Climate Consensus Obscures Obama, McCain Differences

Both presidential candidates support the need to curb greenhouse gases believed to cause global warming, but there are key differences in how they would implement what will eventually be a significant overhaul of the country’s energy infrastructure.

AP

First and foremost, the candidates agree on a market-based cap-and-trade program that will establish a price for carbon dioxide emissions that tightens over time, providing an incentive for businesses to develop cleaner energy technology.

The similarity, however, pretty much ends there, as Senators John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, and Barack Obama, the soon-to-be nominated Democratic candidate at the party's convention this week, differ on how aggressively to pursue this environmental goal and on exactly how to fund the transition.

More specifically, they differ on whether to make businesses pay for carbon pollution permits over a certain limit — some of which they would get back in government support to adopt cleaner technology — or give them a free ride initially, with sanctions pushed into the future.

“Between the two candidates, the devil's in the details,” notes Tufts economist Gilbert Metcalf.  “Obama wants to auction all the permits and use the revenue for energy efficiency, R&D and other purposes [while] McCain wants to give the bulk of the permits away initially — this is the $100 billion difference between the candidates.”

Environmentalists are concerned that, without the pressure of real costs, businesses will not move fast enough to reach critical emissions targets — 80 percent reduction by 2050 — while business complains it will be hit with a double-whammy of paying for pollution and curbing emissions.

But Vicki Arroyo, director of policy analysis at the nonpartisan Pew Center on Global Climate Change, calls this a “paper difference” that exaggerates what McCain and Obama are likely to actually try to implement.

“I don’t think anyone really thinks that 100 percent auction is politically viable,” she says, adding that the Obama campaign has accepted this reality because of strong business opposition and general economic concerns.

She says the new Congress' full agenda will prevent climate change legislation from being  passed “until 2010 at the earliest.”  Even that might come in smaller pieces, targeting specific sectors, such as utilities, which account for some 40 percent of carbon emissions. In either case, opposition from some quarters will be significant.

Biggest Impact on Utilities Industry

Within the power sector, companies most dependent on coal — the dirtiest fossil fuel — will be hit hardest, particularly if they are forced to buy permits for future emissions.

“This is an abysmal policy, this is a killer for coal states,” says John Stowell of Duke Energy,

DUK loading...

Quote  |  Chart  |  News  |  Profile

[DUK  Loading...      ()   ] one of the country’s largest utilities, about plans to make utilities pay for permission for future carbon emissions.

Obama has insisted all allowances to emit carbon be auctioned off, while McCain seems to favor giving away at least a portion of them.

The leading draft legislation on this issue, the Lieberman-Warner bill ( (S.2191 America's Climate Security Act 2008, co-sponsored by Senators John Warner and Joe Lieberman, which evolved from a tougher, earlier bill co-sponsored by McCain) calls for auctioning 25 percent of the permits.

That bill calls for reducing carbon emissions 50 percent by 2050, even though a large body of scientists say an 80-percent reduction will be needed to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.

As a regulated utility, Duke would pass on these costs to customers. Indiana, for instance, would see electricity prices rise 65 percent within five years, the company estimates.  A study by the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council of Capital Formation offer a state-by-state economic impact analysis of the Senate bill.

The new cost to carbon could force utilities to switch to natural gas, which emits half the carbon coal does, but this could force up electricity prices.