Our Answer on Lieberman/Warner

by Bill Kovacs

There have been some questions regarding why the U.S. Chamber opposes Lieberman/Warner, so let me lay it out for everyone.

We oppose Lieberman/Warner because it is not well thought out legislation; it will adversely disrupt the economy of the U.S. and concentrations of CO2 will continue to significantly increase. 

Specifically, a ton of carbon emitted anywhere in the world is the same as emitting a ton of carbon in the U.S.  So to seriously address climate change the Chamber proposes:

1. Do not pass any legislation that harm the ability of the U.S. to compete in the world economy;

2. All legislation must in international in scope; and

3. The legislation must be grounded in the development of new energy technologies and those technologies must be implemented at the source of the emissions throughout the world.

Lieberman/Warner is a disconnect in that it reduces the use of fossil fuel on the assumption that some new energy source will take its place.  Currently there is no support that any of the technologies that are needed will be around for decades.  What we need to do is push for full funding of the 70 new technologies (from carbon capture and sequestration to economically viable fuel cells) that were to be developed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and coordinate the introduction of the technologies with the reductions of CO2 emissions.  Only about 1/3 of those technologies being developed are being funded.  Then as we develop the technologies we need to deploy them worldwide.  This will create great economic wealth (intellectual property, manufacturing and construction) and the deployment will actually decrease CO2 emissions. 

Climate Change legislation is perhaps the biggest economic decision this world will ever make.  We must realize the technology does not exist to capture and store carbon so before running our economies off the proverbial cliff, why not chart a course to develop and deploy the solution.  The solution will cost trillions of dollars ($2 – $40 trillion) so we need to make sure we create enough wealth in the process to pay for it.  Along this path the nation creates jobs, capital and a better lifestyle.

The Lieberman/Warner path creates great uncertainty and if we take fossil fuels out of our energy supply and we do not develop sufficient alternatives to supply our economy; we risk great economic harm.

Comments

[ChamberPost]

Whatever the solution, it must be a comprehensive funding mechanism coupled with a regulatory process that allows the new technologies to come onto the market. Right now, there are existing technologies that produce no CO2 (e.g. nuclear and wind), yet permits are denied or delayed. So we must fund all the emerging technologies to ensure existing and new technologies can get onto the market.

Worldwide, there is a demand for as much energy as we can produce - so the market is here. What we need are the technologies. (BK)

[Pacifica Sommers]

Technology advances when a market for the developments exists to drive innovation. Simply funding research with government grants for potential future use is inefficient compared to what the private sector could generate, given the incentive.

S.2191 creates a market and a demand for carbon-capture technology. Far from abandoning fossil fuels as an energy source, it assists in the creation of clean coal options with money for research and development.

The longer we wait to address climate change, the more it will cost our economy to adapt. Early leaders in energy are already reaping rewards. The US economy as a whole does not want to lose out to China when it comes to eventual adaptation to a low-carbon world. We should take the lead on this. We must do that now with S.2191.