Given President Bush's persistent unwillingness to tackle the problem
of global warming, it falls to Congress to find ways to address the looming
threat. One key area where congressional action could be effective is
through new strategies to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2)
and other gases that contribute to global warming. Fortunately, one vehicle
already exists that could dramatically lower the CO2
emissions that are created by generating electric power. It's a bill introduced
this fall by Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), co-sponsored by Sen. Lincoln Chafee
(R-R.I.), and patterned in part on a Progressive Policy Institute proposal.
Carper's legislation, the Clean Air Planning Act of 2002, would limit
carbon dioxide emissions from electric generators, which account for 40
percent of the country's CO2 emissions. It's a far
more effective approach than that proposed by President Bush. The White
House-proposed legislation pointedly omits CO2 from
the mix of gases it would reduce. By leaving out CO2,
Bush's so-called "Clear Skies" legislation is both a step backward
on global warming and a disservice to the very energy companies it is
designed to appease. Introduced last summer by Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.)
and expected to be reintroduced in the 108th Congress, the proposal aims
to reduce power plant emissions of three key gases: nitrogen oxide, which
produces smog; sulfur dioxide, the source of acid rain; and mercury. Because
it goes after three pollutants, this approach is called "3P."
But at the urging of Vice President Cheney and other Republican ideologues,
the president's proposal excludes the fourth and arguably the most important
"P" -- CO2, the greenhouse gas predominantly
responsible for global climate change.
Man-made carbon dioxide comes overwhelmingly from two sources: power
plants and automobiles. When automobiles are combined with trucks and
airplanes, the transportation sector accounts for roughly one-third of
the country's CO2 emissions. Those emissions are
not addressed by Carper's legislation. And earlier this year, the Senate
failed to tighten fuel economy standards that would have curbed tailpipe
emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants. But in July, California,
whose residents buy 10 percent of all new cars sold in America, responded
to Congress' failure by passing historic legislation that requires auto
manufacturers to reduce emissions of CO2 from cars.
California's leadership may trigger a cascade of other legislation regulating
vehicle emissions. But when it comes to power plants, no single state,
even one as big as California, can fill the federal leadership vacuum.
That's why Carper's alternative to the White House 3P approach is such
a promising start. From a political point of view, the bill is a "doable"
compromise because it's bipartisan and because it combines strong legal
sanctions for failure to reduce emissions with market-based mechanisms
for achieving them.
In contrast, the president's Clear Skies initiative would actually increase
global warming pollutants. The only effective way to curb CO2
emissions from power plants is to burn less carbon-laden fuel, for example,
by switching from coal to natural gas, or by improving plant efficiency.
Such measures also reduce 3P emissions. In contrast, the "end-of-pipe"
technology used to control the 3Ps -- essentially fancy smokestack filters -- reduce
power-plant efficiency and thus require plants to burn more fuel and release
more carbon dioxide. Such controls are also costly. Thus 3P technology
has the perverse effect of keeping older, dirtier plants in operation
while plant owners seek to recover their anti-pollution costs.
Ironically, some existing regulatory requirements also help to keep polluting
plants running. The poster child is the controversial New Source Review
(NSR) regulation, a favorite of the environmental community and the subject
of a war of words between the Senate and the White House, which wants
to roll it back. The only thing worse than extending the life of a dirty
plant with end-of-pipe controls is extending its life without them. That's
why NSR requires companies to undergo lengthy permit review and make costly
end-of-pipe upgrades when they expand or modernize old plants. NSR is
classic "command and control" environmental regulation, where
the government not only says what needs to be done but also how to do
it. Industry hates it because it involves the government in its operating
decisions. Environmentalists swear by it because industry seems intent
on doing whatever it takes to keep these superannuated plants running
forever.
While it is imperative that Congress preserve the mission of federal
clean air statutes that legislators created in the late 1960s, a well-designed
"4P" law that includes CO2 as the fourth
"P" could help make NSR unnecessary. The government would set
mandatory emissions limits with severe penalties for noncompliance for
all four pollutants. Then it would simply let plant operators, rather
than the government, decide what strategy to use to meet them, whether
through fuel switching, efficiency improvements, or other techniques.
To meet the carbon targets, industry would probably retire older plants
or switch to cleaner fuels. In this way, firms would invest in fewer end-of-pipe
controls, and investments would be spurred in new plants and cleaner fuels
that would reduce all four pollutants. In contrast, the Bush administration's
plan -- a combination of Clear Skies legislation and a rollback of NSR -- is
a perfect formula for the worst result: more global warming and less government
oversight.
In addition to being bad for the environment, Clear Skies also is just
plain bad for the power business. A 3P approach tells industry to invest
in more end-of-pipe controls and to construct plants without regard to
carbon output. And it does so at a time when all but the most cynical
of power producers recognize that tough measures to combat climate change
are inevitable -- five, 10, or 15 years down the road. When the political
will coalesces to control carbon, industry will then be required to spend
a lot more to rebuild the expensive plants they constructed under the
old rules than they would have spent had we adopted a tough but realistic
4P law in the first place. This is why some power companies have broken
ranks with the industry party line on carbon and now support 4P legislation.
So what should be done? The president should put Clear Skies in the trash
heap. Industry and the environmental community should abandon old grudges,
old ideas, and extreme positions and convene in a spirit of compromise.
With or without the president's help, Congress should pass a strong but
fair four-pollutant bill that will be a victory for environmentalists,
for industry, and for the climate. Senator Carper's Clean Air Planning
Act is a promising start.
