CQ POLITICS NEWS
April 20, 2009 – 7:21 p.m.
Energy Bill Would Create Climate Agency
By Avery Palmer, CQ Staff
A sweeping energy bill under consideration by a House panel not only would try to curb global warming but also would create a federal program on adapting to climate changes that may be inevitable.
Draft legislation recently unveiled by Henry A. Waxman , D-Calif., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, would set up a “national climate service” within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to provide information on the effects of climate change.
The centerpiece of the bill would mandate an 83 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and require greater use of renewable-energy sources. Waxman and Edward J. Markey , D-Mass., chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, plan to begin marking up the bill later this month.
While the emissions cap is likely to be the focus of attention and debate, most climate scientists agree that some degree of global warming is unavoidable — and that any energy legislation must take that finding into account.
Jane Lubchenco, who was named NOAA administrator by President Obama, is making a national climate service one of her priorities.
“We need to also be preparing for climate changes that are already under way and are going to increase with time,” she said in an interview. “This was a concept that to me was a no-brainer.”
The goal of the new service would be to help states, localities and businesses factor climate change into their long-term planning. For instance, it could help utility companies that provide drinking water account for changes in rainfall or decreases in snowpack. It also could help officials determine the best building techniques near sea level in anticipation of floods and storm surges.
“These are very practical decisions about infrastructure that has a long life span,” Lubchenco said.
Detailed information is lacking on the potential effects of climate change in the United States, particularly at the regional level, many scientists say, and previous models of predicting such changes no longer apply.
“You can’t manage the future simply by analyzing the past,” said Donald F. Boesch, president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.
Currently, the public does not have access to much of the research on the effects of global warming, Lubchenco said.
“We’ve already seen the models improve vastly,” she said. “What everybody wants to know is, ‘What does this mean to me and the decisions I’m making?’”
NOAA staff are developing the idea of a climate service while trying to coordinate with Congress. The bill does not specify the new program’s size or cost, issues that Lubchenco said are still under discussion.
Turf Battle Brewing
The legislation could also spark a turf battle over the program’s structure and leadership. Lubchenco contends that NOAA’s experience with the National Weather Service and its sophisticated climate models should make it the lead agency, working with NASA, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Energy Department and others.
But Rick Piltz, director of Climate Science Watch, an advocacy and public education group, said the concept is so broad in scope that it may not make sense to place a climate service inside NOAA.
“You need a program that is broader than just expanding the NOAA national weather service to do climate forecasts,” he said. “You need to be looking at agriculture, food security, forests, water resources, transportation infrastructure, coastal infrastructure, wetlands.”
The bill would also require NOAA to publish a national assessment on climate change vulnerabilities every four years. Similar assessments are now required under the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (PL 101-606), but they are managed under a program that coordinates the work of 13 federal agencies.
“The national climate change vulnerability assessment is a great idea, but it circumvents the existing Climate Change Science Program,” Piltz said.
Other provisions in the bill would require federal agencies to complete climate change adaptation plans, as well as separate plans examining the effects on natural resources. The measure would also establish an adaptation fund to be divided among states and federal agencies.
Aid for Other Countries
In addition, it would set up a program within the U.S. Agency for International Development to provide climate adaptation funding to developing countries. This section could be especially critical during climate negotiations scheduled for December in Copenhagen.
“That is one of the key provisions in the draft, from our perspective,” said Lou Leonard of the World Wildlife Fund, where he is director of U.S. policy for international climate affairs. “We have people in countries on the ground that are already feeling the effects of climate change.”
The draft legislation does not, however, address how much funding this aid program would receive. The House panel is negotiating the sale and allocation of emissions allowances that companies would use to comply with the emissions cap, and which could be a source of revenue for the adaptation programs.
“The words are good,” Leonard said. “But if there aren’t resources, it won’t mean anything.”




Comments
The passage of defining energy bill might be the road to economic recovery world-wide through the highly-anticipated Global Green New Deal, better yet, it is going to facilitate shift from the destructive war spending to the meaningful health care expenditure, in doing so, the complications in the ailing economy and health care alike will likely be explained.
Obama is stealing from our children and grandchildren to fund another useless government agency that will help him impose socialism on us. More and more scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children. More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. They are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/3562/218/ Additionally, 32,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate..." http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html "Progressive" (communist) politicians like Obama seem determined to force us to swallow the man-made global warming scam. We need to defend ourselves from the United Nations and these politicians, who threaten our future and the future of our children. Based on a lie, they have already wasted billions and plan to increase taxes and increase the cost of energy, which will limit development, destroy our economy and enslave us. If not stopped, the global warming scam will enrich the scammers (Gore and Obama's Wall Street friends), increase the power of the United Nations and communists like Obama, and multiply poverty and servitude for the rest of us.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: