John Larsen provides the simplest evaluation of the Clean Energy and Security Act (climate and energy bill), I’ve found to date. I like his breakdown of areas causing concern:
- Role of USDA: The bill gives authority to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the administration of domestic GHG emissions offsets generated by farms and forests in the U.S. While USDA has an important role to play supporting carbon sequestration, it has less expertise on regulating pollutants which is the province of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The respective roles of the two agencies in ensuring robust carbon accounting for offsets under a U.S. cap and trade program remains to be satisfactorily resolved.
- Trade Provisions: The final version of the bill introduced controversial new trade provisions which would enable the United States, from 2020, to use aggressive, unilateral border measures to impose duties on certain energy intensive foreign goods. President Obama publicly expressed concern about the provision which he described as “protectionism.”
- Allowance Allocations: These remain an area of contention. Some constituencies – including various environmental groups – argue that industry received too much assistance. Others – including carbon intensive industrial corporations – argue that more assistance is needed to cushion the transition to cleaner technology. Some in the international community believe too few allowances are dedicated to assisting developing countries as they adapt to climate change impacts and adopt clean energy technologies.
- Biomass Emissions: There are concerns that the bill’s provisions accounting for emissions from biomass may potentially include fuels that yield a net increase in GHG emissions.
I get to interview John Larsen, for Sustainable Life Media, so I am thinking up some questions. Thoughts welcome.
