Speaker 1: The reviews are in of the Democratic Party's first attempt
Speaker 1: this Congress to solve climate change. Those reviews more about
Speaker 1: Congress and climate change this week on Parts per Billion.
Speaker 1: Greetings and welcome back to Parts per Billion, Bloomberg Environment's
Speaker 1: policy podcast. I'm your host, David Schultz. Big problems require
Speaker 1: big solutions, as they say, and climate change is about
Speaker 1: as big a problem as they come. Democrats in the
Speaker 1: House of Representatives came forward last week with their first
Speaker 1: attempt to solve climate change since they took control in
Speaker 1: last year's elections, and some people, including some very prominent Democrats,
Speaker 1: are a little underwhelmed. To find out more about what
Speaker 1: is or isn't going on, we went to Capitol Hill
Speaker 1: to chat with Tiffany Stecker, a reporter who covers Congress
Speaker 1: for a Bloomberg Environment, and let's head over there right
Speaker 1: now and hear from Tiffany. We are here in the
Speaker 1: Speaker's lobby. We're right outside of the House Chamber. This
Speaker 1: is where there was a big vote here recently on
Speaker 1: a climate change bill. This was HR nine. What did
Speaker 1: this bill do? This bill passed the House right, Yes,
Speaker 1: it did pass the House passed overwhelmingly on the democratics side.
Speaker 1: I believe all Democrats that were present voted for the bill.
Speaker 1: Three Republicans voted for the bill, which was pretty interesting. Well,
Speaker 1: what would it do if it actually makes it to
Speaker 1: the President's desk and if he signs it, which that's
Speaker 1: another story in and of itself, which will get to
Speaker 1: very soon. But what would this bill Hr nine do?
Speaker 1: So this bill essentially blocks the Trump administration from withdrawing
Speaker 1: from the Paris Climate Agreement. This agreement was decided on
Speaker 1: in late twenty fifteen, actually adopted by the Obama administration
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen. It would have set non binding targets. So
Speaker 1: this is a voluntary agreement for the US to use
Speaker 1: their emissions by at least twenty six percent by twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five. And you know, so for this bill to
Speaker 1: become a law, of course, as we all know from
Speaker 1: you know, Schoolhouse Rock, it has to go to the
Speaker 1: White House and be signed by the president. So the
Speaker 1: president would have to sign a bill that would prevent
Speaker 1: him from doing something that he wants to do. So
Speaker 1: I don't see that happening for this president or really
Speaker 1: any other president, you know. So this what's going on
Speaker 1: with this bill? Why did they pass this. So this
Speaker 1: this bill is pretty significant because it is the first
Speaker 1: major climate bill in a decade, and the last time
Speaker 1: a big climate piece of legislation passed was in two
Speaker 1: thousand and nine, was the Waxman Marquee Bill that would
Speaker 1: have set a cap and trade system for the US.
Speaker 1: After that, the Republicans held control of the House, their
Speaker 1: climate change was not a priority for them, and so
Speaker 1: we didn't see these kind of big packages. So HR
Speaker 1: nine was introduced by Congresswoman Kathi Casters. She's the chair
Speaker 1: woman of the Select House Committee on the Climate Crisis.
Speaker 1: She's from Florida, right, She is from Florida, and she
Speaker 1: often talks about how she's been personally affected by climate
Speaker 1: change because of the extreme weather that we often see
Speaker 1: in Florida that is set to increase the risk of
Speaker 1: extreme weather is expected to be to increase with climate change.
Speaker 1: And she's even said, I mean, according to your reporting,
Speaker 1: that this bill is symbolic. She knows this is not
Speaker 1: going to become law, right, I mean, there's no companion
Speaker 1: in the Senate. For one, there's a Republican majority in
Speaker 1: the Senate that does not Mitch McConnell, who's the majority
Speaker 1: leader there is not interested in taking up this bill.
Speaker 1: So you know, you mentioned that this bill, you know,
Speaker 1: had support from a lot of Democrats, basically every Democrat.
Speaker 1: But I get the sense there were some who voted
Speaker 1: for it. You know, maybe they weren't too enthusiastic about voting. Yes,
Speaker 1: you know, there were some who felt it didn't go
Speaker 1: far enough. Can you talk about that. There have been
Speaker 1: some Democrats who say that if you're going to take
Speaker 1: this moment and introduce a big climate bill, the first
Speaker 1: one in a decade, make it something big and symbolic
Speaker 1: and aggressive, you know, set a target, do something that
Speaker 1: is actually going to reduce carbon emissions, rather than force
Speaker 1: the administration to do something they have no intention of doing.
Speaker 1: Almost something like FDR's New Deal, but for the environment.
Speaker 1: But maybe we could call it a Green New Deal, right,
Speaker 1: that's a great name for it. Just came up with it, David. Actually,
Speaker 1: a Green New Deal, as our listeners may know, is
Speaker 1: a resolution that was introduced in the House by a
Speaker 1: Congresswoman Alexandro Caso Cortes and in the Senate by Senator
Speaker 1: and Marque. It's as an aggressive path to reduce fossil
Speaker 1: fuel emissions in the next decade. As you know, there
Speaker 1: was a big IPCC report last fall that said we
Speaker 1: basically had twelve years to reduce our carbon emissions drastically.
Speaker 1: And that's the group out of the UN that studies
Speaker 1: climate change. They've been issuing sort of really more dire research,
Speaker 1: it seems like every year, saying, you know, it's even
Speaker 1: worse than we thought. It's worse than we thought. That's right.
Speaker 1: And this last one last fall was really really a
Speaker 1: shocker for a lot of people because ten years, twelve
Speaker 1: years is not a very long time, and there's a
Speaker 1: long way for not just the US but the world
Speaker 1: to go if they want to keep warming under control. Okay,
Speaker 1: so we've got let's sort of lay out the political
Speaker 1: stakes here on both sides of the rotunda. As they say,
Speaker 1: Democrats in the House are divided. We have Democrats like
Speaker 1: Alexandria Cassio Cortez pushing the Green New Deal, very aggressive package.
Speaker 1: You have more establishment democrats like Kathy Caster saying, you know,
Speaker 1: let's sort of take one step at a time and
Speaker 1: maybe you start with a symbolic package. Republicans are in
Speaker 1: control of the Senate. This is not a priority for them.
Speaker 1: The White House is controlled by Republicans not a priority
Speaker 1: for them. What's next? Where do we go from here?
Speaker 1: Will there be more bills in the House that deal
Speaker 1: with climate change or is this issue just going to
Speaker 1: sort of fade away from the headlines for the next
Speaker 1: year or two. So Republicans historically have not made climate
Speaker 1: change a priority, but I think they're realizing now that
Speaker 1: the public is concerned about this issue and they're coming
Speaker 1: up with their own proposals that would be more in
Speaker 1: line with their beliefs as Republicans. So taking advantage of
Speaker 1: markets promoting certain technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear
Speaker 1: energy is a pretty divisive issue, but it is zero carbon,
Speaker 1: that's right. In fact, we actually loyal listeners of Parts
Speaker 1: Pervillion will remember on the previous episode we talked with
Speaker 1: Abby Smith about how Republicans actually are kind of into
Speaker 1: carbon capture, the technology for sucking carbon dioxide out of
Speaker 1: the air. The Senator John Barrosso is a big fan
Speaker 1: of carbon capture. So it sounds like that sort of
Speaker 1: Bolster's what you said, that Republicans may be changing their tune.
Speaker 1: I guess well, yes, Republicans are stepping up to the
Speaker 1: plate and actually saying climate change is happening, and we
Speaker 1: knew we need to do something about it, which is
Speaker 1: a huge step from what they were doing ten years ago,
Speaker 1: or mean one year ago or even one year ago.
Speaker 1: So they are coming up with these proposals. They center
Speaker 1: on nuclear energy, carbon capturing storage. They are also promoting
Speaker 1: natural gas, of course, which is a fossil fuel, but
Speaker 1: it can burn with much fewer emissions than coal or oil.
Speaker 1: So there, I think the to answer your question on
Speaker 1: what the path forward is, I think there eventually will
Speaker 1: have to be some kind of middle ground sought. Finally,
Speaker 1: the last thing I wanted to ask you about is
Speaker 1: next year. You know, we have an election year and
Speaker 1: it kind of pushes both ways, and that sometimes lawmakers
Speaker 1: are very hesitant to to touch anything controversial an election year.
Speaker 1: They want to stay on safe topics. But in the
Speaker 1: other sense, they also want to be able to go
Speaker 1: back to their districts when they're running for reelection and
Speaker 1: say I accomplished this, I did that, I'm you know,
Speaker 1: and that maybe makes them more eager to cut some deals.
Speaker 1: What do you think will happen on climate specifically next year?
Speaker 1: Do you think they'll be more eager to come to
Speaker 1: the table or less. Well, it's interesting to compare the
Speaker 1: race so far for twenty twenty to twenty sixteen, and
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen you had debates where there were zero questions
Speaker 1: on energy and climate change. Now it's among the first
Speaker 1: questions asked to candidates. We have at least two candidates
Speaker 1: so far that have proposed plans on how to reduce
Speaker 1: s greenhouse gas emissions. I think that it is going
Speaker 1: to come up a lot more because people are realizing
Speaker 1: that this is something they need to address. Is it
Speaker 1: going to be the number one issue? I don't know.
Speaker 1: Healthcare is still huge. We still have a lot a
Speaker 1: lot of issues that are daily reminder to people, taxes, healthcare,
Speaker 1: those kinds of things. But climate change is definitely going
Speaker 1: up there. So we're gonna hear a lot more about that.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty, that was Bloomberg Environment Tiffany Stecker talking
Speaker 1: about Democrats' plans to address global climate change. You can
Speaker 1: find more for reporting at our website Newstop Bloomberg Environment
Speaker 1: dot com, and if you want to chat with us
Speaker 1: on social media, use the hashtag parts per B. That hashtag,
Speaker 1: once again is parts per B. Today's episode of Parts
Speaker 1: Pavilion was produced by myself along with Marissa Horne and
Speaker 1: Jessica Combs. Nicholas Zelada is our audio engineer. The music
Speaker 1: for this episode is a message by Jazarre. It was
Speaker 1: used under Creative Commons license. Thank you for listening. Hey
Speaker 1: Tom Allington, I'm the host of a new show from
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Environment called The Business of Bees. Here's what you
Speaker 1: need to know about it. We travel around the country
Speaker 1: talking to people at every corner of the honeybee ecosystem.
Speaker 1: This is the largest managed pollination event on Earth. In fact,
Speaker 1: commercial beekeeping is more important to farming than ever before.
Speaker 1: But bees are also under threat from pesticides and invasive
Speaker 1: pests and mysterious diseases. It's sort of like Christmas when
Speaker 1: you go to the hive in December and you open
Speaker 1: the lid, you just hope somebody's home. If you're interested
Speaker 1: in bees too, I think you might like the show.
Speaker 1: Look for us wherever you get your podcasts.