Lexington, KY - What action should or should not be taken by the United States and other governments to address climate change? What are the consequences of action versus inaction? The options appear to be choices between painful and painful.
Last spring, the proposed Climate Security Act went down to defeat in the U.S. Senate. The legislation was an initial effort to grapple with changing prevailing weather conditions threatening drought throughout the Midwest farm states, more wildfires in the West, massive coastal flooding and an increase in the frequency and power of Gulf coast hurricanes.
Sponsored by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.), the legislation would have established a so-called "cap and trade" program limiting total U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and providing credits to companies for reducing those emissions. Participating companies would then be able to sell those credits to other businesses that have not yet met those goals. The bill offered bonus allowances for carbon capture and storage, and set-asides for agriculture and forestry sequestration as well as for landfill and coal mine methane mitigation. The goal of the legislation was a 65 percent reduction in global warming emissions by 2050.
Supporters said such legislation is essential to applying the brakes on the frequency and intensity of a variety of deadly and costly weather-related disasters. Opponents argued that the bill would create a disaster of a different sort, driving already rising energy costs even higher and devastating a severely weakened economy.
The political landscape has undergone a sea change since the Lieberman-Warner bill was defeated in June of '08. The Obama administration has since offered its own plan - contained in its fiscal year 2010 budget proposal - that aims to cut carbon emissions to 14 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and then to 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.
As the Obama administration begins to push its proposal, many formidable obstacles remain in the path of any bi-partisan consensus on just how to reduce climate-altering greenhouse gases. Key among those challenges are the many uncertainties concerning the economic impacts of the proposed legislation - including the availability of mitigation technologies and the level of international action on climate change.
Prior to the Senate's action last June, the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) jointly commissioned their own state-by-state assessment of the potential economic impacts of the Lieberman-Warner bill.
The findings for Kentucky: