National Climate Change Legislation

America’s Clean Energy and Security Act, which the U.S. House of Representatives passed on June 26, signals a seismic shift in U.S. policy on climate change—from ignoring the problem to taking action to solve it. Before it is passed by the Senate, however, the massive bill needs to be strengthened in key areas, and provisions must be amended to prevent widespread devastation of southern landscapes.

The good news:
The legislation establishes a strong cap on heat-trapping carbon emissions―a 17 percent reduction below 2005 levels in 2020, reaching to an 83 percent reduction by 2050. By 2020, measures to achieve these reductions are expected to cost less than 50 cents a day for each household in America. The bill also provides a clear process for further lowering of the emissions cap based on evolving science, and it includes a broad range of measures that promote energy efficiency and clean energy development.

The bad news:
Among other weaknesses, concessions on emissions “offsets” and how they are regulated would compromise the bill’s ability to achieve its emission reduction goals. Elsewhere in the bill, provisions to promote renewable “biomass” as an energy source would fuel the destruction of southern forests.

The Threat to Southern Forestlands

We in the Southeast have abundant opportunities to tap renewable energy sources, including “biomass” left from the harvesting of forest products. But last-minute deals eliminated key safeguards in the House bill, putting at risk some of our great public forests, as well as the privately owned forests that make up 90 percent of forestlands in the Southeast.

Federal energy legislation passed in 2007 placed limits on what constitutes “renewable biomass” to prevent destruction of mature forests and the ecological communities they contain. But the climate bill passed by the House curtails protections for national forests and all but eliminates protections for private forests. As a result, it would encourage forest owners to cut down their established forests and convert them into plantations of fast-growing pines or other energy crops that can be harvested for bio-fuel. The bill also fails to guarantee that wood-to-energy endeavors would actually reduce our carbon footprint over their life cycle. 

Weaknesses in Controls on Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Under the bill, industrial and agricultural practices that capture or reduce carbon, methane, and other greenhouse gases can be used to develop “offsets” to compensate for global warming emissions elsewhere. Under the cap-and-trade arrangement, these offsets can be purchased by power companies and other polluters needing emission credits. Unfortunately, offset provisions in the bill are too weak to ensure their reliability and permanence. Moreover, agricultural interests succeeded in shifting oversight of emission offsets from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Department of Agriculture, which traditionally has not been a vigilant regulator.

In addition, the House version of the bill gives away most emission credits. It misses the opportunity to restore money to public coffers and to encourage cleaner, more efficient industries by auctioning off more credits that would make pollution and inefficiency costly and unattractive.

What the Senate Should Do

As the Senate takes up the climate bill, it must address these critical flaws to make certain that this historic measure results in genuine reductions in greenhouse gas emissions—and not at the cost of forestlands that are vital to wildlife, water quality, and the economic well-being of southern communities.