Today was supposed to be the release of the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman climate and energy bill ("KGL"), the Senate's climate and energy bill to follow the House's passage of its own bill nearly 10 months ago. Although there has been much drama and speculation regarding whether the Senate would bring forward a bill, and if so in what structure, the message from a broad spectrum of business leaders has remained unwavering and strong: for America's economic interests, it is time to pass a climate and energy bill. It is long past time. (See my two immediate past blogs for more on this).
On Friday we learned that Senator Graham would not move forward on releasing the climate bill, frustrated by signals that Democratic leadership may pursue immigration before climate. As Senators Kerry and Lieberman work with Senator Graham to get the bill back on track, American businesses are speaking out again, even more forcefully. Today, the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (including members Alcoa, Ford Motor, Exelon, Duke Energy) called for the bill to "unleash billions in energy investments or remain mired in the economic status quo." (See Roll Call piece: http://www.rollcall.com/news/45543-1.html.)
What adds to many business leaders' frustration with the delay is how close the Senate vote, and the ultimate vote in both houses on the final legislation, are expected to be. Why should it be so close, when it is good for both politics, and for the substance of what this country needs? On politics, we have seen that Americans want clean energy, they believe that the clean economy is critical to our economic recovery, energy security, and global economic competitiveness. The polls show that the majority of Americans support accountability for polluters and strongly support clean energy (even on a battleground state by battleground state basis). In fact, Republican Pollster Frank Luntz says this can be a political winner for Democrats in 2010. (See the GRIST Magazine piece on Luntz's research here: http://www.grist.org/article/2010-01-25-messaging-that-can-save-the-clea...).
Beyond politics, substantively this lack of action is hurting America. China is reportedly investing $9 billion per month in its clean energy economy, and although America is investing an unprecedented close to $80 billion through the recovery (stimulus) act, when those dollars are done, we will be back to a paltry $8 billion per YEAR that DOE spends. So what happens when the recovery act dollars go away, and our competitors give clear market signals through policies and regulations (such as China's 5 year plan), and continue to invest dramatically more than we do in these markets? America will not attract the private investment in the clean economy. Those competitors will. We hear this again and again from a wide ranging suite of investors; the Danish pension funds recently launched a 1 billion Euro fund for China's clean economy, not America's - noting they needed clear rules and couldn't wait for America to get those put in place, and venture capitalists have voiced their concerns often, even in Washington.
Business leaders continue to send Washington the message: if you want recovery, growth from a sector actually creating jobs, then we need this legislation; America installed more windpower last year than any other energy source - a $240 million windpower project in South Dakota went up in 4 months!. We Can Lead (www.wecanlead.org) is one of the diverse business coalitions pushing for action, and this past Friday, just as the plans for the Senate bill's release began to unravel, a panel representing that diversity spoke on Capitol Hill about what the clean economy needs post-stimulus, and the message was: we need a price on carbon and comprehensive energy and climate legislation to accelerate the job creation and competitiveness that this sector can deliver. (See the New America Foundation's video of the panel: http://www.newamerica.net/events/2010/stimulus_clean_tech - full disclosure, I am on it).
Also on the panel was Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA), perhaps the Member most at the heart of this debate about whether action on climate and clean energy is good politics. His district is conservative and he is under attack by Republicans who think he's vulnerable without a big Obama presidential vote turnout like he had on his election in 08. But the farmers and others there have started to see the economic benefits of the clean economy, and this this leader will not be frightened from doing what is right for his district and right for the country. (US News and World Report wrote a fantastic article on Rep. Perriello and the local nature of energy and climate politics: http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/energy/2010/04/19/climate-change-war... - I had a few things to say in it too).
Join me in learning more about Tom Perriello, and in supporting him and leaders like him, and let's hope that others will step forward to lead in an arena that is critical to America's present and future prosperity, security, and quality of life, and is good politics to boot.