Parsing the State of the Union

President Obama’s remarks on climate change on Tuesday were a mix of specificity and vagueness. It seems no two climate wonks interpret his State of the Union the same, leading to more questions than answers.

The President linked specific trends—including high temperatures over the past 15 years and increased frequencies and intensities of heat waves, droughts, wildfires and floods—to climate change, marking a change from his previous speeches that reflects his increasing willingness to emphasize climate dangers without masking his message in energy independence or job creation. This must please climate advocates.

 

Obama SOTU

 

Mr. Obama was vague when it came to climate policy. True, he did propose specific energy policies—like the Energy Trust—but did not clarify his strategy to regulate carbon. Here is what he said:

“I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.”

The confusion mostly lies in what “executive action” means. Does it mean the much anticipated EPA standards for existing power plants? If yes, this is a threat that wonks are well aware of; During the Waxman-Markey debates the message to opponents was: “pass a bill that prices carbon or the EPA will regulate it.” If you thought this threat was already explicit, you might think that repeating it buys the EPA more time to issue regulations.  If you think that threat was not yet explicit until Tuesday night, then Mr. Obama’s speech formalized it and outlined a game plan that you might huddle around.

But, what if “executive action” means something other than EPA regulations? There is a list of potential executive actions, but many (if not all of them) do not seem to hold the emissions reduction potential and political power that the EPA regulations do. This is the approach that at least one wonk thinks the administration is taking: small steps for now with no (or very little) effort toward the more important EPA regulations. For the President to actually expect any of these other executive actions to inspire a carbon pricing bill requires making a mountain out of a molehill.

You might see Mr. Obama’s reference to the McCain-Lieberman cap and trade bill as more a nod to general climate bipartisanship than explicit support of market based mechanisms. An alternative read on this reference is that Mr. Obama mentioned markets to leave the door open for carbon pricing to enter into tax reform discussions.

Proponents of this approach face a steep climb up the President’s agenda, competing with immigration and gun control for his political capital.  But if policymakers do get to this point they will face a difficult question. A likely prerequisite for a majority vote would be an exemption from the EPA regulations that have been held over opponents’ heads; the difficult question facing proponents of climate legislation is: what kind of carbon pricing bill is worth trading away EPA regulations?


 

About Clayton Munnings

Clayton Munnings is a research associate at Resources for the Future.

About Peter Nelson

Pete Nelson is Resources for the Future's Communications Director and co-managing editor of Common Resources. Pete has over twenty years' experience writing about and researching environmental and natural resource policy issues. He was a founder of the environmental news service Greenwire and served as its first editor-in-chief. More recently, he served as Communications Director for the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Disaster and Offshore Drilling created by President Obama after the 2010 Gulf oil spill.

Views expressed above are those of the author. Resources for the Future does not take institutional positions on legislative or policy questions. All information contained on Common Resources is intended for informational and educational purposes and may only be used for these purposes. Please see RFF's Terms of Use for further information.

Comments
One Response to “Parsing the State of the Union”
  1. Great question, Pete/Clayton. Watch for an RFF paper soon that tries to answer it – or at least explain the key factors in a good answer.

Leave A Comment