Boehner: Well, first, let’s not — I don’t know whether it’s going to come up or not. Rumors, they’re clearly pushing to bring it up, but we’ll see. I don’t think they have the votes yet.

Reporter: You don’t — you don’t think they have the votes?

Boehner: No, I do not.

If this bill isn’t diluted enough to pass even the House, where Democrats have a whopping 77-seat advantage, wait until this bill hits the Senate.

So the majority party is taking the necessary precautions: it’s hired a speed reader, just in case.

According to The Wall Street Journal, this new assistant can read a page in 34 seconds, and the entire bill would take him about nine hours.

Just another example of the ridiculous parliamentary dance putting your taxpayer dollars to good use.

Ranking member Joe Barton (R-Texas), who promised to wage “sneaky,” “crafty” “guerrilla warfare” on the legislation, just delivered his opening statement. He said of the bill, “We know the cost is significant; we know the environmental benefit is practically nonexistent.”

And so he’s offering a Republican substitute bill, which he said “wouldn’t wreck the economy, would have some economic benefits and wouldn’t do any environmental harm.” If that language seems less than aggressive in combating global climate change, that’s because it is. Says Joe Romm, “You can’t really call it an alternative climate bill, since it doesn’t stop US greenhouse gas emissions from rising and the words “climate change” and “global warming” hardly appear in it at all — except to strip any authority from the EPA to address the problem.”

Barton also pledged to introduce a number of amendments to improve the legislation. In fact, he’s got 450 amendments up his sleeve, and I’ll give you a sense of their general thrust. Numbers 10 to 148 take this form:

• #30: “Suspends the act should more than 1,000 jobs in Indiana be lost due to the implementation of this Act.”
• #31: “Suspends the act should more than 2,000 jobs in Indiana be lost due to the implementation of this Act.”
• #32: “Suspends the act should more than 5,000 jobs in Indiana be lost due to the implementation of this Act.”
• #33: “Suspends the act should more than 10,000 jobs in Indiana be lost due to the implementation of this Act.”
• #34: “Suspends the act should more than 50,000 jobs in Indiana be lost due to the implementation of this Act.”

Swap in the names of 19 other states (no idea why the remaining 30 are excluded), and you get the general idea. You also start to understand Barton’s remark to Politico last week: “This is not going to be one of those gentlemanly, pro forma markups. We’re prepared for it to take weeks or months.”

OK, maybe it won’t be THAT fun to watch. Fortunately, TWI will provide updates and save you the trouble. Stay tuned.

–

TWI is on Twitter. Please follow us here.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) (WDCpix)

Even as House Democrats are celebrating their deal with conservative-leaning colleagues on climate change legislation, the real winners under the compromise have been the coal, electric and auto industries, who are largely the source of the nation’s carbon emissions to begin with.

Details of the compromise are still emerging, but already the chief sponsors of the measure — Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) — have been forced to lower carbon-reduction targets, cut renewable fuel standards and dole out billions of dollars in benefits to the nation’s largest polluting industries. Many environmentalists say the compromise comes at the too-high cost of undermining the bill’s very purpose, which is to slash emissions dramatically enough to prevent a warming planet from heating further. Some are asking Democrats either to bolster the environmental protections or to scrap the proposal altogether.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

“We are not prepared to ‘give away the farm’ just so that we can say that we helped to get legislation passed,” Janet Keating, executive director of the West Virginia-based Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, said in a statement Friday. “There are some costs that are too high to pay when it comes to the environment, clean air and clean water. We urge Congress to either fix the Waxman-Markey bill or dump it and start over.”

The saga highlights the thorny congressional climate change debate, where partisan politics takes a backseat to regional interests, and the influence of the energy lobby is king. Indeed, the concessions from Waxman and Markey to this point have been made to satisfy Democrats representing regions heavy with coal, oil and automaker interests.

The resulting dynamic is one of multi-layered tension that pits industry against environmentalists, regional interests against national and global interests, and congressional lawmakers against emission reforms that might help the planet, but could also cost jobs in their districts.

“I’m just trying to take care of the principal concerns that would impact my region, in particular my district,” Rep. Charles Gonzales, a Houston-based Democrat who’s pushing for more benefits for oil refineries in the House bill, told Politico Thursday.

In the eyes of many environmentalists, that brand of regional protectionism might yield short-term gains for some areas of the country, but will come at the cost of a deteriorating globe. They’re asking what good is it to protect polluters in a world where you can’t drink the water or breath the air, and the oceans are swallowing the coasts?

Erich Pica, director of domestic policy programs at Friends of the Earth, said the moderate Democrats are “holding hostage” the reforms necessary to tackle the problem in a way that reflects its urgency. “They have every right to protect their constituents,” Pica said. “But as members of Congress they also represent the entire country, and they should know when to sacrifice their regional interests for the sake of the larger common good. All they see is protecting oil or protecting coal. That’s not helpful.”

Indeed, the United Nations issued a report Thursday indicating that the world’s poorest countries, which are expected to suffer the brunt of the floods, draughts and storms associated with climate change, already require as much as $2 billion to adjust to the warming conditions. The UN is asking for donors to raise the funds.

Faced with similar reports, Waxman and Markey introduced a draft climate change bill in March — diluted significantly in the more recent compromise. And from an industry perspective, there’s something in there for nearly everyone.

For the coal and electric utility industries, for example, the compromise bill requires that U.S. emissions be reduced 17 percent by 2020, down from the 20 percent reduction promoted in the initial draft. The new bill also tamps down an earlier provision that states get at least 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025, instead dropping that floor to 15 percent.

Additionally, although President Barack Obama had campaigned on a platform of selling 100 percent of so-called pollution permits to industry — a strategy he said would generate $646 billion to fight global warming over the next decade — the House compromise gives all but 15 percent of those permits away for free.

The changes were enough to gather the support of several key members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, including Rep. Rick Boucher (Va.), a coal-country Democrat who had threatened to oppose the stronger draft. But the bows to industry also bring into question whether lawmakers resigned to shield their provincial industries are even capable of passing the reforms scientists say would be required to stem America’s contributions to the warming planet.

The changes, said Tyson Slocum, director of the energy and climate program at Public Citizen, “threaten to render this bill ineffective for a long period of time.”

There were other concessions as well. To satisfy Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), another powerful member of the committee, Waxman and Markey have agreed to give 3 percent of pollution permits to the nation’s automakers to fund research for more fuel efficient vehicles.

The compromise also waters down the so-called cash-for-clunkers program*, which ostensibly encourages drivers to turn in their gas guzzlers in exchange for a federal subsidy on more fuel efficient models. Yet under the compromise proposal, the new fuel efficiencies are hardly dramatic. For example, drivers trading in trucks between 6,000 and 8,500 pounds would be eligible for a $3,500 voucher for purchasing the same-sized vehicle that’s more efficient by just 1 mile per gallon.

Daniel Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, said the program does much more to help struggling automakers sell large, unpopular models than it does to reduce greenhouse emissions.

“It’s a $4 billion giveaway to move gas guzzling vehicles that nobody wants off the lots,” Becker said.

Also, to get oil-friendly Democrats like Gonzales on board, the House compromise will give 2 percent of the pollution permits to oil refineries.

And these changes have arrived before the amendment process begins. House Republicans have vowed to dilute the environmental protections even further during debate in the Energy and Commerce Committee or on the House floor. Indeed, Sen. Joe Barton (Tex.), the senior Republican on E&C, has predicted that Republicans will succeed in altering the bill to consider nuclear energy and so-called “clean coal” renewable fuels.

“The president and his allies have decided that man-made carbon dioxide is a witch’s brew that’s killing the planet,” Barton said in a statement, “and they think that just because the cap-and-trade cure stings doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have to swallow it.”

The Energy and Commerce Committee, headed by Waxman, is expected to take up the bill next week, with House Democratic leaders hoping to pass the bill before the August recess.

Influencing the debate, the nation’s largest carbon emitters have contributed enormous sums of money to lobby Congress this year. The oil and gas industries, for example, have already spent $44.6 million and the electric utilities have tallied an additional $34.4 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. By contrast, the renewable energy sector has spent only $14.4 million on lobbying over the same span, and environmental groups have tallied just $4.7 million.

It’s not just Waxman and Markey who are struggling against the current of regional protectionism in the fight against climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency last week proposed new renewable fuel standards that, for the first time, would factor things like worldwide deforestation when calculating the environment impacts of biofuel production. The proposal was hailed by environmentalsist who have long argued that production of ethanol, for example, has depleted global food supplies, forcing farmers elsewhere to clear forests — a major source of carbon emissions — to make up the difference.

Yet, after eight years of Bush-era regulators who didn’t believe in regulation and environmental protection officials who didn’t believe in environmental protection, congressional lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are suddenly feeling the sting of an EPA living up to its name.

Indeed, since the EPA unveiled its proposal, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) has blasted the proposal as “very detrimental to ethanol.” Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) charged that the changes “would effectively kill renewable fuels in South Dakota and across the country because of environmental extremism within the EPA.” And Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), who heads the House Agriculture Committee, has already introduced legislation to prevent the so-called “indirect land use” provision from ever taking hold.

The message is clear: If climate change reforms are ever to clear Congress, they can’t confront industry too severely — even if those industries are responsible for same carbon emissions creating the problem.

Some lawmakers appear to recognize that probable reality. Next week the Senate environmental panel will host a hearing entitled “Business Opportunities and Climate Policy.”

*Cash for clunkers was not in the original proposal, but attached during committee debate a few days later.

While the numbers are noteworthy, the real significance here lies in the sponsors of the agreement. Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) are, not surprisingly, at the top of the press release. But so are Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), and Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) — all moderate Congressmen from coal- or industry-reliant states who were considered swing votes on the bill.

Boucher said he was “pleased with the product we are able to put forward on this issue,” while Dingell, the former Energy and Commerce chairman who has expressed strong reservations about the bill, said the compromise “moves the ball forward significantly in terms of renewable energy, but does so in a framework within which all states can operate.”

The renewable electricity standard is merely one of several controversial components of the legislation. Still, Waxman appears open to compromise, and the moderate Democrats on the committee, who previously expressed concern over the renewable energy provisions, have agreed to what is really only a modest change. Democrats may indeed be able to vote this bill out of committee by Waxman’s Memorial Day target.

Update: Just a few minutes later, the Energy and Commerce leadership sent out another press release, announcing a compromise on the allocation of carbon allowances to the auto industry. The Obama administration has pushed for all allowances to be auctioned off to polluters, not given away for free. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, representing eleven major vehicle manufacturers, has asked Congress to give the auto industry 5 percent of all allowances for free. The compromise: the industry gets 3 percent of allowances until 2017, and then 1 percent until 2025. Again, Dingell’s name is on the press release. One step closer to a bill that House Democrats can pass.

Update 2: And now they’ve released a compromise on allowances for “energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries,” which will receive 15 percent of allowances, as expected. In 2025, the president (whoever that may be) will determine whether the continued allocation of allowances is needed. What remains: the allocation to electric utilities, which are expected to receive 35 percent of allowances.

Everyone, that is, except Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas). Barton, the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, is conspicuously reading a newspaper.

There is a war brewing between liberals on Capitol Hill and the hardworking citizens of the Midwest, notably those of my home state of Indiana.

It comes in the form of an energy proposal known as “cap and trade” which would cap greenhouse gas emissions from regulated entities and require businesses to acquire permits or “allowances” for their emissions. The bill should actually be called “cap and tax” because it basically establishes a national energy tax. Under the guise of protecting the environment, the bill will increase taxes on every American who uses any form of energy and would have a devastating impact on the Indiana economy and Hoosier taxpayers. Washington politicians love it because they can claim that they are taxing polluters when in effect they are actually taxing middle class American families and workers. [...]

Let me be clear: cap and tax is a job killer.

With small businesses and factories being forced to cut jobs or close their doors, more Americans will be out of work and unable to support their families. Those few businesses and factories that manage to stay open will only do so by passing their increased energy costs on to consumers.

The heightened rhetoric has become increasingly necessary as a business-environment coalition has formed to promote cap-and-trade. Just yesterday, five top industry CEOs, including the heads of Duke Energy, ConocoPhillips and DuPont, testified before Congress to voice their support for major climate legislation.

Democrats will almost certainly have to compromise on some of the elements of their climate bill, but this militant language does appear to signal the same kind of defensiveness on cap-and-trade as conservatives have shown in the broader political sphere by labeling Democrats “socialists” and “fascists.”

But then I reviewed the photos I took at the hearing. Turns out Chu may have been a bit baffled after all:

Most environmentalists support a 100 percent auction, but the ambitious and comprehensive Waxman-Markey energy and climate bill released last week was largely silent on the issue, leaving open the possibility that some permits might be distributed without an auction. Utilities and pollution-heavy industries tend to oppose an 100 percent auction, which could cost them a great deal. If Obama endorses a partial auction, it would likely be to win over some moderate senators from coal- and heavy industry-reliant states.

The Post piece presents the two opposing arguments:

Keith Trent, chief strategy, policy and regulatory officer for Duke Energy Corp., said utility executives are hoping for a 10-year transition to a 100 percent auction so they can install pollution controls without raising electricity costs too high. He added that emitters would still have an incentive to cut carbon dioxide because of the overall federal cap on carbon emissions: “The cap is what makes the system’s environmental integrity, and you can’t exceed that cap because you need an allowance to do it.”

But environmental advocate Erich Pica, director of domestic programs for Friends of the Earth, said giving utility providers free allowances would be less efficient than rebating the revenue from auctions directly to taxpayers. A 100 percent auction, Pica said, “forces the polluters from Day One to pay for the transition to a clean energy economy, and keeps low and middle-income consumers whole during the transition.”

Given the strong opposition that cap-and-trade has faced, a partial auction would not be a huge surprise. However, it would still represent a major concession by the Obama administration on one of the president’s core agenda items.

At a Center for American Progress Action Fund event this morning, I asked Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) whether he would rather see these elements packaged together or tackled separately. Here’s what he said:

“My original plan was to do first the renewable portfolio standard, efficiency in utilities, building codes for construction of new buildings in that package, and then do the smart grid as a second package, and then third would be global warming. But the energy committees had trouble getting the bill out of the committee — it’s taking too long. My window to be able to do that separately was during this work period. And the House is going to finish their bill by Memorial Day. So I think that it’s to everyone’s benefit that we follow what the House has done. I think that there are a tremendous number of players who are going to be involved in all three aspects that I’ve just outlined, all of whom have different ideas as to why this legislation is important. And it’s true that when you get big pieces of legislation done, legislation’s the art of compromise, consensus-building. And I think we can do that. I have hope and confidence that what has been done both from me reaching out to Republicans as leader of the Senate and what Obama has done, reaching out to Republicans, there might not be short-term gain, but there’s going to be a lot of long-term gain if we continue doing this. And I think something as important as global warming should not be a partisan issue.”

As we’ve seen from the vote on the stimulus and the debate over the budget and cap-and-trade, all the hope and confidence in the world isn’t enough to achieve bipartisanship in this Senate. And so, despite Reid’s best intentions, it appears that he might have to abandon his embrace of the House proposal and revert back to his original position, which probably won’t see cap-and-trade passed any earlier than next year.

Update: Upon further transcription, here’s another comment from Reid at this morning’s event on the prospects for passing climate legislation:

“I had a terrific meeting yesterday with ten Democratic senators who are concerned about their states: Ohio, Michigan, Indiana — states that are heavily dependent on coal. And we’re going to have to work with them. There wasn’t a single senator there of the ten that didn’t want to have a global warming bill. But we’re going to have to make sure that what we do doesn’t devastate an economy. We can do that in many different ways. And I think what the House is going through will be very educational for all of us. Henry Waxman from California, Nancy Pelosi from California — everyone thinks this is going to be some wild bill, based on the fact that California has some very, in my opinion, good environmental laws. But people are afraid that this bill is going to have California written all over it. Listen, these congressional districts are concerned about the same things our senators are concerned about. And I think we’re going to be surprised at how moderate the bill will come from the House — moderate, but good.”