The Thune Amendment
April 1st, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
The ability of Congressional legislation on cap and trade to result in actual emissions reductions was dealt a serious blow yesterday. An Amendment was introduced by Senator John Thune (R-SD) on the Budget Resolution and its text is as follows:
To amend the deficit-neutral reserve fund for climate change legislation to require that such legislation does not increase electricity or gasoline prices.
What is this? Climate change legislation cannot increase electricity or gasoline prices? The entire purpose of cap and trade is in fact to increase the costs of carbon-emitting sources of energy, which dominate US energy consumption. The Thune Amendment thus undercuts the entire purpose of cap and trade.
What was the vote on the Thune Amendment? 89-8 in favor of the Amendment, 48 Democrats and 41 Republicans. Only 8 members of the Senate were willing to go on record saying that they support the purpose of a cap and trade bill, to make carbon-emitting energy more expensive. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) voted for the Thune Amendment had this to say:
Any kind of cap-and-trade system that comes forward will not raise energy and gas prices.
The Thune Amendment effectively kills cap and trade as a mechanism for reducing emissions. I have little doubt that the legislation will go forward, and it likely will pass in some form and do many things. Its just that reducing emissions won’t be among them. Cap and trade is dead, but the charade will go on.
For those who may be wondering, this post is not an April Fools Joke.
April 1st, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Maybe cap-and-trade can still apply to heater oil and diesel fuel. Honestly though, you have to wonder at the political intelligence of this move-feeding off of populist sentiment, sticking your political opponents with a catch-22. Either forgo your policy or be demonized as an enemy to peoples’ wallets.
April 1st, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Well we cannot expect much from folks that will sign bills without even knowing what’s in them. I’ll bet the World gets a real laugh out of this!
April 1st, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Are they really that stupid? Or has it all just been posturing from the start?
April 1st, 2009 at 6:03 pm
[...] Prometheus. [...]
April 1st, 2009 at 6:06 pm
They will do what they did in Quebec. Tax the companies and then prohibit them from raising prices to compensate. The politicians will be long gone when the bill for the inadequate investment comes due.
April 1st, 2009 at 6:59 pm
A lot of us have been saying for a long time that the AGW crowd was nuts if they thought that there was a political consensus for dishing out any serious pain for the purpose of stopping “global warming”. The case simply hasn’t been made.
We’re not talking about recycling bins with the garbage or saving the cute polar bears. We’re talking about people stuggling to make ends meet having their energy costs get jacked up. Yeah, right.
No way that some projections from some global climate models and an Algore science fiction movie are going to provide an adequate predicate for serious political change.
April 1st, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Boxer apparently added her own amendment which leaves open the possibility of implementing cap and trade and using the revenues to offset the rate increases. The new language (which passed, but not by nearly as much as the Thune Amendment), would read as follows:
“without increasing electricity or gasoline prices or increasing the overall burden on consumers, through the use of revenues and policies provided in such legislation”
Now, this wouldn’t do a lot for emissions, either, but it seems more politically palatable.
April 1st, 2009 at 8:51 pm
-7-David
Thanks for this link. It doesn’t change the political dynamics.
I can already see the 2010 campaign commercials “In March 2009 Senator X voted to protect your electricity prices from increasing. But then, Senator X voted to increase them anyway . . .”
What is the defense? I voted for it before voting against it? We’ll be hearing much more about the Thune Amendment I am sure.
April 1st, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Another amendment, preventing any cap and trade legislation through reconciliation, probably made this all moot.
April 1st, 2009 at 10:02 pm
[...] LINK (No Ratings Yet) Loading … [...]
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:27 am
Mr. Bond introduced a few more:
“On page 33, line 21, after “economy,” insert “without causing significant job loss in regions of the United States vulnerable to manufacturing or energy-intensive job loss such as the coal-dependent Midwest, Great Plains and South,”.
On page 33, line 21, after “economy,” insert “without increasing fertilizer, diesel, gasoline, electricity or natural gas prices,”.
On page 33, line 21, after “economy,” insert “without increasing residential retail electricity, natural gas or home heating oil prices,”.
Do you think it’s possible that some have begun to realize exactly how long this list is?
Oh, and wouldn’t it be a very good thing if our leaders took this approach for every bill
David, at # 9, will you kindly explain what this means? I’ve tried a few Googles without success. Thanks
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:32 am
Reconciliation is a parliamentary maneuver that reduces or negates the possibility of a filibuster. It’s obscure in the sense that we aren’t Senators – it’s been tried by both parties, as the first segment of last night’s Daily Show explained.
Even if Bond’s amendments are agreed to, this is a Senate budget resolution. It’s not at all clear how much of this will survive the House and the likely conference to hash out the differences. And of course, there actually has to be a cap and trade bill. The House has appeared to take the lead there.
While Roger’s analysis of the likely election ads sounds right, without a vote on an actual cap and trade bill, votes on this resolution seem a little too esoteric to be effective for that purpose.
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:55 am
7 – David,
A cap and trade with revenues returned to the public will do nothing for capping emissions as you say. However, that structure will allow trillions of dollars to pass through the hands of the traders. Follow the money, who are the traders?
What are the chances the traders will take a commission off of the top?
8 – Roger,
Right you are. The good news is that a trillion dollar tax should be a political hot potato.
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:35 am
Maurice has nailed it.
Enron’s vision has become a reality. Too bad they are not in existence any longer to benefit. New Enron’s will take their place.
The pathetic part will be all the preening politicians and environmentalists claiming success and lecturing us on how they are saving the planet. I can hear it now. After years of inaction the US is finally doing the right thing and behaving like a responsible nation. The US is now on the path to a sustainable future, blah, blah, blah…
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:55 am
[...] of Colorado professor Roger Pielke, Jr. points out, “The entire purpose of cap and trade is in fact to increase the costs of carbon-emitting [...]
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:36 am
[...] The first was an 89-8 vote on an amendment on the Budget Resolution introduced by Senator John Thune (R-SD) that states that any climate change legislation cannot increase gasoline or electricity prices. Pretty much cuts out the heart of any proposed cap and trade system. Roger Pielke Jr. provides more insight here. [...]
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:10 am
[...] to” is putting it mildly. Roger Pielke, Jr., over at Prometheus, accurately captures the vote’s meaning: What is this? Climate change legislation cannot increase electricity or [...]
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
[...] Cross posted from Prometheus: The Science Policy Blog [...]
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
[...] The Thune Amendment (cross posted from Prometheus: The Science Policy Blog) [...]
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:46 pm
[...] of Colorado professor Roger Pielke, Jr. points out, ‘The entire purpose of cap and trade is in fact to increase the costs of carbon-emitting [...]
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:52 am
[...] right! Another win for the GOP in a little noticed senate amendment battle – and it wasn’t even close: An Amendment was [...]
April 6th, 2009 at 12:08 am
[...] Abril 6, 2009 Cuando hay que llevar el alarmismo a la práctica Posted by soil under Cambio Climático, algoreros, calentamiento global | Etiquetas: algoreros, calentamiento global, Cambio Climático | No Comments Del blog de Rogerr Pielke jr. —> [...]