Greenpeace says no to energy bill

Offering the first evidence of the complex Senate debate that lies ahead on an energy reform bill, the environmental group Greenpeace said Friday it intends to oppose the legislation that a bipartisan group of Senators intend to introduce next week.

“Although we appreciate the Senate’s efforts to reduce global warming pollution, it’s clear that polluter lobbyists have succeeded in hijacking this climate policy initiative and undermined the ambitious action necessary,” Phil Radford, the group’s executive director, said in a statement.

Among Greenpeace’s chief objections are the measure’s “inadequate emission” reduction goals, a provision that strips authority from the Environmental Protection Agency, and the billions set aside for the coal and nuclear industries for research and expansion.

“We call on the president to push leaders in Congress to get back to work and produce a climate bill that presents a clear road map for significantly reducing greenhouse emissions,” he added.

Greenpeace’s pre-emptive move surprised some in the environmental community for its timing but not its final judgment. Greenpeace was among a handful of major environmental groups that didn’t participate in the discussions that have gone on as the bill was being drafted.

Contacted on Friday, leaders of other green groups said they would wait to make their assessment of the legislation until after it is unveiled.

“We are not going to make any decisions on our views of the bill and our support until we see the details of it. There are a lot of moving pieces still and those pieces are really important to us,” said Josh Dorner, a spokesman for the Sierra Club.

That’s not to say, however, that other environmentalists don’t share Radford’s concerns and could wind up opposing the legislation.

Greenpeace based its analysis of the legislation on information received during a Thursday teleconference with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), one of the bill sponsors. On that call, Kerry outlined specific language that will be in the bill that was drafted along with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)

Kerry’s office declined to comment on Greenpeace’s announcement or its characterization of the contents of the legislation.

According to Greenpeace, the legislation aims to cut emissions by 4 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 – a standard it said falls woefully short of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recommendation that developed nations adopt policies that would reduce 1990 emission levels by 25 to 40 percent by 2020 to avoid the worst affects of global warming, and by more than 85 percent by 2050.

“With this weak start, it is clear that achieving the needed reductions would be impossible,” Radford said.

While Radford’s assessment of the bill’s targets in regards to 1990 emissions are accurate, the White House and the Senate are using a different benchmark – 2005 emission levels – to establish their goals.

Under that scenario, the legislation would cut emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels in the next decade – a standard that is aligned with the goal President Barack Obama set at last year’s international climate change meeting in Copenhagen.

Greenpeace also objects to language in the bill that strips the EPA of its authority to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act and pre-empts the ability of states to impose tougher standards.

The provision is among the most worrisome for environmental groups. If, when the bill is unveiled, the language is sweeping, it could prompt a stampede away from it.

“From what we’ve heard, we do expect that we will be opposing the bill. The biggest concern is that we have heard it will roll back key provisions of the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s authority to regulate it. But we will wait until we see what come out,” said Scott Baumgartner, an offcial with Friends of the Earth.

Key details that will be tracked by the environmental community include whether the EPA will retain some of its existing authority to regulate emissions, whether it will pre-empt California’s ability to enforce its tougher tailpipe emission standards, and whether it will eviscerate state-led cap-and-trade programs that are already operating in the Northeast and on the West Coast.

Finally, Radford was repelled by the cash windfall intended for such dirty industries as coal and Big Oil and for the nuclear industry.

“This includes billions for ‘clean coal’ technology development, as well as free permits for heavy emitters like manufacturers, oil refiners, and merchant coal generators,” Radford said.