Writing laws to favor the climate or fossil fuels?
Mark Trahant
ICT
Republicans in Congress do not see the world the same way the Biden administration does. And to make that point clear the House passed H.R. 1 last week, the top legislative priority for the new majority.
Rep. Tom Cole, Chickasaw, made the case when the rules committee he chairs passed the legislation on to the full House.
“On his first day in office,” Cole said, “President Biden rescinded the permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline, and followed that up by suspending new oil and gas leasing and drilling on Federal land and in Federal waters … while also spending billions of dollars on Green New Deal-style boondoggles.”
SUPPORT INDIGENOUS JOURNALISM. CONTRIBUTE TODAY.
Republicans favor a fossil fuel industry and give lukewarm support to emerging clean energy sources. While Democrats say that the world is in a planet emergency and therefore should make the switch to green energy (all the while still supporting a continuation of a fossil fuel economy.)
House Republicans see the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund as a “boondoggle,” including up to $7 billion in grants and loans for tribes and other eligible entities “to enable low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy or benefit from zero-emission technologies.”
The House bill would stop all of that spending – even while tribes are scrambling to apply and benefit from the existing law.
But the House bill is not law and is unlikely to become one in its current form. The Senate would first have to agree and after that? The White House has promised a veto.
But there are still a lot of questions about what’s next and what could become law. And how can a country move forward on climate change when the divisions about priorities are so far apart?
The House leadership did a brilliant job of listening to its members and putting together a package with Republican consensus, said John Tahsuda III, Kiowa, a regular commentator on the ICT Newscast with Aliyah Chavez.
“What will be interesting for them moving forward is they're gonna press this hard, both with the administration and in the Senate. There are Senate Democrats who will support large pieces of this as well,” he said. “But at the end of the day, that means some pieces that House members fought really hard for are gonna fall off. And how they deal with that internally is gonna be interesting to see.”
The administration has said it will veto the legislation in its current form, but Tahsuda said if House Republicans build support with a few Senate Democrats and if the legislation makes it through both houses, “I'd be surprised that there's a veto.”
Read More
But a lot depends on the Senate and that debate.
Jade Begay, Diné and Tesuque Pueblo, is the director of policy and advocacy for NDN Collective. She tweeted that “HR1 would roll back foundational environmental laws and regulations that safeguard our Indigenous communities, in an effort to fast-track fossil fuel extraction. Now HR1 moves to the Senate.”
Sign up for ICT’s free newsletter.
For example the House energy bill – formerly known as the Lower Energy Costs Act – would reduce the taxes that energy companies pay. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the act would result in an increase of $2.5 billion in at least one of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2034. The budget office also estimates that enacting H.R. 1 would increase budget deficits by more than $5 billion in at least one of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2034.
One provision would reverse the Biden administration’s veto of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Other provisions include a lifting of environmental regulations to speed up energy projects. The repeal of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund is another marker for many who see a “do all” approach to energy.
House Democrats say the Republican plan is a doubling down on fossil fuels – and that represents the policy debate. So energy policy – like the coming debt debate – will depend on whether Democrats and Republicans can find any common ground. The rhetoric from both sides is harsh.
"From the day he took office, President Biden has waged a war on American energy, and hardworking families are the ones paying the price,” said House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, a Republican from Louisiana, and the principal author of the bill.
“Voters awarded House Republicans with the majority in Congress to fight President Biden’s radical energy policies and lower costs for American families, and today, we are working to make that a reality,” Scalise said.
On the other hand, across the aisle, Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, dismissed the legislation as the “Polluters Over People Act'' and “a nearly 200-page love letter to polluting industries.''
Grijalva said the bill gives mining companies “a veritable free-for-all on our public lands” and “makes mockery of tribal consultation'' required under federal law. Mining companies will “destroy sacred and special places" throughout the West, "ruin the landscape and leave behind a toxic mess that pollutes our water and hurts our health — all without paying a cent to the American people,'' Grijalva said.
Democrats say this legislation has no chance. And that is true if Republicans hold to every position in HR 1. The test will be whether the debate ahead looks for consensus or to win a competing world view.
Then so much is happening outside of legislation. One of the reasons why Republicans are so determined to roll back the provisions of the IRA that supercharge new energy development. Green energy – while still not on track to meet climate goals – continues to add capacity at a lower cost than fossil fuels.
This week the oil cartel, OPEC, announced a cut of a million barrels a day from its production targets. That will make oil more expensive – just as the summer driving season begins – and it will sharpen the debate about what should be next. Here we go again on the political divide: Republicans will use this as a call to spur domestic production and Democrats will point to the declining price of green energy.
(Image: ICT)
Mark Trahant, Shoshone-Bannock, is editor-at-large for Indian Country Today. On Twitter: @TrahantReports Trahant is based in Phoenix. The Indigenous Economics Project is funded with a major grant from the Bay and Paul Foundations.
