Senate Democrats late last week abandoned any attempt to win approval for comprehensive climate and energy legislation this year, after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid conceded that he didn't have the 60 votes needed to pass the bill over the inevitable Republican filibuster.
Instead, Senate leaders are putting their shoulders into passing a quickly assembled substitute bill that weaves together a collection of sure-to-pass programs and provisions into a patchwork piece of legislation that is guaranteed to agitate no one--except the people who actually want to do something about reducing greenhouse gas emissions and shifting American energy dependence from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy. And there's no telling whether the U.S. House of Representatives will accept this watered-down bill even if the Senate passes it.
The new bill, which Reid wants to pass before the August recess, does not put a price or a cap on carbon emissions, does not subsidize electric vehicles, provides no debt financing for clean energy, and includes no renewable energy standard (RES) to mandate that a certain percentage of the nation's electricity come from green energy sources (although a handful of moderate Democrats and at least one Republican senator who firmly oppose any kind of carbon cap or tax have said they might be open to including an RES in the new bill). On the other hand, the substitute bill doesn't open new areas to offshore oil drilling nor does it include billions of dollars in loan guarantees for nuclear energy.
Here's what the new bill does include:
- Tighter restrictions on offshore oil drilling, plus a provision raising the liability cap for oil companies under the Oil Pollution Act from the current $75 million to $10 billion.
- About $4.1 billion in incentives for natural gas vehicles (which is good news for billionaire T. Boone Pickens, who has invested heavily in a plan to make natural gas a mainstream fuel for vehicles).
- $5 billion for expanded land and water conservation.
- $5 billion in funding for the HomeStar program, which provides economic incentives to encourage homeowners to make their homes more energy efficient.
There's plenty of blame to go around here. Obama and Senate leaders were too ready to compromise, too passive about pushing comprehensive legislation, and too ineffectual to challenge Republicans and bring rebellious Democrats into line. But the bulk of responsibility for leaving the American people with no legislative path toward a clean-energy future rests with Senate Republicans and a few centrist Democrats who refused to vote for any climate-and-energy bill with teeth.
It's not unusual for House or Senate leaders to hold back legislation if they know they don't have the votes, but there are times when the process is as important as the ultimate outcome. This was one of those times. Reid should have brought to the floor the best climate and energy bill the Democrats could create, forcing every U.S. senator to take a clear and unequivocal position on the issue. Politics may be the art of compromise, but the heart of politics is rigorous debate on critical issues.
With an effective legislative solution fading to little more than a green mist, at least for this year, the next best option for a U.S. climate strategy is for the EPA to exercise its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions--authority granted to the agency by the Clean Air Act and confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Senators Murkowski and Rockefeller are poised to introduce legislation that would block or limit EPA authority over greenhouse gas emissions, and President Obama has promised to veto all such attempts.
There is no question that smart climate and energy legislation would have been more comprehensive, economical and efficient--and an all-around better solution--than agency regulation. But when elected officials fail to serve the best interests of their constituents, regulators sometimes have to fill the gap.
Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Also Read:
BP is expected to replace its CEO and walking public-relations nightmare, Tony Hayward, with American Robert Dudley, who grew up in Mississippi and has quickly gained a reputation for competency and credibility as head of BP's oil-spill cleanup operation in the Gulf of Mexico.
Hayward won't walk away empty-handed. Among top corporate executives, even failure has its rewards. Hayward (nicknamed "Wayward Hayward" by environmentalists and the media because of his frequent PR gaffes) is reported to be negotiating with BP's board of directors for a severance package that could be worth up to $18.5 million. Other news agencies are reporting that Hayward may be assigned to another BP venture in Russia.
In its official response to media queries, BP is saying that Hayward is still CEO, but the company is expected to confirm Hayward's departure on Tuesday, either in conjunction with the announcement of its second-quarter earnings. On Monday, rumors of Hayward's pending resignation resulted in a 4.6 percent increase in the price of BP shares, which have lost 40 percent of their value in the three months since the oil spill began. On Tuesday, BP is expected to report a $13 billion loss as the company starts to factor in the cost of the oil spill that, according to current estimates, could be as high as $30 billion.
The oil had hardly started flowing from the ruptured underwater well in late April before Hayward started saying and doing things that made him a lightning rod for public and political animosity over the disastrous oil spill and turning him into "the most hated man in America."
It was bad enough when Hayward said in media interviews that the oil spill was "relatively tiny" compared to the "very big ocean" and that environmental damage from the spill would be "very, very modest."
"The Gulf of Mexico is a very big ocean," Hayward said in a May 14 interview with The Guardian. "The amount of volume of oil and dispersant we are putting into it is tiny in relation to the total water volume." That quote came back to haunt Hayward repeatedly as official estimates for the amount of oil flowing into the Gulf were repeatedly challenged and revised upward and BP kept failing to stop the leak.
And in a May 18 interview with Sky News, Hayward said, ". . . everything we can see at the moment suggests that the overall environmental impact will be very, very modest." That statement now seems either laughably naïve or like a sinister and cynical attempt to downplay the growing disaster.
But Hayward's worst misstep came about two weeks later, on May 30, when he told a group of reporters in Louisiana that "there's no one who wants this over more than I do. I'd like my life back." Hayward made the comment as part of an apology to Gulf residents whose lives and livelihoods have been disrupted by the oil spill, but the comment immediately brought to mind for many people the 11 workers who permanently lost their lives when the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil rig exploded and caught fire on April 20.
On June 19, about two months after the oil spill began and with oil still gushing into the Gulf, Hayward continued his series of PR gaffes by taking part in yacht race around the Isle of Wight--on "Bob," his $270,000 racing yacht--which prompted Emanuel Rahm, President Obama's chief of staff, to observe, "I think we can all conclude that Tony Hayward is not going to have a second career in PR consulting." BP defended Hayward's decision, saying that it was his first day off with his family since the oil spill began, but many Gulf Coast residents were angered by Hayward's apparent lack of concern for their plight.
"Man, that ain't right," said Bobby Pitre, 33, a small-business owner in Louisiana in an interview with ABC News. "None of us can even go out fishing, and he's at the yacht races. I wish we could get a day off from the oil, too."
If BP chooses Dudley to replace Hayward, it would be an historic move--the first time a non-British citizen, let alone an American, has led the giant energy company formerly known as British Petroleum. It could also be a smart move, because a third of BP's revenues come from its U.S. operations, and 40 percent of its shareholders are Americans.
Dudley, 54, is a chemical engineer by training. He joined Amoco in 1979 and joined BP in 1998 when it acquired Amoco. Most observers see Dudley as a genuine leader with a track record of solid performance untainted by BP's questionable safety record.
"He is basically a guy with a clean slate," said Fadel Gheit, a veteran oil analyst at Oppenheimer & Company, in an interview with The New York Times.
Whether Dudley can keep his slate clean if he accepts the top spot at BP, or reverse the fortunes of his beleaguered company, remains to be seen.
Photo of Tony Hayward by Win McNamee/Getty Images
Also Read:
Ah, summer! Time to pull the lawn mower out of the garage, fire it up, and enjoy that first sweet smell of newly mowed grass, right? Well, if you're using a gasoline-powered lawn mower, you may end up leaving behind more than grass clippings when you're finished.
According to the EPA, gasoline-powered lawn mowers may account for up to 5 percent of U.S. air pollution. And one Swedish study determined that mowing your lawn for an hour with a gas-powered mower pollutes the air as much as driving 100 miles in your car.
Find out how you can make mowing your lawn a little greener this year.
Photo by Getty Images
When summer heat makes being inside uncomfortable, many people crank up the air conditioning. But what if you don't have air conditioning, or you'd rather find more energy-efficient methods for staying cool indoors?
Check out these tips for air conditioning alternatives, and keep cool when the temperature is high.
Photo: Getty Images
