The energy bill needs a climate pollution ‘score’

With billions of tons of climate pollution filling our skies – leading to more asthma attacks, more extreme weather disasters, and spiraling costs for insurance, preparedness and rebuilding – Congress has a responsibility to find a comprehensive solution. The least they can do is not make the problem worse, and with the energy bill now before the Senate, we have no idea if that’s the case.  

Energy is the source of 84 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and a responsible energy bill would make it easier for the country to meet its climate goals. That is good policy sense, and it is good economics.  

{mosads}Every bill that comes before Congress must be “scored” to determine how much it will cost or save the federal budget. That way our elected representatives are at least aware if they’re loading more debt onto the next generation. The same should now be true for climate pollution — every “energy bill” should be analyzed to determine if it makes the burden of climate change better or worse for our kids, and by how much. 

It’s encouraging that we are seeing more bipartisan cooperation on energy. Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), who together lead the Senate Energy Committee, deserve credit for putting forward their own bipartisan energy package, keeping many of the most controversial energy ideas out of their measure. But no analysis has been provided about the bill’s impact on greenhouse gas emissions.   

The sponsors point to provisions designed to increase energy efficiency and renewable energy – important goals for Congress to pursue. However, this legislation includes many provisions, including one that scales back a program to move federal government buildings to clean energy when they are retrofitted. Without analysis to determine if the sum total of the policies in the legislation will lead to more or less greenhouse gas pollution in our atmosphere, we can’t know its full impact — so there is certainly no evidence that it qualifies as a climate plan. 

Yet Senate staffers have been making that claim. In response to accusations from Senate Democrats that the GOP doesn’t have a climate plan, Senate Energy Committee communications director Robert Dillon said, via twitter, “the bipartisan energy bill is what you’re looking for. It reduces emissions w/o costing taxpayers.” 

So I asked, via twitter, to see the numbers, but Dillon had no numbers to share.  

While some in Congress overstate the bill’s unknown impacts on climate, others are hesitant to talk about it altogether. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, acknowledged that, due to the stance of Republican leadership, “climate change won’t be part of the discussion” as the House advances its version of the energy bill.    

The idea that climate change is too controversial to be discussed openly is a sad assessment of the state of affairs in Congress, but so too are efforts to claim progress without serious analysis to determine if it helps or hurts with the climate problem.  

Complicating matters, there will likely be efforts to add any number of energy proposals that favor fossil fuels to the bi-partisan framework when energy legislation advances through the process. Without a yardstick, the impact of amendments will be difficult to measure. 

Unless you are prepared to declare that NASA, the Pentagon, and all major American scientific organizations are wrong – that it’s all a hoax – there is no excuse for ignoring the impact an energy bill will have on future emissions levels. It’s hard to imagine any justification by senators for not knowing the facts.  

The public has a right to know whether energy bill is moving us forward or backward on climate change.  Whether they support it or oppose it, members of Congress should at least know what they are voting on.

Krupp is president of Environmental Defense Fund. Reach him @FredKrupp on Twitter.