Sen. Rockefeller Calls Kerry-Boxer 'A Disappointing Step in the Wrong Direction'
“The climate legislation proposed today by Senators Boxer and Kerry is a disappointing step in the wrong direction and I am against it. Requiring 20 percent emission reductions by 2020 is unrealistic and harmful – it is simply not enough time to deploy the carbon capture and storage (CCS) and energy efficiency technologies we need. Period. Our nation cannot survive without energy from coal and any viable climate policy must solidify our future by focusing on technology to make coal cleaner faster. I will continue studying the bill and all of its implications for our state and the coal industry. This is by no means the defining word on climate legislation in the Senate. I remain adamant in my conviction not to support any bill that might threaten the economy, workers or families across West Virginia. We should take the time to approach these issues with absolute care and diligence – they require nothing less.”
Friends of the Earth Issues Detailed Critique of Kerry-Boxer Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act
We commend Senators Boxer and Kerry for their dedication to combating the important problem of climate change but we cannot support a bill that fails to solve the problem. Overall the draft is riddled with loopholes and does not go far enough to protect the planet.
Friends of the Earth’s “areas of concern” include:
Emissions Cap: Science demands at least a 40% reduction in emissions, compared to 1990, by 2020. The draft bill has emissions reductions targets of about 20 percent below 2005 levels – nowhere near what a fair U.S. contribution to a global emissions reductions should be to avert climate catastrophe
Offset Loopholes: The extensive use of unreliable offsets in this draft bill, up to 2 billion tons a year, seriously undermines the integrity of the already weak emissions cap and delays the health, environmental, and economic benefits of shifting to a low-carbon economy.
Methane Regulations: The House-passed bill would require emissions from landfills, coal mines and natural gas pipelines to be regulated, but under the Kerry-Boxer draft, these sources can voluntarily capture methane in exchange for offset payments.
Markets Regulations: The bill would create from scratch a new commodities market for carbon that could quickly be the largest market in the world and has no specifics on how that market would be regulated.
Subsidizes Dirty Energy: The bill gives special subsidies to expensive, unsafe and environmentally damaging technologies such as nuclear reactors and carbon capture and sequestration and capture for coal plants, not to mention ambiguous incentives for biofuels.
Friends of the Earth’s policy team will be taking a deeper look at the bill in further days and release a more detailed analysis at a later date so that we can work with the Senate to pass legislation that will fairly and effectively address the problem of climate change.
Enviro and Labor Responses to Kerry-Boxer Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act
Today, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, the Senate version of the American Clean Energy and Security Act’s (H.R. 2454) climate provisions. Sen. Kerry introduced the bill:
For too long, Washington has let oil companies, lobbyists, and special interests maximize their profits and minimize our progress. Our dependence on foreign oil has hurt our economy, helped our enemies, and put our national security at risk. It’s time to invest in energy solutions that are made in America, and work for America. It’s time to take back control.This bill will get tough on corporate pollution and put American ingenuity to work to dramatically improve every facet of the way America generates and uses energy. It will create millions of new, good-paying jobs, protect our air and water from dangerous pollution, and secure our children’s future by making America more energy independent. And it does not raise the federal deficit by one single dime.
Several environmental and labor organizations have responded.
Alliance for Climate Protection:Audubon Society:Today’s legislation introduction by Senators Barbara Boxer and John Kerry reflects significant progress in our nation’s efforts to transition to a clean energy economy that will create millions of new clean energy jobs. Their work and that of their committees should be commended. We look forward to the upcoming discussions that will further inform and forward a bipartisan bill. Right now, we have the opportunity to fundamentally transform how we generate and use energy in this country, to put ourselves back in control of our economy and national security and to assert global leadership in a new 21st century clean energy economy. By taking action this year to pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation, future generations will look back and know that their leaders stepped up to tackle a deteriorating economy and the specter of climate change head on, ensuring a healthy, prosperous nation.
Blue-Green Alliance:Senators Boxer and Kerry have blended some new and vital ingredients into the recipe for a truly meaningful and comprehensive energy plan. The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act would make a huge difference by requiring dirty power plants to clean up their acts and by establishing strong short-term emission reduction targets. Big polluters would have to slash their contributions to global warming, while the plan would help repower America with clean energy, create new jobs and cut our dangerous dependence on oil. That’s a recipe for energy success. The new measure is a big step toward the final legislation that America needs, Congress can support and the President will sign. We look forward to working with Senators Boxer and Kerry and members of the Environment & Public Works Committee to ensure the passage of a strong bill in the coming weeks.
Earthjustice:The Blue Green Alliance commends Senators Boxer and Kerry for introducing comprehensive climate change and clean energy legislation. To truly achieve our goals of a cleaner environment and a prosperous and fair clean energy economy, we must pass comprehensive legislation that protects workers and ignites our clean energy economy. The Copenhagen negotiations are just around the corner, and it is critical that the U.S. Senate move on this legislation to send a strong message to the world.
Greenpeace:We commend Senators Kerry and Boxer for their leadership in confronting one of the biggest challenges of our time. They share our vision of a clean energy future that addresses the heat-trapping pollutants responsible for climate change and puts America back in control of our economy, our security and our children’s future. For years we’ve relinquished control of our energy sector to other countries and to big corporate interests. Holding polluters accountable and investing in clean energy here at home will not only address the crisis of climate change but create jobs and put money back into the pockets of Americans. Naysayers ignore both the real costs of global warming and the economic benefits of a rapid shift to clean energy. They are intent on derailing and delaying action, but today’s announcement proves that momentum is building. Americans know we have everything to gain in confronting this challenge and implementing solutions.
While the language the Senate unveiled today contains some improvements over the House bill, it fails to commit the US to meaningful, science-based greenhouse gas emissions reductions needed to protect us from runaway climate change. This proposal meets neither the needs of science nor those of the international community, which is currently negotiating the landmark climate treaty. This proposal comes as climate science increasingly suggests that global warming is advancing even more quickly and more broadly than predicted. A UN report released just last week projects the planet is on track to warm beyond 2 degrees Celsius, a threshold climate scientists say would create an unacceptable risk for a global climate catastrophe. Despite this urgency, the legislation only proposes to cut emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 while the Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that developed countries must cut emissions at least 25% – 40% under 1990 levels by 2020. The threat of runaway global warming has prompted countries such as Japan, India, Indonesia and China to commit to increasingly ambitious emissions reductions in recent weeks. The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), low-lying island nations whose very existence is threatened by sea level rise, urged world leaders last week to preserve their countries’ livelihood and survival by ensuring that global temperatures be kept as far below 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible. For years there has been scientific consensus on the perils of global warming. Now there is increasingly international political consensus on the need for bold, immediate, and coordinated action by world leaders. Unfortunately, what is still missing is a plan from the U.S. that matches our historic responsibility to address the crisis and the scale of the threat we all face. With the deadline for action at the Copenhagen Climate Summit fast approaching, we urge President Obama to assume leadership for global warming policy and to commit to negotiate a fair, ambitious and binding treaty in line with the science and not the demands of the fossil fuel industry.
Laborers’ International Union of North America:This bill will help curb climate change, strengthen our economy, and make our country more secure. It will help generate jobs, reduce our reliance on foreign oil and create a healthier future for all of us. And it will put Americans back to work, making our country the world leader in the green technologies that are driving growth in the global marketplace. We are optimistic that the calls for clean energy and climate solutions across the country – including support from business leaders, national security experts, entrepreneurs, labor, faith groups, veterans, and many others – will lead to action by the full Senate. This is the right step at the right time. It confronts the growing problem of global warming head-on – before it’s too late to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. It calls for a 20-percent cut in carbon emissions by 2020. That’s a strong and achievable goal. It will reduce the carbon pollution that causes global warming, while accelerating the move to a clean energy future for our country. A new analysis from UC Berkeley confirms that clean energy and climate legislation can strengthen our economy and create jobs. According to the report, comprehensive energy legislation with strong efficiency measures can create as many as 1.9 million jobs between 2010 and 2020.
Union of Concerned Scientists:The half-million men and women of LIUNA — who work every day to build America – are pleased with the bill’s family-supporting Davis-Bacon provisions, which will help ensure that new jobs are good jobs with fair pay. The bill’s green construction careers provision invests in both workers and jobs of the future and will strengthen communities. As we move forward, LIUNA looks forward to working with the Senate to ensure that sufficient investment is also made in building weatherization, which can create good jobs, save families money and help free us from foreign oil.
“A stronger short-term target makes scientific sense,” said Melanie Fitzpatrick, a climate scientist at UCS. “U.S. emissions levels are now lower than expected, so we’re already well on our way to meeting these goals. Additionally, more of the carbon dioxide we’re emitting today is staying in the atmosphere because the ocean is absorbing less carbon from the air. That means early cuts in emissions are even more critical to keep temperatures down and prevent the worst consequences of climate change.”
Liz Perera, a federal policy analyst in UCS’s Climate Program, said the Senate bill mirrors the House version. “The House bill’s framework is a groundbreaking approach to moving America toward a clean energy economy. Sticking with the House framework will make it easier to move forward, especially in conference committee.”
Utility Workers Union of America:Alden Meyer, UCS’s director of strategy and policy, attended last week’s climate summit at the United Nations, where numerous heads of state emphasized the need to make substantial progress at the December climate treaty negotiations. Meyer says the Copenhagen summit provides a concrete deadline for the Senate to act. “Without strong domestic action by the United States, an ambitious climate deal in Copenhagen isn’t in the cards,” Meyer said. “The House has done its part. Now this new bill gives the Senate a solid basis for moving forward. Time is short, but with the support of President Obama and Senate leaders, the Senate can show that it’s serious about cutting emissions and send a message to the rest of the world before Copenhagen.”
World Resources Institute:Those working to supply Americans with their electricity have so much to gain from clean energy legislation, and so much to lose from inaction. Working with Senators Boxer and Kerry, we can ensure that comprehensive clean energy legislation transitions our economy to provide the investments needed to grow a long-lasting clean energy sector that will provide high-quality jobs for years to come.
World Wildlife Fund:Today, the U.S. Senate moves the United States one step closer to curbing the dangerous effects of climate change while simultaneously transitioning the country to a clean energy economy. Introduction of this bill, and the input from senators representing diverse regions of the country, will allow the Senate to enact environmentally strong and economically workable legislation. Those who say this is the wrong time to act because of the economic recession are wrong. Businesses and investors need certainty, and this is a road map to transform America into the world’s leader in clean energy manufacturing, creating new industry and jobs. EIA just announced that energy demand in the U.S. is dropping. This, combined with the long-term price signal the bill sends, will allow businesses to get comfortable with the new emissions requirements at a relatively low cost and give them the certainty that the investments they make in clean technology will have value in the future. The Senate has an opportunity to spark economic growth through clean energy, and the time to act is now.
We commend Senators Kerry and Boxer for their leadership in starting the process for approval of a strong climate and energy bill in the Senate this year. The introduction of this important bill builds on the momentum created by House passage of the American Clean Energy Security Act in June. Senate passage this year of a comprehensive climate and energy bill is crucial to our economic recovery and our national security; it is also vital to ensuring American leadership towards a new global partnership to fight climate change this December in Copenhagen. The urgency of climate legislation cannot be overstated. In every region of the US and every corner of the planet, we are seeing the impacts of climate change. And they are coming sooner and hitting harder than scientists predicted just a few short years ago. The longer we wait to solve this crisis, the more expensive it will be. As President Obama said last week in New York ‘our prosperity, our health, our safety are in jeopardy.’ In December, world governments will meet in Copenhagen to negotiate a global partnership to respond to this global crisis. At that time, President Obama will need clear direction from the Senate. Simply put, Senate passage this year will be critical to success in Copenhagen. The Bill demonstrates Kerry’s and Boxer’s attempt to reach a compromise that will win necessary Senate support. Although we understand the political challenges, our climate does not. We are encouraged by the improvement of the Bill’s 2020 emissions target over the version that passed the House, but this target remains too weak and compromised by too many offsets. Reductions equivalent to at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 are needed to contribute to a global solution that has a chance to avoid the worst impacts of climate change on our farms, water supplies and communities. The Bill should be strengthened as it moves forward. But it is imperative that we get started. This Bill is the latest chapter in a long, bipartisan conversation in the Senate about reducing dangerous carbon pollution, beginning with the introduction of the McCain-Lieberman bill in 2005 and continuing through full Senate consideration of Lieberman-Warner just last year. We look forward to working with Senators Kerry, Boxer and all interested members to bring this long debate to a close. Time is running out; this Senate action comes not a moment too soon.
Senate Watch: Bond, Boxer, Brown, Cantwell, Carper, Corker, Inhofe, Kerry, Lincoln, Nelson, Stabenow, Udall
The rhetoric and campaigning heats up as Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) prepare to unveil climate legislation on Wednesday, September 30th.
Kit Bond (R-MO)Barbara Boxer (D-CA)St. Louis Post-Dispatch They were 30,000 petitions gathered by the Missouri Association of Electric Cooperatives urging Bond, R-Mo., to oppose present versions of cap-and-trade legislation to combat global warming as Congress gets ready to see a new bill this week. “I think certain people pushing this bill see me as one of the biggest thorns in their sides. If they don’t now, they will,” said Bond, who was on hand to receive the postcards.
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)E&E News “The legislation is going to be very interesting to people because we did some really different things and we’re excited about it.”
E&E News “It’s going to need a lot of work.” Brown said he did not expect the Boxer-Kerry bill to include language adopted in the House that tries to assist energy-intensive manufacturing industries, including steel, pulp and paper and cement. “My understanding is they did not include the House language on manufacturing. But I’ve been talking to them about it. They are very open to it. They are in no way dismissive.”
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)E&E News Both Brown and Stabenow said they would welcome the release of the Senate bill even though it will give critics something tangible to target. “It always does. There is always something to shoot at. But I think it is the right step, and then we start working to improve it.”
Tom Carper (D-DE)Des Moines Register “We are seeing a system that is just inherent with special interests.”
Bob Corker (R-TN)Sussex Countian “We must act to reduce black carbon – a dangerous pollutant emitted by old, dirty diesel engines like those in some school buses and thought to be the second largest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide.”
Des Moines Register Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., called the proposed credit trading a “Rube Goldberg notion” that would wind up “transferring wealth out of this country to other countries around the world.”
John Kerry (D-MA)Inhofe “I think the best way to help Sen. Kerry define cap-and-trade is to turn to Rep. John Dingell ( D-MI ), who said that cap-and-trade ‘is a tax, and a great big one.’ No matter the semantic games employed, or the extent to which Democrats wish to hide the truth from the American people, cap-and-trade will mean more job losses, more pain at the pump, and higher food and electricity prices for consumers. Despite the post-modern denial of ‘the truth’, in which words can mean whatever one chooses, the legislation on display next week will be cap-and-trade, pure and simple. And if the House Waxman-Markey bill is any guide, it will showcase a massive expansion of government mandates, spending, taxes, and energy rationing, all with meaningless effect on climate change. I hope we have an open, transparent, civil debate about cap-and-trade and energy security. It’s critical that we get this right, for in order to get American moving again, we need an abundant, reliable domestic energy supply that creates jobs and keeps energy prices affordable for businesses, consumers, and families.”
E&E News “It will be out next week. We will meet our target. I said I would introduce it by the end of the month, and we will introduce it on the 30th, Wednesday.”
E&E News “I don’t know what ‘cap and trade’ means. I don’t think the average American does. This is not a cap-and-trade bill, it’s a pollution reduction bill.”
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)E&E News “I hope what we’ve done is constructive and well-received. I have no pretensions, and neither does Barbara, that this will be the final product. It is a starting point, a commitment, full-fledged, across party lines to do what we need to do to protect the planet for the next century.”
Ben Nelson (D-NE)E&E News “I have certainly indicated to them that I am looking forward to the role that agriculture can play. Our hope is that we will be able to offer recommendations, and we will hope that those will be some recommendations that can be incorporated into the bill. I don’t think it will be a necessity that we have to mark anything up. I hope it won’t be.”
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)E&E News “I don’t know that it changes opinions necessarily, but at least you can talk about specific provisions, and maybe the debate can narrow down to specific items, as opposed to just generally whether you are for or against the idea.”
E&E News “We will certainly be very involved with allocations. You can expect Finance to hold hearings and play a specific role.”
Mark Udall (D-CO)E&E News “We will have to take a look at the language and then determine it from there.”
University of Colorado at Boulder Colorado Sen. Mark Udall commended the university for the unique effort to localize and promote better understanding of climate change in Colorado. “I would encourage all Westerners to take action to address this critical issue by using this new tool to discover ways to conserve our region’s valuable and limited resources. I hope this Web site will open many minds – not only to the enormous challenge climate change poses for our communities – but also to the opportunities we can pursue to strengthen our economy and promote a more sustainable energy future.”
Senate Watch, Moving Slowly: Barrasso, Baucus, Boxer, Durbin, Kerry, McCain, Reid
Speaking at the United Nations Climate Summit, President Barack Obama said “the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.” E&E News interviewed Senators on their schedule for action.
John Barrasso (R-WY)Max Baucus (D-MT)“Nearly 1 in 10 Americans are looking for work. President Obama’s scheme is for less American energy production. Less energy production will mean fewer jobs for Americans.”
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) also said yesterday that he is still planning a markup for key pieces of the climate bill that deal with international trade and allocation of allowances. “I’m going to take my cues largely from leader Reid to see what his schedule is, and how quickly climate change is moving this year. If it looks like it’s clearly moving, we’re going to mark up.”
Dick Durbin (D-IL)For her part, Boxer would not give any specifics when asked about her timeline for moving the bill through the Environment and Public Works Committee. “We’re going to mark up shortly. As soon as we’ve held the requisite number of hearings.”
John Kerry (D-MA)Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) was also circumspect about Obama’s call for moving the climate bill. “I want to get to all of these issues this year, as the president has asked us to. But I think Senator Reid is reflecting the reality of the calendar, and we just have to see what we end up with. Senator Boxer is preparing for the debate. She’s ready. But the question is whether we have the time to treat this issue as it should.” “The Europeans are our friends and allies and we need to work with them and the rest of the world on this climate change issue. But unfortunately, the European Union doesn’t have control over the Senate calendar. And Senator Reid, I think, is being honest that this is becoming problematic the longer it takes for us to get to health care.”
John McCain (R-AZ)Boxer and Kerry are still aiming to release their legislation before the end of the month, though Kerry yesterday tried to give himself a little bit of wiggle room for its formal unveiling. “That’s our current plan. But we’ve got a lot of drafting to do between now and then. But we’re working on it.”
Harry Reid (D-NV)“I’ll take second place to no one on climate change. I introduced the first cap-and-trade bill on the Senate floor. I introduced the second. All of them had nuclear power as a component. The radical environmentalists are driving the agenda. And for someone to say that they have a robust nuclear element, I’d love to see it. There’s been no indication of it.”
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) yesterday sidestepped a question about whether he would hold a vote before the end of the year on the Boxer-Kerry legislation. “We’re going to push climate as hard and as fast as we can.”
Senate Watch, Senate Under Pressure: Cardin, Carper, Durbin, Inhofe, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lugar, McCain, Murkowski, Nelson, Warner, Whitehouse
“Sometimes in this country the greatest deliberative body in the world acts as though it is the only deliberative body in the world, and that we should wait until it gets its healthcare passed,” the EU’s ambassador to the US, John Bruton, has complained. “The world cannot wait on the Senate’s timetable.”
Ben Cardin (D-MD)Tom Carper (D-DE)E&E News “We’re not at 60 votes yet. But there are a lot of potential senators who could be part of that 60.” “We think we can get Republican support for this bill. Not just one senator, but several.” “It’s not easy to predict how we’ll complete the work this year. But we’re making every effort to get it done this year. We’re certainly working toward concrete progress before the Copenhagen meetings. I think we’re clearly working with the goal of action this year.”
Dick Durbin (D-IL)Tom Carper “We always talk about silver linings. The fact we’ve slowed down on health care I think gives us a chance to do a better job on the clean energy front. We need to take advantage of that.”
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)The Hill “I wish we could have done everything we had to do by now, but it just takes time. It’s a new president, a new Congress and a big agenda. It just takes time.”
John Kerry (D-MA)USA Today If the deal making in Copenhagen leads to a new pact that would harm the U.S. economy, “no such treaty or agreement can be approved by the Senate,” says Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.
E&E News Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.), Boxer’s lead co-pilot in writing the climate bill, said that the authors are in talks with their fellow Democrats on carbon market oversight, as well as funding for clean coal technology, other low-carbon energy technologies and adaptation. “There are a lot of different pieces,” Kerry said. Asked how often he is counting votes, Kerry replied, “Every day.”
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)The Hill “The U.S. has been dragging its feet for eight years.”
Dick Lugar (R-IN)E&E News As for specifics, Boxer had been under pressure from her left to ramp up the House-passed bill’s 2020 target from 17 percent to 20 percent. “I don’t have to prevail on Senator Boxer,” said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). “She knows what’s right.” “I’m feeling pretty good about the tactics, the strategy, that as much as possible, we’d like it to include Republicans. The one thing I believe, bipartisanship is a means, not an ends.”
John McCain (R-AZ)The Hill “I don’t know that we’ve pulled back. It’s just the formulation from the House I find objectionable on many grounds. Without jumping up and down any further, I think more constructive ways of fighting climate change can be found and I’ll be working to find it.”
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)E&E News When asked about Bruton’s criticism, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) shot back, “Well, I don’t think there are 10 Americans that know who he is.”
Washington Post “I believe very strongly that action on climate change has to include meaningful reductions. We have also got to make sure that we don’t kick the economy in the head.”
Ben Nelson (D-NE)The Hill “There are some who are saying that we have to hurry up and do it yesterday because Copenhagen is coming. This is a serious enough issue that we must take the time to do it right.”
E&E News “The alphabet agencies are not the fourth branch of government, and they ought to take judicial notice of what’s happening and what’s not happening in the Senate,” Nelson said last week when asked about the prospect of EPA climate regulations.
Mark Warner (D-VA)The Hill Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who opposed a global warming bill creating a cap-and-trade system last year, said he doesn’t pay much attention to what people from other countries say about the Senate. “We’re going to do it the way we think it’s appropriate to do it. And we will not be driven by their criticisms.”
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)The Hill “I’m not sure that the Senate is going to be dictated by the timing in December. It would be helpful to go to that very important meeting with legislation, but I’m not sure people are going to feel comfortable rushing it.”
The Hill Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said the EU is right to blame the Senate for blocking long-needed action. “Partly, it’s the fact that healthcare is crowding everything else out, but it’s also partly because the polluting industries see the Senate as a place where they can hold 40 votes,” Whitehouse said.
Senate Watch, China: Bayh, Bond, Boxer, Graham, Kaufman, Kerry, Lieberman, McCain
At the United Nations Climate Summit on Tuesday, president Hu Jintao announced China would make “notable” reductions in carbon intensity while generating 15 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020. E&E News asked senators for their responses.
Evan Bayh (D-IN)Kit Bond (R-MO)Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) said he had not yet seen the details. “But that’s a step in the right direction,” he said. “Clearly, the major economies are going to need to do this in concert. And it’ll be difficult for us to act unless the Chinese and the Indians are willing to make commitments that will actually solve this problem. So it’s a good sign. I’ll be interested to know the magnitude of it and whether it suggests further progress or whether it’s just symbolic.”
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)“I want to see what the details are. It’s a target. Is it enforceable? . . . These are ministers, vice ministers and the commerce and environmental protection agency. They said they’re not going to do anything that’s going to stifle the growth of the economy—that they need to put all the people back to work.”
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)“The more that other countries pledge to cut their carbon and to protect their own people from pollution, it helps us greatly.”
Ted Kaufman (D-DE)“That’s encouraging. That will help us make decisions on our emission problems.”
Joe Lieberman (I-CT)Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), a member of Kerry’s Foreign Relations Committee, said China’s decision was a clear signal to U.S. businesses. “The difference here is, they’ve figured out it’s in their economic interest to be involved in this,” Kaufman said. “This is one pledge that they’re going to deliver on.”
John Kerry (D-MA)The Hill Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who is working with McCain and other centrist senators to find broad support for a climate change bill, said that Hu’s commitment to targets was “a very significant and encouraging step.” “No question there’s a certain amount of people here who will not take on the responsibility that we have to take on to do things to deal with climate change unless China also does,” said Lieberman, whose bipartisan group is looking at ways to increase U.S. nuclear power.
John McCain (R-AZ)“I think anything China does, if it’s constructive and fixed and measurable, and ascertainable, it’ll be very helpful, absolutely.”
“We’ll see the details. They’ve made similar commitments in the past but haven’t kept them.”
Senate Watch: Boxer, Brown, Chambliss, Durbin, Feingold, Grassley, Johanns, Lincoln, Nelson, Rockefeller
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)E&E News For her part, Boxer brushed aside Lincoln’s public opposition to the cap-and-trade bill. “She’s such an expert on agriculture. It’s great,” Boxer said. “And I look forward to working with her on all of the issues, including climate.”
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)Reuters “People are so focused on healthcare, there haven’t been a lot of discussions,” on the climate bill worries, Brown added. Meanwhile, Senator Blanche Lincoln, who is taking over the chairmanship of the influential Senate Agriculture Committee, on Wednesday fretted climate change legislation would hurt farm profitability through higher energy costs. It would be “a heavy lift” to pass a climate change bill this year, she predicted. “In this economy, it is important to take it one step at a time,” she said as she praised the pending energy bill.
Dick Durbin (D-IL)E&E News In contrast to the Democrats, several GOP members of the agriculture panel said Lincoln’s recent comments against the climate bill indicate she could be independent of Democratic leadership. “I think it could, but I don’t know,” said ranking member Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). “I can’t jump inside her mind and see. It has the potential to change it.”
Russ Feingold (D-WI)Reuters “It’s a difficult schedule” with many members already “anxious” about healthcare reform, Senator Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat, told Reuters when asked about prospects this year for a bill to cap emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Wisconsin Business “I’m not signing onto any bill that rips off Wisconsin,” Feingold declared, arguing the bill’s mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions could put the coal-dependent Badger State at an economic disadvantage compared to other regions and nations. “Western Wisconsin is particularly strong in being concerned about this because of their reliance on coal,” Feingold said of the bill, which has already passed the House. “There is a real possibility … that it will be unfair to Wisconsin and Wisconsin ratepayers.” In addition to fixing the bill’s carbon allocations to put the Midwest on better economic footing with the rest of the country, Feingold was among 10 senators to recently raise the possibility of levying tariffs on other nations – including China – that may not practice comparable environmental responsibility. ”Why should we leave ourselves completely exposed while they just get to go forward?” Feingold asked.
U.S. Senate Well, I think cap-and-trade is pushed back anyway because it’s probably more sweeping in its impact on the economy than even what we’re talking about, health care. But I don’t think, particularly, our committee’s got time to do both. And our committee isn’t the only one involved in cap-and-trade because the Energy and Environment Committees haven’t put out anything yet at this point. So I don’t think we’ll act until they act. But it’s become somewhat controversial, as well. Well, I would say the House bill is very, very controversial. And I can tell you, right now, I wouldn’t vote for the House bill. But the – I got to wait and comment on the Senate bill after the committee in the Senate puts a bill out.
I would like to not look at legislation within the Congress. I’d like to focus my attention on a worldwide agreement. Because if we don’t include China and India, we’re going to export all of our manufacturing. And that’s one reason why I’m against the House bill. Senate bill might not be much better. It might take into consideration the really devastating impact it has on the economy of the Midwest, because we produce much – so much for coal. We might be able to do better than that in the House. But that’s still not going to solve the problem of an unlevel playing field for all of America versus China and India. So a worldwide agreement has two advantages. One, it either brings China and – it either brings China and India in under the same caps we have, so we have a level playing field, so we won’t export our manufacturing, all of it to China. And it also has the benefit of requiring a two-thirds vote in the United States Senate before you can get it passed. So it seems to me that we have a better chance of being fair to America, and if it isn’t fair to America, it takes an extraordinary majority to get it through, and presumably if it’s not fair to America, it’s not going to get through the United States Senate.
What I’ve read about the economics of it, and studying particularly FAPRI – you know, University of Missouri and Iowa State and their economic studies – I have – and there’s other economists as well – say that there’s a little bit of benefit to trading, but it falls so much to timber that it seems to me that it’s not good – it’s not going to be beneficial to farming. And – and consequently, I have real doubts about it. I’m not going to reject everything Senator – or Secretary Vilsack says about it, but what I’ve studied, I have great deal of doubt about it being fair to American agriculture. Not – and the main reason for that is: Not giving us enough credit, going back 20 years, for what we have done already through minimum tillage, or no tillage, to cut down on energy use and putting CO2 into the air.
Mike Johanns (R-NE)Well, I’d be foolish if I didn’t give – I’d be foolish if I didn’t give it some consideration because there’s a massive amount of scientists that feel that it does. But there’s also an increasing number of scientists that have doubt about it. And so, not being a scientist, I don’t know exactly where to say only those things that are really quantifiable, and temperature has risen. But the scientific aspect that I still reserving judgment on is the extent to which it’s manmade or natural. And it’s reasonable, considering that there’s at least a natural factor in it, because historically, and you can go to the core drillings in the glaciers to get proof of this, that we’ve had decades and decades, and maybe even centuries of periods of time when there’s been a tremendous rise in temperature, and then a tremendous fall in temperature. And all you’ve got to do is look at the little ice age of the mid-last millennia as an example. And so we’ve got to single out what’s natural and what’s manmade before you can make policy. Now, a lot of members of Congress and most environmentalists are – are absolutely convinced manmade is the – is the factor – chief factor here. But I – I want to, before I vote on it, be more conclusive in my judgment, and I haven’t reached that conclusion at this point. But it’s enough to know that I think that even if it is manmade entirely, and so there’s justification for the legislation, you still have to deal with the reality factors that domestically there’s a very unlevel playing field between California and New York that benefit financially from it, and the Midwest and the Southeast United States that’s going to be hurt; and then the unlevel playing field if you don’t include India and China, an unlevel playing field with the United States versus those countries. And so – so we don’t want to lose all of our manufacturing to China. We’ve already lost a lot. We – it’s better to have an international agreement and include China and India in it.
Houston Chronicle Market volatility and higher fuel and fertilizer prices may make cap-and-trade practices a hardship for farmers, said Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., and former U.S. secretary of agriculture. “There are more losers than winners with this in agriculture,” Johanns said.
Farm Policy “If you are in the dairy industry, which is absolutely going broke at the moment, if you’re in the pork industry — and one pork producer recently said to me, he said ‘I’m 30 days from being bankrupt’ — if you’re in the cattle industry that hasn’t made money for two years, this is pretty much a disaster for them, isn’t it?”
Omaha World-Herald Unfortunately, the costs of cap-and-trade are real, while so far the benefits for farmers and ranchers are theoretical. Nebraska producers are realists. And realists sift through rhetoric to focus on facts. I commend the secretary for acknowledging that energy costs would go up and rural America is more likely to feel the pinch. . . . There was no estimate of the impact of increased costs on livestock production. This industry represents 57 percent of ag income in Nebraska and more than 50 percent of ag sales nationwide — apparently hog, cattle and poultry are not “agriculture” by the administration’s definition. There was no state-by-state analysis of the impact of cost increases on agriculture production. Nebraska producers pay costs based on local prices, not national averages. And there was nothing regarding the fruit and vegetable industry, representing 15 percent of ag sales nationwide. So let’s add that up — the USDA’s analysis ignores roughly two-thirds of American agriculture. Yet it unequivocally states that cap-and-trade is good for American agriculture? Furthermore, the USDA has assumed that free allowances would be sufficient to keep fertilizer prices from rising but provides no explanation for how many allowances will be needed. . . . Lastly, the secretary fails to mention perhaps the most critical point: The bill would fail to achieve its purported environmental goal of stopping climate change because agriculture producers and manufacturing in China, India and Brazil would in no way be affected by the bill. Without them, the impact on temperature is negligible, a fact acknowledged by the Environmental Protection Agency. . . . So what are we left with? A bill that would place additional tax burdens on American businesses during a severe recession for no discernible environmental gain. A bill that would ask Nebraskans to trust the federal government to provide enough free allowances so the increased energy costs would not put them out of business. Like the secretary, I am supremely confident that American agriculture can adapt. But that’s no justification to support a bad bill. While Americans will face down any challenge facing them, their lawmakers should not be in the business of creating additional ones.
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)Farm Week Now After health care, Johanns sees climate debate as the next hot button for Congress this fall: “President Obama wants that, and I think it’s going to be one of the next issue queued up, But the feeling in farm country is quite different – he argues Nebraska farmers are “enormously skeptical, if not downright opposed” to proposed greenhouse emissions caps projected to impact future electrical, fuel, and input costs. “You’ll pay more for fertilizer and diesel fuel and electricity to run your irrigation pump,” Johanns warned during an RFD Radio/FarmWeek interview Monday. “On the other side, I think the benefits are very, very uncertain. I think this idea that farmers are going to make money by trading credits is very uncertain promise. “If I were a farmer out there, I’d want the certainty of what I’m doing now, and even at that, that can be very uncertain. Add cap-and-trade to it and what you add is higher input costs with no promise of what comes out on the other end.” In charting marketable ag carbon “offsets,” the House plan does not consider conservation tillage and other “past good practices” that can reduce or trap carbon emissions, and Johanns believes that likely will be “a point of contention” in the Senate. Given the “free” emissions allowances the House proposes to allocate to various sectors in exchange for their support of the plan, he questions how a demand-driven ag credit market could “get up-and-running.” At the same time, he noted “the rest of the world just isn’t where we’re at” in terms of proposed climate policy, and new regulations could put U.S. producers at a serious competitive disadvantage. Some lawmakers have supported an “off-ramp” provision (“It is gaining some ground), but he fears that if the Environmental Protection Agency or other bureaucratic interests were responsible for administering the provision, “we might never get on the off-ramp.”
E&E News “Without a doubt there are opportunities for us to be able to make recommendations in terms of where we hope that the climate change bill or cap-and-trade bill that EPW is working on is going to go,” Lincoln told reporters in a conference call yesterday.
Reuters “All I’m saying is I think it (passage of a climate bill) is a heavy lift for the Senate” in a session filled with major legislation, she said. Climate change legislation “presents some issues for the farm community,” said Lincoln.
Wonk Room “Making sure as we do move forward, that we don’t do so putting a disproportionate burden on our hardworking farm families and our agriculture communities across this country. They do a tremendous job providing food and fiber for the world. While it isn’t necessarily my preference to move on cap-and-trade legislation in the Senate this year, the Senate is going to move on climate change legislation in the future.”
Ben Nelson (D-NE)Reuters “In this economy, it is important to take it one step at a time,” she said as she praised the pending energy bill.
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)Reuters “We have enough on our plate at the moment (with the fight over healthcare reform). It’s questionable to open another front.” Instead, Nelson said the energy bill could be passed as a stand-alone bill, calling it “far less controversial” and “necessary.”
E&E News Climate change is individuals,” Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said yesterday. “It’s not so much committees and what your position is on committees.”
White House Green Jobs Advisor Van Jones Resigns 1
Van Jones, Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the Council on Environmental Quality resigned Saturday night. Below is the text of his resignation letter, sent to Chair Nancy Sutley:
I am resigning my post at the Council on Environmental Quality, effective today.On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide.
I have been inundated with calls – from across the political spectrum – urging me to “stay and fight.”
But I came here to fight for others, not for myself. I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future.
It has been a great honor to serve my country and my President in this capacity. I thank everyone who has offered support and encouragement.
I am proud to have been able to make a contribution to the clean energy future. I will continue to do so, in the months and years ahead.