• About
    • Which Energy Mix is this?
  • Climate News Network Archive
  • Contact
The climate news that makes a difference.
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
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
  FEATURED
BREAKING: Devastating Impacts, Affordable Climate Solutions Drive IPCC’s Urgent Call for Action March 20, 2023
Historic Deal Reopens B.C. Indigenous Territory to Fracking, Promises Land Restoration March 19, 2023
Repsol Abandons Plan to Ship Canadian LNG to Europe March 17, 2023
Biden Approves $8B Oil Extraction Plan in Ecologically Sensitive Alaska March 14, 2023
U.S. Solar Developers Scramble after Silicon Valley Bank Collapse March 14, 2023
Next
Prev

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 climate news you need. Subscribe now to our engaging new weekly digest.
  • You’ll receive exclusive, never-before-seen-content, distilled and delivered to your inbox every weekend.
  • The Weekender: Succinct, solutions-focused, and designed with the discerning reader in mind.
Subscribe

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

IFRC Intl. Federation:Twitter
International Agencies & Studies

BREAKING: Devastating Impacts, Affordable Climate Solutions Drive IPCC’s Urgent Call for Action

March 20, 2023
38
EcoFlight
First Peoples

Historic Deal Reopens B.C. Indigenous Territory to Fracking, Promises Land Restoration

March 19, 2023
335
U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement/flickr
Oil & Gas

Willow Oil Project in Alaska Faces Legal Challenges, Economic Doubts

March 19, 2023
79

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

@davenewworld_2

Keystone Pipeline Safety Worries Lawmakers after TC Energy Ordered to Reduce Operating Pressure

March 19, 2023
94
U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement/flickr

Willow Oil Project in Alaska Faces Legal Challenges, Economic Doubts

March 19, 2023
79
David Dodge, Green Energy Futures/flickr

U.S. Solar Developers Scramble after Silicon Valley Bank Collapse

March 14, 2023
538
EcoFlight

Historic Deal Reopens B.C. Indigenous Territory to Fracking, Promises Land Restoration

March 19, 2023
335
IFRC Intl. Federation:Twitter

BREAKING: Devastating Impacts, Affordable Climate Solutions Drive IPCC’s Urgent Call for Action

March 20, 2023
38
Environmental Defence Canada/flickr

Repsol Abandons Plan to Ship Canadian LNG to Europe

March 18, 2023
279

Recent Posts

Wikimedia Commons/Humans of Vanuatu

Six Countries Call for Fossil-Free Pacific

March 19, 2023
15
Wikipedia

Fossil Funding Makes Indigenous Resource Network a ‘Propaganda Machine’, Opponent Says

March 19, 2023
14
moerschy / Pixabay

Planetary Weight Study Shows Humans Taking Most of Earth’s Resources

March 19, 2023
10
U.S. Bureau of Land Management/flickr

Biden Approves $8B Oil Extraction Plan in Ecologically Sensitive Alaska

March 14, 2023
140
EcoAnalytics

Canadians Want Strong Emissions Cap Regulations, Not More Missed Targets

March 14, 2023
149
U.S. National Transportation Safety Board/flickr

$30.9B Price Tag Makes Trans Mountain Pipeline a ‘Catastrophic Boondoggle’

March 14, 2023
281
Next Post
Julien Harneis/Wikipedia

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

The Energy Mix - The climate news you need

Copyright 2023 © Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

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

Proudly partnering with…

scf_withtagline
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}