The vast state of Alaska is big enough to hold two very high-ranking female politicians, although Some Politician hogs the limelight. The other one will have a chance to vote on the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act – but will she vote to keep her state mired in last century’s pollution, or north to the future for her vulnerable state?
Lisa Murkowski, the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, understands the consequences of human-caused global warming, has favored past caps on carbon emissions, and thus might vote for the climate change bill -- as long as it's not "energy vs. environment," where she always sides with her oily donors. Her initial comments on the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill indicate that she may follow Lindsey Graham's lead across the aisle, but her support will be conditioned on offshore oil drilling and nuclear power.
Even though I'm not a resident of Alaska, I enjoy reading Alaskan authors such as Dana Stabenow, planning the tour of Alaskan national parks that I will take some day, and eating sustainable, wild-caught Alaskan king salmon. In fact, Alaska’s state constitution requires sustainable management of all replenishable resources, including salmon: "Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses." With that principle in mind, one wonders how any Alaskan elected official could possibly oppose sustainability of her state's replenishable resources -- including its people.
Senator Murkowski compares favorably with Some Politician from her state:
* Senator Murkowski speaks in complete sentences.
* Senator Murkowski’s political career may have begun with nepotism, but she hasn’t used and abused her office to benefit her friends and family.
* Senator Murkowski hasn't become a national trainwreck by quitting midway through her job. Instead, she's garnered a reputation as a hard worker and is now is the Ranking (Republican) Member on the Energy & Natural Resources Committee – which makes her an important Senator on climate change legislation.
* Senator Murkowski acknowledges the threat from climate change to her state, not just the polar bear and the walrus, but to its people.
A. Murkowski's views on human-caused climate change:
Murkowski has broken with high-ranking Republican orthodoxy and acknowledged the impact of climate change on her state in a moving and honest fashion. In 2006, she acknowledged the impacts of climate change on her state, affecting native whaling capatins, snow packs, and salmon; warmer, drier air has allowed the voracious spruce bark beetle to migrate north, devastating forests almost the size of Connecticut. The same year, she told law students that "I believe it is a reality that man is contributing to the current warming trend. Accordingly, it is appropriate, and quite frankly our responsibility, to take steps to curb the growth of greenhouse gases." Although her website's Issues and Priorities omits any discussion of climate change or environmental issues, her September 30, 2009 press release on the Kerry-Boxer bill (discussed further below) again acknowledges the need to decrease emissions.
B. Financial contributions, voting record, and recent political actions:
When issues are framed in terms of energy vs. the environment, Senator Murkowski always sides with energy interests. For example, along with fellow oil queen Mary Landrieu (D-LA), she introduced S 1517, the Domestic Energy Security Act of 2009, to open up oil drilling off the coast of Florida. She consistently votes for expanding oilfields, contending that oil and gas drilling off Alaskan shores can be done in an environmentally responsible manner. Not surprisingly, the energy and natural resources sector -- both electric utilities and the oil & gas industry -- loves her. So far in 2010, she's the Senate's top recipient of energy and natural resources money. She faces reelection in 2010; to date no prominent Alaskan from either party has challenged her.
Senator Murkowski played a large part in drafting the American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA), the renewable energy bill passed by the Senate E&NR committee in June 2009. After crafting it to benefit Alaskan interests, she was one of 15 votes for it (8 voted against it). Her website praises ACELA, although others consider it weak and toothless. It's supposed to be merged in some murky fashion with CEJAPA once something is ready for the Senate floor.
In 2007, Murkowski joined a group of moderates in drafting a Low Carbon Economy Act to reduce emissions without sacrificing economic growth (the bill died). And in May 2008, Murkowski spoke to the Alaska Municipal League, favoring a cap and trade approach over a carbon tax and noting the far greater costs of adaptation.
Murkowski has recently initiated a public feud with the Environmental Protection Agency. Last month, she made headlines with a significant amendment to a boring bill, that of appropriations for the Interior Department (HR 2996). Her amendment would have barred the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases from stationary sources (e.g., power plants, not cars) for one year. Her rationale had the usual cliches regarding the economy; shorter and more accurate, from climate blogger Joe Romm: Murkowski proposes to fiddle while Alaska burns. As late as October 10, she opined in the Anchorage Daily News that Congress, not the EPA, should take the lead in crafting climate policy without harming the economy. The feud appears to be the public manifestation of two separate Republican fallback positions (Murkowski is not acting alone; Senator John Thune (R-SD) cosponsored her EPA amendment, which never made it to the floor) who privately acknowledge the inevitability of greenhouse gas regulation. First, they want the chance to water down CEJAPA and get something toothless passed that strips away EPA's authority. Failing that, they want political fallout of the EPA regulations to be unacceptably high.
C. Economic effects of climate legislation:
Oil and gas jobs make up a surprisingly small percentage of the Alaskan economy: 12,600 or 4% of all Alaskan jobs, says the state (pdf); by comparison, the seafood industry supports 38,000 jobs in Alaska (p.18 of 22 pg pdf). However, oil's impact on the Alaskan economy goes beyond jobs. Royalties from oil severance taxes go into the Permanent Dividend Fund providing payouts to every resident of Alaska. Murkowski has a huge financial incentive to keep the oil, and thus that fund, flowing. Simply put, dirty energy jobs pay every Alaskan, so the "clean energy jobs" aspect of CEJAPA is unlikely to move either Murkowski's or Begich's votes.
Economic analysis of climate legislation always includes the costs of enacting the bill. Rarely are other economic aspects considered: the costs of doing nothing, the benefits of enacting the bill, and the benefits of doing nothing. In Alaska, the costs of doing nothing will be enormous, because so many seaside Native Alaskan villages are threatened by climate change in the form of rising oceans and eroding land.
The State of Alaska's Climate Change Sub-Cabinet for adaptation and mitigation has already begun to calculate some costs. For example, by one count, 31 remote villages are imminently threatened by flooding and erosion (p.10 of 22 pg pdf). A separate Army Corps of Engineers report lists 178 communities, including Anchorage, threatened by erosion. The cost of moving three of the most threatened villages is up to $455 million, or $2 million per household in Newtok (photo shows Kivalina, one of the other two villages). Murkowski sympathizes, analogizing them to Native Americans being forced on to reservations in the 19th century.
I would not be surprised to see Murkowski and Begich demand federal funds to help pay for the relocation of Native Alaskan villages. And if this humanitarian issue were the only legislative goodie needed to trade for both votes, I'd consider it a fair deal.
D. Murkowski's reactions to the Kerry-Boxer bill:
On September 30, Murkowski put out a press release complaining about a "massive bill with massive costs": "We must determine how to balance environmental progress with economic growth.... We’ve got to be honest with ourselves if we are truly going to decrease emissions," Murkowski said. "Nuclear energy must be a part of our energy mix if we are going to do so."
Up to October 11, I saw no reason to believe that Murkowski would place her vulnerable state's long term interests above those of her oily donors and the the Permanent Dividend Fund. Then Lindsey Graham and John Kerry coauthored the now famous New York Times op-ed: Yes We Can Pass Climate Change Legislation. By October 14, Murkowski was singing the praises of bipartisanship and hoping the Kerry-Graham framework for climate policy "would mark a turning point in the climate debate": "Instead of cutting emissions at any cost, we should be working on policy that incorporates the best ideas of both parties – a policy that accounts for our near-term energy needs, limits costs, and is flexible enough to work under different economic circumstances," she said.
So what changes were made from CEJAPA to the Kerry-Graham op-ed that won Murkowski's praise? Expansion of nuclear power and offshore drilling. This diary is already long, and thus won't opine on whether these are pragmatic compromises or Faustian bargains; I've already started to consider issues associated with expanded oil drilling here. Suffice to note, as David Roberts of Grist has, the irony of those opposing the climate bill, ostensibly because of its costs to voters, demanding changes to it that will raise household costs for corporate benefit. Electric utilities who can transition to nuclear power will reap massive benefits from the bill; along with the oil industry, they're Murkowski's biggest donors.
In conclusion, Murkowski may follow Graham across the aisle to vote for the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, if and only if nuclear power and offshore oil drilling provisions are expanded.