By Andy Owens
aowens@scbiznews.com
Published May 15, 2009

While congressional leaders were working out a compromise on climate change legislation Thursday in Washington, D.C., debate was tempered during a half-day mini conference in downtown Charleston on the same topic.

Environmental and citizens groups made statements, asked questions and challenged some assertions made by climate researchers during the four-hour forum; but, in the end, no one offered any solid answers on how the pending legislation would specifically affect the environment or economy of South Carolina. A study by a Clemson University economist offered a stark view of how the legislation would affect the national economy.

The forum on climate change and business, sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, was the 15th stop on a nationwide tour of cities on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. Most of the speakers were from South Carolina and the lineup included climate researchers, economists, lawyers, representatives from utilities and state government officials.

Related story
Groups put on full-court press for climate change conference

Mount Pleasant attorney Ben Hagood, who is also the environmental committee chairman for the Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce, summed up the dilemma for South Carolina’s business community: What’s the right choice for a business that wants to sustain economic development along with the environmental legacy of South Carolina and the nation?

“We know this topic is a complex one,” Hagood said. “We know it’s a global issue, not just a local issue. There are many questions that people have. What will the level of economic activity have on future emissions? Who should pay the costs? Could the cost of the cure be worse than the disease?”

By Thursday evening, after reaching a compromise on carbon dioxide emissions permits for oil refiners, U.S. House leaders were preparing to send the latest version of the bill to the Energy and Commerce Committee for a key vote toward passage.

“Things are moving at a breakneck speed in Washington,” said Ross Eisenberg, a lawyer and policy official with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who spoke at the Charleston forum.

Eisenberg said Congress has all but decided the United States is going to use a cap-and-trade plan to control greenhouse gas emissions. The plan would create a market for utilities, manufacturers and others to buy and trade emissions “credits” after they reach a certain threshold. How that limit is determined and how the market is structured is part of the debate and controversy surrounding the legislation. Monetary fines and penalties could result for those who exceed the limits.

“It wouldn’t take much to get you there,” Eisenberg said. “These are very, very aggressive limits from 2005 levels.”

Eisenberg said the U.S. chamber isn’t against all climate change legislation, just the latest one before Congress. When asked to give what measures the chamber does support, he said that would be coming out soon but offered no specifics.

“They’ve never supported a climate bill, and it looks like they never will,” said Ben Moore, program director for the Charleston-based Coastal Conservation League. “We need one. We need climate legislation.”

Said Eisenberg: “‘Should we do this bill or do nothing?’ is a bit of a red herring. In a way, we’re being sold these bills. Is there another way to do this? We need to consider that in addition.”

Moore, who attended Thursday’s forum, said talking about climate change legislation and South Carolina without recognizing the efforts made by Charleston County and the city’s Charleston Green Committee misses what’s going on here.

“You have small-business owners and entrepreneurs who are there every month trying to make a difference and make Charleston a locus of real profitability under this new carbon-constrained economy,” Moore said.

One of the most detailed presentations was from Clemson University economist Sergei Mityakov, who has modeled what would happen if consumption in the U.S. was reduced by 1%, which he called a “conservative” estimate of what would be needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the current bill.

Mityakov said he studied carbon tax and cap-and-trade plans. “Both ways are likely to be really costly,” he said.

As an example, his study found that a family of four could expect to see a $1,000 permanent tax increase starting in 2009, increasing each year and hitting $3,000 by 2050. Mityakov said his study included control data for changes that are considered benefits under climate change legislation, including job gains.

Moore said Mityakov’s study makes some assumptions about how a cap-and-trade plan would be structured. He said the structure and implementation of a plan determines how it would affect economic development.

“You say it’s going to cost consumers $3,000, but how does that benchmark against other studies out there?” Moore said.

Marc Tye, Santee Cooper’s vice president for conservation and renewable energy, said the state-owned utility thinks Congress should focus its efforts on technology to reduce carbon. He said complying with measures in the current bill could mean higher costs for business and industry.

“We think that would have an impact on manufacturers,” Tye said. “Some would move overseas.”

He added, “With everything going on today, I don’t think we can afford to lose any more jobs.”

Near the end of the forum, John Clark, executive director of the S.C. Energy Office in Columbia, said the answer to climate change lies in a variety of efforts that might include many smaller things. Among those are renewable energy sources such as biomass and algae, as well as compressed natural gas and plug-in vehicles. He envisions putting algae-growing facilities beside coal-fired plants to enhance energy production.

He said those efforts could help economic development in South Carolina and get the state ready for the climate change measures coming from Washington.

“Whether we agree with them or not, whether we want them or not, they’re coming down in some way, shape or form,” Clark said.