By Richard Simon
Washington -- Reflecting a shift in priorities under the
Democratic majority, Congress is moving to spend as much as $6.7 billion next
fiscal year to combat global warming, an increase of nearly one-third from the
current year.
House appropriations bills call for about $2 billion in new
spending on initiatives aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and oil
dependency, significantly expanding the budgets for numerous federal research
initiatives and launching some new ones.
While legislation to raise vehicle miles-per-gallon
standards and cap emissions from power plants has been slower moving -- because
of resistance from some lawmakers -- Democrats have turned to the budget to
advance their environmental priorities by increasing spending on a variety of
lower-profile programs.
That is likely to set up a showdown this fall between
Congress and President Bush, who wants to spend less on climate-change
initiatives. The White House budget office, which has criticized excessive
spending in the overall appropriations bills, noted that the president's
proposed budget provides for a 3% increase in spending for climate-change
activities.
"Congress is putting its money where its mouth
is," said Lowell Ungar, senior policy analyst at the
Lawmakers from both parties also see the public's heightened
interest in climate change and energy security as an opportunity to steer
federal money to their states through earmarks billed as environmentally
friendly.
Money has been set aside for scores of home-state research
initiatives and construction projects, including $1 million for a plug-in
hybrid vehicle demonstration project at
"Green is becoming very fashionable," said Rep.
David L. Hobson (R-Ohio), a senior appropriator who secured $500,000 for a
geothermal demonstration project. "I think members are going to be
challenged in their district" about how they are responding to concerns
about climate change and
Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), for example, got $500,000
for a fuel-cell project by Superprotonic, a
Early this year, Democrats on the House Appropriations
Committee asked scientists how government efforts could be cranked up to combat
global warming and reduce oil use. "The question then became: How do we
get the biggest bang for our buck?" said Kirstin Brost, spokeswoman for
committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) "We've only accomplished a small
first step, but it is a step in the right direction."
Environmental initiatives are scattered throughout the 12
House appropriations bills for the federal fiscal year that starts Oct. 1. Kei
Koizumi, research and development policy program director of the American Assn.
for the Advancement of Science, said money for addressing climate change had
been added "even in areas where you might not expect to find it."
The bill funding foreign-aid programs calls on the U.S.
Export-Import Bank to increase investment in renewable energy projects -- a
provision that its sponsors, Schiff and Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), say could lead
to about $1 billion in additional green exports in 2008.
The bill funding the Department of Housing and Urban
Development requires it to incorporate "robust green building"
standards.
And the bill funding Congress provides $3.9 million to the
Green the Capitol initiative that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) is
pushing to make the House carbon neutral by the end of next year.
Some of the largest increases are in the bill that funds the
Department of Energy.
The House provided about $1.9 billion for energy efficiency
and renewable energy programs, about 52% more than the administration
requested. Just two years ago under the Republican-controlled Congress, the
programs received about $1.2 billion.
The Senate has yet to complete its spending bills, but its
appropriations committee has recommended about $1.7 billion for energy
efficiency and renewable energy programs.
The House energy appropriations bill also provides $44
million to promote geothermal energy, a ninefold increase compared with current
spending. The Bush administration, on the other hand, has proposed doing away
with spending on the geothermal energy program, contending that it is a mature
industry.
Environmentalists welcome the increased spending but say
more pollution regulation is crucial. "Those spending measures are no
substitute for better fuel-economy standards and tough caps on greenhouse gas
emissions," said Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch.
The Senate has approved a bill calling for the first
significant increase in vehicle fuel-economy standards in years, and the House
has approved a bill establishing the first nationwide requirement for utilities
to generate more electricity from cleaner energy sources, such as the sun and
wind. When Congress returns from its August recess, House-Senate negotiators
will try to work out differences between the two energy bills.
This fall, Congress is also expected to consider legislation
that would cap emissions from power plants and other sources.
In addition to the appropriations bills, the House and
Senate energy bills would authorize billions of dollars in additional spending.
Among the measures: establishing a program to train workers for
"green-collar jobs," such as solar-panel installers, and creating a
$1-billion foreign aid program to help developing countries reduce greenhouse
gas emissions.
The House energy bill also includes tax credits that would
help state and local governments finance $6 billion in bonds for green
projects. Of that,
Republicans have derided the bond program as "green
pork." Some of the other initiatives, including a new Office on Global
Climate Change within the State Department, also have drawn scorn.
Rep. Donald Manzullo of
Some of the new projects are the result of unusual alliances
between lawmakers looking out for home-state interests and those seeking to
reduce pollution. Coal-country lawmakers have been among the strongest
supporters of increased funding for projects to capture carbon dioxide
emissions from coal-fired power plants, seeing it as a way to preserve the coal
industry.
Increased concern about global warming also has given rise
to a fresh approach to landing federal funds for home-state projects -- green
earmarks.
Businesses have also reacted. "Lobbyists are crawling
out of the woodwork to say their idea is good for global warming," said
Clean Air Watch's O'Donnell.
Critics of earmarks say some of these projects may be
worthy, including new energy research initiatives, but others are merely
classic pork-barrel spending, particularly construction projects that have been
touted to Congress as green.
"For many lawmakers, global warming is more than just
an issue. It's an opportunity to send more tax dollars to their pet parochial
projects," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog
group.
Citizens Against Government Waste singled out for particular
criticism the $150,000 secured by Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.) to buy a
solar-powered house for the Troy Chamber of Commerce. Knollenberg spokesman
Trent Wisecup said the house, being built by students from
"I don't think it's pork," Wisecup said.
"I think it's actually a great example of how a local
university is working with engineering kids to do something that shows how they
can protect the environment."