president, whoever the president is in the years ahead, to have discretion on this,” Brown said. “Because we know how presidents don’t move very aggressively on protecting our national interests on manufacturing and trade.”

Gerard agreed, saying the amount of presidential authority afforded in the Waxman-Markey needs to be brought back to Congress.

“We’ve had a terrible experience with presidential discretion for eight years with President Bush,” Gerard said. “He exercised his discretion and it cost America tens of thousands of jobs.”

In his report, Scott said that if Congress does not support legislation that maintains and improves U.S. competition for energy-intensive and trade-intensive manufacturing, the country could lose as many as 4 million jobs to countries like China and Asia.

Opponents of increasing government control of carbon emissions say that the United States isn’t financially ready to divert its money toward greener jobs, particularly in energy-intensive industries such as steel, pulp and paper, glass and clay and nonmetallic mineral products.

According to the Americans for Tax Reform website, their reason for opposing the Waxman-Markey bill in particular, are because the bill “raises taxes on American families, increases the cost of energy, and eliminates American jobs.”

United Steelworkers President Lou Gerard says that many Americans don’t realize that trade isn’t free. He says changing U.S. legislation to include “border adjustments” which tax environmentally unfriendly countries, could make U.S. trade more favorable.

:27

 

 Standard Podcast [0:27m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Carl Pope of the Sierra Club says that the world can benefit from shared environmentally-friendly technology and trade practices.

1:00

 

 Standard Podcast [1:00m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download