04 Jan 2011: Interview

A Veteran of the Climate Wars
Reflects On U.S. Failure to Act

One of the many casualties of the recent U.S. elections was Congressman Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat who played a key role in passage of cap-and-trade legislation by the House of Representatives. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, Boucher discusses the bitter failure of the Senate to pass a climate bill and future prospects for tackling global warming.

by louis peck

For those concerned about climate change, June 2009 was a heady time, with the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passing a bill that put a price and a cap on carbon emissions. Few congressmen were more instrumental in the bill’s passage than Rick Boucher, a moderate Democrat from southwestern Virginia’s coal-producing region who incorporated several key compromises that attracted the support of leading utility companies and several other coal-state legislators. Thanks, in part, to Boucher, the bill passed the house, 219 to 212.

That vote was a high water mark for U.S. climate change action; afterwards, President Obama expended his political capital on health care legislation, and the Senate ultimately failed to pass the climate bill approved by the House. That failure would come back to haunt Boucher and 31 other Democrats, whose support of cap-and-trade legislation would be used as a bludgeon against them by their successful Republican opponents last November.

Rick Boucher
U.S. House of Representatives
Rick Boucher
In an interview with Yale Environment 360, Boucher, who stepped down this week after 28 years in Congress, talks about the role his support of climate legislation played in his failed re-election campaign. His opponent, Morgan Griffith — whose campaign declared that “Boucher Betrayed Coal” — contends that the incumbent’s embrace of the climate bill was the primary factor in his defeat. But Boucher maintains his support of the legislation was not as important as the strong anti-Democratic wave that washed over his district and the country.

Speaking with Washington, D.C.-based journalist Louis Peck, Boucher also discussed why the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cannot do as good a job of regulating greenhouse gas emissions as Congress and outlined limited bipartisan steps that the new, 112th Congress may take to reduce CO2 emissions.

Yale Environment 360: During this fall’s campaign, your Republican opponent made your support of climate change legislation a centerpiece of his attacks on you, and one of several so-called independent expenditure groups opposed to your candidacy plastered the district with signs declaring, “Boucher Betrayed Coal.” In view of such factors, how much of a role do you feel the cap-and-trade bill played in your defeat?

Rick Boucher: Well, it was a factor, but it wasn’t decisive. The fact is that most of the advertising [against me] was based on the general dislike on the part of the public of the Democratic agenda, broadly speaking — and most of the advertising simply tied me to the president and to the Speaker of the House. And the key message was, if you don’t like a Democratic agenda that is promoted by these individuals, then vote against Rick Boucher.

And about $3 million in outside expenditures on television simply blanketed the airwaves with that negative message, targeting me from Labor Day on. Three million dollars in a very inexpensive media market like my region goes as far as about six times that amount of money would go in the Washington, D.C. area. You literally could not turn on the television from Labor Day through the election without seeing several attack ads within a very short time, all targeting me with that same core message. So the cap-and-trade issue was part of that, but it certainly wasn’t the largest part by any means.

The key problem was that, with respect to cap-and-trade, I had to spend the better part of two months in an intense series of negotiations to modify the original draft by [House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman] Henry Waxman so as to make it acceptable for the coal-fired utilities. I was able to achieve that by providing free allowances, as opposed to having the
The message was ‘Rick Betrayed Coal.’ It was an easy charge to make, a more difficult charge to rebut.”
allowances be auctioned, and by providing 2 billion tons of offsets on an annual basis throughout the life of the program – so that coal-fired utilities could simply pay others to reduce emissions, by planting trees for example, and take full credit for those emission reductions. And that will be the principal strategy that utilities use in order to meet the reduction requirements with which they have to comply if cap-and-trade legislation is ever adopted. We assured that ability in the House bill. Now, as part of the negotiation process, once your amendments are accepted, in return you support the legislation – which is of course what I did.

e360: Can you briefly outline some of the other changes you sought and achieved?

Boucher: The third thing that I did was to provide the funding that is necessary to develop and then deploy carbon capture-and-sequestration (CCS) technologies. It was about $10 billion in assured funding for CCS development over a 10-year period, and then it was up to $150 billion in emission allowance values in-kind to the utilities that decided to deploy CCS. So that would assure not only that it was developed, but also deployed.

Those were the major categories. And that drew to the bill the support of the coal-fired utilities. The Edison Electric Institute [the major trade association for the electric utility industry] supported the bill; American Electric Power, the largest coal-fired utility in the nation, endorsed the legislation, as did Duke Energy, which is the third-largest coal user in the nation. And that was because of the changes I was able to negotiate into the measure. The largest coal mine in my congressional district is operated by Consol, based in Pittsburgh. And Consol endorsed my campaign, and assisted me by hosting fundraisers and doing other things. But, in the end, the message was “Rick Betrayed Coal.” It was an easy charge to make; it was a more difficult charge to rebut.

It’s very difficult to explain a four-step process that led me to the results — the fact that, if Congress did not act, EPA would regulate, and, if so, with imperfect tools in a way that would harm the coal industry and harm the electric utilities. Therefore, to overcome EPA taking those steps, we needed to pass legislation. It was not possible to obtain the votes to override EPA authority entirely, and so we needed to negotiate an achievable set of provisions to protect coal and coal-fired utilities. And that’s precisely what we did in the House bill. That’s a four-step process, and it’s very difficult to explain that in the dynamics of a political campaign. It’s a one-step process to accuse me of betraying coal, but it’s a four-step process to explain that what I did was in coal’s interest.

e360: As you know, there have been complaints from some of your House colleagues that Speaker Nancy Pelosi pushed the House in the middle of 2009 to vote on the cap-and-trade issue without any guarantees that the Senate would act. The Senate never acted, with the end result being that a lot of House members were exposed politically for casting a difficult vote, with ultimately no law in place to show for it. Is this a fair complaint?

Boucher: No, it’s not. The House went first because we were ready to go first. During the two years [2007-2008] that I chaired the House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, we had 28 days of hearings on the subject of climate change. In partnership with [then-House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman] John Dingell, I drafted climate change legislation.
I think it was a significant shortcoming that the Senate did not take this measure up.”
We published our discussion draft in the fall of 2008, for public comment. The comments we received back were highly positive. We spent four months working with staffs and drafting that discussion bill. And it created the foundation for the bill by Henry Waxman. We were ready to go. The Senate did not have the benefit of that foundation work, and it did not have the legislative draft that it could act on at that point. And I encouraged Henry Waxman and the White House for the House to go first. But let me add that the Senate should have acted on this measure. When the House acted, the Senate had a year and a half in which to assemble the political will to act, and I think it was a significant shortcoming that the Senate did not take this measure up.

e360: There has also been criticism that the Obama White House did not press the Senate hard enough to act on cap-and-trade legislation. Do you share those sentiments?

Boucher: I’m not going to comment on that.

e360: Turning to the national political situation this past fall, 52 sitting House Democrats lost their bids for re-election. Of these, 32 had voted for the cap-and-trade bill the year before, and 20 had opposed it. Outside of the situation in your own district, how much of a role do you think this legislation played in the election results across the country?

Boucher: My sense is that there were several key issues on the Democratic agenda that the corporate groups who were opposed to Democrats across the country used in the course of the advertising. The message in most of these campaigns was the same, and that is “If you don’t like the president, if you don’t like the House Speaker, then vote for another person for Congress, send them a message.” And any of the three or four key issues on the Democratic agenda could be used to make that case — whether it was financial regulation reform, health care reform, cap-and-trade, or the economic [stimulus] act. Those were the four big ones. You only really had to vote for one or two of those for an outside group to make the argument that you were voting in lockstep with the administration or with the Speaker of the House.

So the cap-and-trade issue was only one of the four, and I don’t think it had any resonance greater than the others. In fact, I would expect that health care reform probably had greater resonance — I voted against that. My constituency was overwhelmingly against the health care reform. My constituency was somewhat more agnostic on cap-and-trade.

e360: With the House under Republican control in the incoming 112th Congress, many have declared cap-and-trade legislation dead for the foreseeable future. Is that a view that you share, and, if so, do you see any chance for significant energy or climate change legislation over the next couple of years?

Boucher: Well, I think it’s going to be very difficult to pass cap-and-trade, given the strong opposition of the Republican House leadership and the Republican leadership of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The more likely next step will come from the Environmental Protection Agency, and EPA is on track now to have a regulation on greenhouse gases from stationary sources in place in 2011. And, unfortunately, EPA simply
EPA simply lacks the mechanisms and legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases effectively.”
lacks the mechanisms and the legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases effectively.

For example, it can’t establish a trading program, it can’t create the offsets that I’ve discussed previously, which create a shock absorber in terms of the cost of remediation, and the cost of making these reductions. What it can do is really just regulate under the 1970 Clean Air Act, which essentially means point source regulation. And that’s the least efficient way to regulate greenhouse gases. So I don’t think EPA can do this work well, whatever its intentions, because it simply lacks the legal mechanisms to do the job effectively.

I don’t think the votes are going to exist in the Congress to completely overturn EPA regulation — although, depending on what kind of regulation EPA puts forward, there may be an effort made, and it could succeed, to at least pass legislation suspending that regulation for some limited period of time. But I seriously doubt that the president would sign it into law.

e360: Since one of your arguments in favor of legislation was to head off a situation in which EPA would seek to regulate greenhouse gases through executive rulemaking authority, do you feel that Congress’s failure to act now justifies EPA moving ahead with such a regulatory scheme?

Boucher: Well, they’re under a court mandate, so it’s not a question of whether they’re justified or not. It’s a question of their having to do it. The Massachusetts vs. EPA decision [in 2007] held that greenhouse gases are pollutants. But, under the mechanisms of the 1970 Clean Air Act, EPA had an obligation to determine whether or not a failure to regulate greenhouse gases would constitute a threat to human health and the environment. And a finding of harm has now in fact been promulgated by EPA. In fact, even in the [George W.] Bush administration, EPA had concluded that there was a threat to human health and the environment from greenhouse gases, and that they should be regulated. That endangerment finding was communicated to the White House during the George Bush administration, although it never actually was published.


In Wreckage of Climate Bill,
Some Clues for Moving Forward

In Wreckage of Climate Bill, Some Clues for Moving Forward
Ample blame exists for the demise of climate legislation in the U.S. Senate. A way forward exists, however, to build on the rubble of the Senate’s failure to cap carbon emissions, journalist Eric Pooley writes.
e360: Given the dim prospects for cap-and-trade legislation in the near future, do you think there are other greenhouse gas reduction proposals that could garner sufficient support to pass — for example, increased incentives for electric vehicles, or your proposal for a fund to advance carbon capture-and-sequestration technologies aimed at cleaner coal burning?

Boucher: I wouldn’t be surprised to see legislation emerge that would provide funding for carbon capture-and-sequestration development. That measure was bipartisan; it was a separate measure that I introduced with Fred Upton [a Michigan Republican who will chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee beginning in January]. We introduced that not in this past Congress, but in the previous Congress. And it drew a very broad base of support on a bipartisan basis. So I would not be surprised to see an effort made to enact that measure.

POSTED ON 04 Jan 2011 IN Biodiversity Forests Oceans 


Boucher sounds like a thoughtful person. No wonder he got bounced out of Congress.

Posted by Anthony Ruffalo on 04 Jan 2011

Comments have been closed on this feature.
Louis Peck, who conducted this interview for Yale Environment 360, has spent the past three decades as a Washington, D.C.-based editor and reporter — with a primary focus on Capitol Hill, including some major U.S. energy and environmental legislative debates. He is currently a contributing editor at National Journal, following almost 20 years as editor-in-chief of National Journal’s daily publication on Congress.



Scientists and Aid Experts
Plan for a Warmer Future

Climate scientists and humanitarian relief workers need to collaborate far more closely to prepare for a future of increased extreme weather events. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, Harvard University public health expert Jennifer Leaning analyszes the results of a meeting between these two very different factions.

Probing the Reasons Behind
The Changing Pace of Warming

A consensus is emerging among scientists that the rate of global warming has slowed over the last decade. While they are still examining why, many researchers believe this phenomenon is linked to the heat being absorbed by the world’s oceans.

Can a Divestment Campaign
Move the Fossil Fuel Industry?

U.S. climate activists have launched a movement to persuade universities, cities, and other groups to sell off their investments in fossil fuel companies. But while the financial impact of such divestment may be limited, the campaign could harm the companies in a critical sphere — public opinion.

A Conservative Who Believes
That Climate Change Is Real

Republican Bob Inglis’ statement that he believed in human-caused climate change helped cost him his seat in Congress. In a Yale Environment 360 interview, Inglis explains why he is now trying to persuade his fellow conservatives that their principles can help save the planet.

Should Polluting Nations Be
Liable for Climate Damages?

An international agreement to study how to redress developing nations for damages from climate change illustrates how ineffective climate diplomacy has been over the last two decades. But this move may pave the way for future court suits against polluting countries and companies.


MORE IN Interviews

Why This Tea Party Leader Is
Seeing Green on Solar Energy

by diane toomey
As a founder of the Tea Party movement, Debbie Dooley may be an unlikely advocate for renewable energy. But in an e360 interview, she explains why she is breaking ranks with fellow conservatives and promoting a Florida ballot initiative that would allow homeowners to sell power produced by rooftop solar.

What Lies Behind the Recent
Surge of Amazon Deforestation

by richard schiffman
After declining by more than 70 percent in recent years, deforestation in the Amazon is soaring. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, scientist Philip Fearnside explains what’s driving the clearing of the Amazon and what needs to be done to once again bring deforestation under control.

How Climate Change Helped
Lead to the Uprising in Syria

by diane toomey
A new study draws links between a record drought in Syria and the uprising that erupted there in 2011. In a Yale Environment 360 interview, Colin Kelley, the study’s lead author, discusses how the severity of that drought was connected to a long-term warming trend in the region.

Why Ocean Health Is Better
And Worse Than You Think

by fen montaigne
The good news is the world’s oceans have not experienced the extinctions that have occurred on land. But as ecologist Douglas McCauley explains in a Yale Environment 360 interview, marine life now face numerous threats even more serious than overfishing.

How Tiger Farming in China
Threatens World’s Wild Tigers

by diane toomey
In an interview with Yale Environment 360, wildlife activist Judith Mills describes how the legal farming of tigers in China is fostering a trade in tiger bone wine and skins that is imperiling the world’s beleaguered population of wild tigers.

Giving Local Women a Voice
In Grass-Roots Conservation

by diane toomey
As “gender advisor” at Conservation International, Kame Westerman seeks to include local women’s perspectives and priorities into the planning of projects in developing countries. This approach, she says, can be critical in determining whether a project succeeds or fails.

A Scientist's Call for Civility
And Diversity in Conservation

by diane toomey
The ongoing debate over how to value the natural world has become rancorous and counterproductive, says marine biologist Jane Lubchenco. It is time, she tells Yale Environment 360, for the dispute to end and for conservation efforts to become more diverse.

Fostering Community Strategies For Saving the World's Oceans
by crystal gammon
To conservationist Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, getting coastal communities involved in plans to protect their waters is critical for protecting the planet's oceans. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, she talks about her work in one Caribbean island and how it shows how such a strategy can get results.

The Case for a Climate Goal
Other Than Two Degrees Celsius

by diane toomey
Scientists and climate negotiators have largely agreed that limiting global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius is an important goal. But political scientist David Victor disagrees, arguing that the benchmark is too simplistic and should be abandoned in favor of other indicators.

He's Still Bullish on Hybrids,
But Skeptical of Electric Cars

by kay mcdonald
Former Toyota executive Bill Reinert has long been dubious about the potential of electric cars. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, he talks about the promise of other technologies and about why he still sees hybrids as the best alternative to gasoline-powered vehicles.

e360 digest
Yale Environment 360 is
a publication of the
Yale School of Forestry
& Environmental Studies


Donate to Yale Environment 360
Yale Environment 360 Newsletter



About e360
Submission Guidelines

E360 en Español

Universia partnership
Yale Environment 360 articles are now available in Spanish and Portuguese on Universia, the online educational network.
Visit the site.


e360 Digest
Video Reports


Business & Innovation
Policy & Politics
Pollution & Health
Science & Technology


Antarctica and the Arctic
Central & South America
Middle East
North America


A three-part series Tainted Harvest looks at the soil pollution crisis in China, the threat it poses to the food supply, and the complexity of any cleanup.
Read the series.


The latest
from Yale
Environment 360
is now available for mobile devices at e360.yale.edu/mobile.

e360 VIDEO

Warriors of Qiugang
The Warriors of Qiugang, a Yale Environment 360 video, chronicles a Chinese village’s fight against a polluting chemical plant. It was nominated for a 2011 Academy Award for Best Documentary Short.
Watch the video.

header image
Top Image: aerial view of Iceland. © Google & TerraMetrics.

e360 VIDEO

Badru's Story
Badru’s Story, winner of the Yale Environment 360 Video Contest, documents the work of African researchers monitoring wildlife in Uganda's remote Bwindi Impenetrable National Park.
Watch the video.