• About
    • Which Energy Mix is this?
  • Climate News Network Archive
  • Contact
Celebrating our 1,000th edition. The climate news you need
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
No Result
View All Result
  FEATURED
Soaring Fertilizer Prices Could Deliver ‘Silver Lining’ For Emissions, But Farmers Struggle to Limit Use June 26, 2022
BREAKING: UN Nature Summit, the ‘Paris Conference for Biodiversity’, Moves to Montreal in December June 19, 2022
‘LET’S SUE BIG OIL’: Legal Team Launches Class Action Campaign for B.C. Municipalities June 17, 2022
‘It Could Have Been Any of Us’, Colleague Says, After Brazil Confirms Murders of Bruno Pereira, Dom Phillips June 17, 2022
Infrastructure Gap a ‘Life and Death’ Matter as Northern Canada Warms June 17, 2022
Next
Prev
Home Demand & Distribution Air & Marine

Lobbying Against 2009 Waxman-Markey Bill Cost the U.S. $60 Billion in Climate Action Benefits

June 6, 2019
Reading time: 4 minutes

Minesweeper/Wikimedia Commons

Minesweeper/Wikimedia Commons

2
SHARES
 

The fossil and transportation lobby groups that successfully defeated the American Clean Energy and Security Act, put forward in 2009 by then-U.S. senator Henry Waxman (D, CA) and then-Rep. Ed Markey (D, MA), cost their country US$60 billion in net benefits, a new analysis in the journal Nature Climate Change concludes.

Environmental economists Dr. Kyle Meng of UC Santa Barbara and Dr. Ashwin Rode of the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute believe the study is “the first attempt to quantify the toll such anti-climate lobbying efforts take on society,” Carbon Brief reports. “Crucially, they found that the various fossil fuel and transport companies expecting to emerge as ‘losers’ after the bill were more effective lobbyists than those expecting gains.”

The two researchers reported “overwhelming evidence” that the social benefits of what came to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill would have outweighed the mounting costs of inaction, from reduced farm yields to lower GDP. Their findings “support the conclusion that lobbying is partly responsible for the scarcity of climate regulations being enacted around the world,” Carbon Brief notes.

“Our bottom line is: climate policy emerges from a political process,” Meng and Rode told the UK-based publication. “We’ve shown that this political process can undermine the chances of passing climate policy. But we’ve also shown that careful design of climate policy can help make it more politically robust to opposition.”

The Waxman-Markey bill, adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives in 2009 before it died in Senate in 2010, was the farthest-reaching climate legislation the country had seen to that date, calling for greenhouse gas reductions of 17% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 from a 2005 baseline. Its key features included a carbon cap-and-trade system, a renewable energy standard, more robust energy efficiency efforts, and grid modernization.

“The bill was the culmination of several attempts stretching back to 2003 to pass cap-and-trade legislation limiting the U.S. economy’s emissions,” Carbon Brief recalls. “As none of these efforts was successful, President Barack Obama instead relied on the executive powers of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to tackle greenhouse gas emissions, specifically its power to regulate ‘any pollutant’ that ‘endangers public health or welfare’.” To this day, the U.S. has state-level carbon pricing systems in jurisdictions like California, but no national plan.

And that was no accident. Media reports a decade ago showed lobbyists hindering the bill’s progress, but the coverage scarcely revealed the scale of the effort or its impact on the bill’s eventual fate, the two economists found.

“According to them, lobbying often goes unrecorded and, even when it is, it can prove difficult to quantify which groups stand to gain and lose—and to what extent,” Carbon Brief writes. But a comprehensive review of federal records for the era showed Waxman-Markey accounting for 14% of all recorded lobbying expenditures at the time—a record for any policy introduced between 2000 and 2016.

In a separate study published last year, Drexel University’s Dr. Robert Brulle found that lobbying expenditures by fossils, utilities, and transport companies “dwarfed” the efforts of environmental groups and renewable energy companies. The latest study points to equipment supplier General Electric and California utility giant Pacific Gas & Electric as major voices that stood to gain from the bill.

Meng and Rode took an innovative approach to objectively identifying winners and losers in Waxman-Markey, combining results of a “prediction market” tied to the bill with the stock prices of the publicly-traded firms involved in the lobbying battle. “This allowed the researchers to bypass both their own preconceptions, as well as any statements made by the firms themselves which, as the pair point out, may not be reliable,” Carbon Brief explains. In the end, they discovered statistically significant relationship between a company’s lobbying budget and the bill’s expected impact on its stock value.

The modelling also “revealed that oppositional lobbying—that is to say activities by companies that stood to lose out—was the most effective. This implies the input of ‘loser’ firms, which include Boeing, Marathon Oil, Walmart, and Ford, had more influence than ‘winners’, despite spending comparable sums on lobbying. From this conclusion, the researchers estimated that the sum of all lobbying decreased the probability of the bill being enacted by 13%.”

The economists translated that finding into social costs based on prior research showing that the failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through Waxman-Markey cost the U.S. a mind-boggling $467 billion—13% of which they attributed to the lobby effort.

“A large body of research has demonstrated the costs of unmitigated climate change in myriad contexts, including decreased agricultural yields, increased conflict, increased mortality and morbidity, decreased labour supply, and lower gross domestic product,” they wrote. “Failure to enact Waxman-Markey is expected to have had adverse consequence in all these areas by allowing for higher greenhouse gas emissions, and thus higher climate damages.”



in Air & Marine, Auto & Alternative Vehicles, Carbon Levels & Measurement, Community Climate Finance, Energy Politics, Oil & Gas, United States

The latest climate news and analysis, direct to your inbox

Subscribe

Related Posts

David/flickr
United States

U.S. Supreme Court Expected to Gut Emission Controls as Climate Scientists Petition for Plan B

June 26, 2022
580
Graco/Facebook
Food Security

Soaring Fertilizer Prices Could Deliver ‘Silver Lining’ For Emissions, But Farmers Struggle to Limit Use

June 27, 2022
116
Gustavo Petro Urrego/flickr
Forests & Deforestation

Colombia’s President-Elect Has ‘Ambitious’ Plans to Halt Amazon Deforestation

June 26, 2022
67

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Trending Stories

David/flickr

U.S. Supreme Court Expected to Gut Emission Controls as Climate Scientists Petition for Plan B

June 26, 2022
580
Graco/Facebook

Soaring Fertilizer Prices Could Deliver ‘Silver Lining’ For Emissions, But Farmers Struggle to Limit Use

June 27, 2022
116
Konrad Summers/Kern West Oil Museum via Wikimedia Commons

Imperial Oil Backs Lithium Recovery Project in Alberta’s Leduc Oilfield

June 26, 2022
97
pxhere

Environmental Racism Bill Passes Second Reading in House of Commons

June 26, 2022
79
stockvault

Animal Agriculture Could Reduce Future Pandemic Risk, UK Researchers Say

June 26, 2022
73
Gustavo Petro Urrego/flickr

Colombia’s President-Elect Has ‘Ambitious’ Plans to Halt Amazon Deforestation

June 26, 2022
67

Recent Posts

Adam E. Moreira/wikimedia commons

Suspend Transit Fares, Not Gas Tax, Climate Advocates Urge Biden

June 26, 2022
55
moerschy / Pixabay

Pandemic Drives Up Support for Climate Action, Pessimism About Elected Leaders

June 26, 2022
27
hellomike/flickr

No Public Input as Canada Finalizes Climate Plan for Airlines

June 27, 2022
37
Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung Southeast Asia/wikimedia commons

Japan, Korea Sell Vietnam on Gas Amid Crackdown on Climate Activists

June 26, 2022
22
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Barrow_Offshore_Wind_Farm

Global Offshore Wind Pipeline Doubles to 846 Gigawatts

June 26, 2022
38
TAFE SA TONSLEY/Flickr

U.S. Renewables Industries Scramble to Reuse, Recycle Before Waste Volumes Skyrocket

June 26, 2022
63
Next Post
Julien Harneis/Wikipedia

‘Conflicts Are Predestined’ Where Climate Disasters Threaten Food, Water, Livelihoods

The Energy Mix

Copyright 2022 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Navigate Site

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy and Copyright
  • Cookie Policy

Follow Us

No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities

Copyright 2022 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}