COVERITLIVE.COM

12:20

Fred Barbash-Moderator - Adele Morris is our guest today, talking about the Waxman-Markey bill. She will join us shortly. You are welcome to submit questions in advance.

Adele is a Fellow and Deputy Director for Climate and Energy Economics at The Brookings Institution. Her expertise and interests include the economics of policies related to climate change, energy, natural resources, and public finance. She joined Brookings in July 2008 from the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) of the U.S. Congress, where she spent a year as a Senior Economist covering energy and climate issues. Before the JEC, Adele served nine years with the U.S. Treasury Department as its chief natural resource economist, working on climate, energy, agriculture, and radio spectrum issues. On assignment to the U.S. Department of State in 2000, she was the lead U.S. negotiator on land use and forestry issues in the international climate change treaty process. Prior to joining the Treasury, she served as the Senior Economist for environmental affairs at the President’s Council of Economic Advisers during the development of the Kyoto Protocol. She began her career at the Office of Management and Budget, where she conducted regulatory oversight of agriculture and natural resource agencies. She holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Princeton University, an M.S. in Mathematics from the University of Utah, and a B.A. from Rice University.

12:30

Fred Barbash-Moderator - Welcome Adele. And welcome readers. We'll take the first question now.

12:30

[Comment From Erin]
What are some of the trade offs between energy independence and climate protection?

12:30

Adele Morris - About 98% of the fuels used in U.S. electricity production are domestic, or at least North American. It’s misleading to link controlling greenhouse emissions from electricity to achieving meaningful energy independence. Oil, and transport fuels more specifically, raise the real energy security concerns. At least one domestic alternative to oil, coal-to-liquids, is bad for the climate, worse than oil. Better choices include electric vehicles and certain biofuels.

12:31

[Comment From Alvaro (Detroit)]
Even with a Democratic majority in the House and the full backing of the White House, the climate change bill barely passed. With all the hurdles in the Senate, what are the chances that somthing substative is actually passed?

12:32

Adele Morris -

I hope and expect a version of the bill will succeed in the Senate. It’s likely to be a bit different than the House version. I think it will be substantive, but it might offer more cost containment than the House version.

12:32

[Comment From Fred]
I’ve read stories that quote scientists – like James Lovelock - saying it’s just too late to stop climate change. Should we be trying to adapt our technology instead?

12:33

Adele Morris -

It’s not either/or. It’s both/and. Given the lags in the climate system, we will need to adapt to a changed climate even if we stopped emissions tomorrow. Adaptation is perhaps most critical in very poor countries whose populations are already vulnerable to adverse weather. We also need to control the risk of disrupting the climate by cost effectively reducing emissions – the sooner the better. This involves both making emitting more costly with a tax or cap and trade program and making not emitting cheaper through technology research.

12:33

[Comment From Karl Knapstein]
Ms. Morris, I feel "climate change" and "global warming" muddle the issue and we should focus our rhetoric towards National Security. Your thoughts?

12:34

Adele Morris - I think protecting the environment is a valid goal in and of itself. It may overlap with some national security concerns, such as energy security or the concern about climate refugees, but the climate needs protecting for ecological reasons that simply aren't national security issues.

12:34

[Comment From Elizabeth]
The bill does not provide for other energies like nuclear. Do you believe this should be accounted for in a Senate version?

12:35

Adele Morris - Nuclear power will become more cost effective once there is a price on carbon. It's not clear to me that you need additional subsidies for nuclear once carbon is properly priced. The Senate may take up such subsidies, however.

12:35

[Comment From Alfonso (Jackson, Miss)]
If the Senate is able to pass some form of climate change legislation, how will that help the US going into Copenhagen in Decemember. Does it matter that the legislation is much weaker than what the Europeans have called for?

12:37

Adele Morris - The EU is calling on the US to take such stringent targets that even if we agreed to the targets in Copenhagen, the treaty would be unratifiable here. It's really important that the US stick to a pragmatic position, even if it means that talks are not particularly cordial. Legislation helps because it stakes out the politically feasible set of treaty outcomes for the US.

12:37

[Comment From Jen]
The Waxman-Markey bill strikes many--including those of us who support strong action-as a recipe for bureaucratic and regulatory gridlock, with the beneficiaries being the lawyers who will spend the next fifteen years making careers out of it. Isn't there a simpler approach?

12:38

Adele Morris - There are inumerable ways to make the bill simpler. This is sausage-making at its pinnacle. It's not surprising though, given the trillions of dollars in emissions rights at stake.

12:39

[Comment From Vincent]
There are reports that the "cap and trade" program would only reduce carbon emissions by .02% and China and India are not reducing their emissions, so what is the justification for substantively raising taxes with no veritable effects on emissions.

12:40

Adele Morris - As the largest historical emitter and the second largest current emitter, the US has to be part of the solution. The bill would clearly drive the US to do its part, reducing overed US emissions by 83% by 2050. That's a vast transformation of our energy system, and indeed our economy. And if we don't do that, how can we ask anyone much poorer to do their part?

12:40

[Comment From Jeff Rozman]
I work for Congressman Wu who supported HR 2454 The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. However, we are continually attacked that creating a 'cap and trade' system will result in job losses and higher taxes, how do you feel on this argument?

Page 1 Next >