Warner-Lieberman Climate Change Bill - a step in the right direction

Over 10 years after the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, the United Stats is finally getting a clue about the best way to tackle air pollution - economics. Debate in the Senate is set to begin soon on the America's Climate Security Act of 2007 (also known as the Lieberman-Warner bill). This bill aims to limit greenhouse gases using a cap and trade system. Air pollution, carbon dioxide mostly, would no longer be free for companies and people to emit. Polluters would have to pay to pollute but those who reduce pollution could sell their rights to pollute to make money. That limits the amount of pollution (the cap) and gives a financial incentive to reduce pollution (the trade rights to pollute for cash).

This was the idea that was implemented in Europe as suggested by Kyoto but it didn't work out so well. It is still being tweaked. The problems with cap and trade in Europe? - the caps were set too high and the credits to be traded were given away for free. The Lieberman-Warner bill looks make a similar blunder by only selling some of the credits but give away most. I hope for our sake we learn a little more from Europe's mistakes before we pass this bill. Most economists blogs I read think credits need to be sold too: Greg Mankiw on cap-and-trade and Robert Reich on cap-and-trade (They also both discuss the issue in relation to McCain and Obama's view on the subject.)

Either way, I am excited to see some real serious discussions about air pollution and global warming by the US government. I am even more excited that we are finally realizing our environment is a resource too that should not be free to plunder.

One more thing. The way I head about this was from an email from Human Events from Newt Gingrich. They are much more worried about the economic costs of the plan. That is understandable but destroying our environment for free has gone on long enough. The environment should not be a free resource. There should be a cost associated with polluting it and I for one don't mind that price being built into the energy and products I consume.

What is the Senate Doing For Their Christmas Vacation?, Staying in Session is What!

I read an article last night on CNN about the Senate's plans to technically not take a break for the holidays (you know, Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, New Years and others). They plan to hold "pro forma" sessions through mid-January. I say not technically taking a break because all but a handful of Senators will be gone. The Senate will be taking the minimum amount of action required to legally remain in session. I believe that involves someone banging a gavel every 3 days or so. Senators Jim Webb of Virginia, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Cardin of Maryland and Chuck Schumer of New York will all take a break from their holiday plans to keep the Senate in session.

The reasoning for this really shows how at odds President Bush is with Congress. The US Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 provides the ability for recess appointments. The reason for this was so federal governmental positions would not go unfilled while the Senate, who confirms those appointments, is not in town to vote on those positions. Back in the day, the Senate was often out of session for many months at a time so it made sense for the President to have this ability. Sadly, recess appointments have become nothing more than a political maneuver.

Now the Senate does not take breaks nearly as long and with the advent of the flying machine and commercial air travel, the Senate can get back in a hurry to vote on a Presidential appointment if necessary. Recess appointments are now used by the President to make appointments that he (or she) can not get approved by the Senate for any number of reasons.

The Senate did this same thing over Thanksgiving and is doing it now to prevent the appointment of Steven Bradbury to the head of the Office of Legal Counsel for the DOJ. I think we should expect our President to use this provision responsibly and for the reason it was intended. Otherwise, maybe we should just get rid of it all together. That would take a Constitutional amendment though. I guess we should just start expecting longer sessions of the Senate.