Energy czar: Businesses need signal on pollutants

The Obama administration is pushing for a "comprehensive" energy and climate bill because it will provide the economic foundation to spur investment in clean-energy technologies, said Carol Browner, the president's assistant on energy and climate.

Browner, the former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, was interviewed on Friday along with other business and political leaders at the Atlantic's First Draft of History conference at the Newseum in Washington, D.C. The interview was streamed live online.

Carol Browner, assistant to the president on energy and climate change, speaking at MIT earlier this year.

(Credit: Martin LaMonica/CNET)

She argued that U.S. businesses will invest more in clean-energy technologies once Congress passes a law with incentives for renewable energy and efficiency as well as a cap-and-trade system that limits heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

"The point is we have to get started, we have to send a signal to the marketplace that we are going to be dealing with these (greenhouse gas) emissions in a different way," she said.

The House narrowly passed an energy and climate bill in May. The Senate earlier this week introduced its own version although passage of any combined bill is not expected before the end of this year. The timing is significant in international negotiations because the Copenhagen round of international climate negotiations will start in December this year.

A number of large companies and green technology start-ups continue to urge lawmakers to set up regulations that put a price on carbon emissions, with many business people preferring a cap-and-trade system. With a cap-and-trade, large polluters such as utilities can buy and sell permits to emit carbon to stay under a government-set cap, a system already used to reduce other air pollutants.

Passage of the bill in the Senate is far from certain with 60 votes needed. Earlier this week, the Environmental Protection Agency went ahead with a program to see how carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from stationary sources, such as power plants and factories, would be regulated under the Clean Air Act. But that is not the route that the Obama administration prefers, Browner said.

"We want to tools so we can work with the business community to reduce these pollutants," Browner said. "Every time we've implemented environmental clean-air regulations, we've gotten solutions more quickly and at dramatically less cost than anticipated."

She said that a "piecemeal" approach to regulations will not create the certainty that businesses need to make investments in clean-energy technologies because the regulations create demand.

The process around the passage of Waxman-Markey worked because lawmakers addressed regional and competitive issues posed by a cap on carbon emissions. For example, special programs to address high-polluting industries and incentives for regions that rely heavily on coal were set up.

Some lawmakers are drawn to clean-energy technology policies out of concern that China will "best" the U.S. economically, she added.

In response to a question, she said that nuclear power has to be part of the U.S. energy future. "You can't rule out clean sources of fuel," she said. Energy storage, particularly for solar and wind, and smart appliances that lower household electricity usage are some of the most active areas of technology development, she said.

[LB-ID]

Cap and trade is one of the single biggest scams of all time, and amounts to many thousands of dollars in extra taxes paid by the US consumer every year. Members of the House are already facing the loss of their seats next election for voting to pass their version, I can't see senators doing the same. If they're sensitive to anything, it's to their chances for re-election.

[iptofar]

If it is really green it should actually be cheaper since less energy is used in it's production and it should NOT require subsidies or a false market.. This is the problem when truly useless people get power.

Should an english major with a degree in law really be in charge of these things?????

[smrterthnu]

Stop with all the taxing under disguise of something righteous. Just call it what it is, a huge business tax to force the creation a new industry that most law makers are invested in. Every person in America gets screwed except the green energy companies and the politicians.

[darkebinary]

I don't understand why anyone supports this. Even the most "green" people need to oppose crazy tax schemes like this. If they're really passionate about green technologies they would put an Engineer or Scientist in charge, not some teacher/lawyer with a political agenda. All lawyers know how to do is steal money from individuals and tax payers that typically ends up in some fat cat?s pockets. The power companies won?t pay a dime if this is put in place. It will be passed onto the consumer who is already cash strapped. I guess they figure if we?re all homeless we won?t need to use any power.

[rmullen0]

The previous 4 posts are probably the same right winger just under different names. It's a waste of time reading the inane comments that are constantly posted on this site. The flat earthers lost last election. It's time for change.

[Lerianis3]

Sorry, bit I am not that 'same right winger' (in fact, I usually lean LEFT) and I agree with him totally. Cap and trade is simply a ******** thing. As he said, if the 'green' industry wants to compete with fossil fuels, they should be able to do it on a LEVEL PLAYING FIELD with no subsidies, through taxes or otherwise, necessary.
He is also right hat we should stop taxing in order to force people to do something 'righteous' and realize that the best way to get people to do that is to make it apparent to them without easily debunked lies and fabrications that it is for their benefit. Right now, the green industry cannot do it because it is NOT in their best interest and benefit.
He is also right that if they wanted to get green technologies, they would put engineers or scientists in charge, NOT teachers/lawyers with an enviroloonie lean to them, who are going to be HONEST about whether it is actually feasible (consensus right now with those two groups outside of the enviroloonie circles is that it is NOT possible with our current tech).
He is also right that this will come out of the pocket of the poor and middle class who are ALREADY cash strapped in this depression we are having right now.

I've look at these people who are for 'green technologies' and I have to SHUDDER everytime I think of them, because I see that they are radical environmentalists and human-haters would would honestly be happier if 90% of the humans on this planet suddenly kicked the bucket and would only be satisfied if we went back to a pre-1800's style of living.

[rmullen0]

Want a level playing field? Get rid fo the subsidies for oil companies. Go back to your job drilling for oil shill.

[HeavyJim]

by rmullen0 October 2, 2009 3:16 PM PDT
The previous 4 posts are probably the same right winger just under different names.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Must be a sad, bitter life realizing your views are not the same and being forced on others.