Does Climate Bill Have a Fighting Chance?

Three senators are set to unveil a bipartisan effort at climate change legislation on Monday, but the bill is already angering environmental groups. And while some major industry players will reportedly endorse the bill, there are still traditional opponents to win over.

Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are working on a bill that is expected to limit the Environmental Protection Agency's power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. That's one proposal among many that the legislators say will help reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, spur the alternative energy market and bring down carbon emissions.

A number of moderate Democrats and Republicans want to see the EPA's authority over greenhouse gas emissions limited, but that proposal is a main concern among environmentalists.

Greenpeace announced today it is opposed to the bill, Politico reports, citing that proposal as well as other elements of the legislation it has problems with.

"Although we appreciate the Senate's efforts to reduce global warming pollution, it's clear that polluter lobbyists have succeeded in hijacking this climate policy initiative and undermined the ambitious action necessary," Phil Radford, the group's executive director, said in a statement.

Daphne Wysham, a fellow at the progressive think tank the Institute for Policy Studies, spoke about the bill with Democracy Now on Earth Day on Thursday. She said curtailing the EPA's authority over greenhouse gas emissions "is a slap in the face to everything that Earth Day stands for."

Even with such concessions for moderates expected to be in the bill, its authors are still trying to win support for it from groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which opposed the House climate change bill, CQ Politics reports.

Kerry said on a conference call Thursday evening, however, that three of the five major oil companies will back the legislation, Mother Jones first reported. Those three companies are Shell, BP and ConocoPhillips, an unnamed source told the Washington Post.

Kerry reportedly said he believes those companies will "actively participate in supporting this bill," while he expects the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's major trade group, to halt its ad campaign attacking the legislation.

The Edison Electric Institute, which represents most of the nation's utilities, is also reportedly expected to support the measure.

Along with limiting the EPA's authority over emissions, the Washington Post reports the bill is also expected to:

• cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent by 2020 compared to 2005 levels, and 80 percent by 2050
• require some polluters to obtain permits for emissions, but place an upper and lower limit on the price of pollution permits -- known as a hard price collar
• allow some trade-sensitive or energy-intensive industries to get a delay before being subject to greenhouse gas limits
• subject oil companies to pollution allowances, but keep those permits off of the "carbon market"
• return to consumers two-thirds of the revenues generated by auctioning off pollution allowances for utilities
• provide loan guarantees and liability protections for the construction of up to12 new nuclear power plants
• provide $10 billion to the coal industry for "clean coal technology"
• provide financial incentives for natural gas and electric vehicles

While the bill will be introduced Monday, it is unclear whether the bill would even make it to the Senate floor this year. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has indicated he plans to take up immigration before climate change, according to reports, which could leave Senators with little appetite for another controversial bill.

Graham said on Thursday that taking up immigration would destroy the Senate's chances for passing a climate change bill, the Hill reports, but Lieberman sounded sure their bill would reach the floor.

"I came away very encouraged that this is a priority for the majority leader, so that we will get floor time for sure," Lieberman reportedly said.

Earth Day Turns 40
Earth Day Photo Gallery
Earth Day Turns 40: A look at its History
From Rebellious Roots, Earth Day Now Mainstream

[stormerF2]

Build more Nuclear power plants NOW. No carbon taxes or our energy bills will quadruple,you do not believe that, your a canidate for the Math CZAR.

[pasmalltown]

So it's O.K. with you now that Iran and North Korea develops it's nuclear power plants? After all, "The average global Temp has not risen in the past 11 years." - So it's O.K. with you that the US builds nuclear power plants, but the rest of the world can continue to pump pollution into the air and your kids(grandkids?) will be able to breathe O.K. because they're being fed O.K. because of OUR energy bills won't rise 4 fold???? Make up your mind, can't have it both ways.

[sunday42]

The whole climate thing is dung of the bull.

[scottyusa]

Why are these idiots still pushing this garbage even after it has been proven to be a hoax? Thank heavens Leiberman is from my state so I get the chance to help vote him out.

[rock0223]

In this rotten economy we're fighting to keep our homes. And we're supposed to worry about some ridiculous 'climate bill'?

[erasmus111]

by rock0223 April 24, 2010 4:00 AM EDT
In this rotten economy we're fighting to keep our homes. And we're supposed to worry about some ridiculous 'climate bill'?


Yes, times are tough, but if you don't worry about the climate, your children and grandchildren may not have a home in the future. But I guess that doesn't matter because you won't be around to see it, huh?

[stormerF2]

erasmus111,..The average global Temp has not risen in the past 11 years.We will have no kids or Grand-kids if we do not have any money to feed them and have to spend it all on energy bill increases.

[erichsh]

"Does Divisive Climate Bill Have a Fighting Chance?"

Oops - wrong choice of words. Unlike the Arizona immigration bill, this bill is favored by liberals. Therefore it is not "divisive".

[KeithDrippingSprings]

Let us all hope it doesn't pass. Do you like the recession? Wait until we get these new restrictions on us. We will wish the recession was back.

The greenies always say that the new laws will create jobs. Horse pucky, the new laws will send jobs to countries that have fewer restrictive environmental policies. Follow the money, this is nothing but an attempt to control people and get rich.

[doctor_know]

You like the recession? Let's just all be nay sayers and never try anything new, oppose progress.... that will fix everything, right?

[RRW64]

Anti-environment pollution supporters always claim that any new legislation to address environmental problems will kill industry. Cleaning up the air and water and reducing acid rain was going to destroy the economy in the 80's but it didn't happen and air and water quality have improved since the 70's and early 80's. You can breathe the air in LA now. Of course I do miss those colorful fires on the Cuyahoga river but you can't have everything.

[TomColt]

1, Go nuclear, hydro and "clean coal"/gas with carbon sequestration to produce all electrical energy in the US, augmented by renewables (wind, solar,geo-thermal, tidal...). In those few areas that have cost effective renewables, use the first three methods to back up or fill in for the renewables.
2. Provide incentives for highway trucks that are natural gas-hybrid electric, fuel-cell electric or "clean" diesel-electric.
3. TAX and regulate the SUVs and non-farm pickup trucks on the same scale as all other privately owned vehicles.
4. Treat the railways as we do highways. The rail beds and right-of-ways should belong to the US taxpayer, and railroads can pay licensing fees based on usage.
5. Re-create a substantial US national maritime fleet based on gas-turbine and/or super-conducting magnet motors (like the US Navy).
6. Prohibit shoreline residential construction.

[stormerF2]

uubrew12,.. Maybe we should invest in Bowing energy,Obama seems to be doing a lot of that.

[RobAla]

I think most people want clean air and water, but we also want jobs and a comfortable standard of living. Some extreme environmentalist won't be happy until everyone reverts back to living in caves and grazing on grass like sheep.

The EPA needs to have some constraints, and they need to answer to someone. I heard of a case in Florida, where an elderly woman used all her life to purchase property on which she planned to build condos. The return on investment would have taken care of her the rest of her life. After the purchase, the EPA condemned the land as wet land. The property could not be developed, and it became worthless. When the government condemns property to build a highway, it must give the owner fair market value for it. Not so when the EPA declares property to be a wetland. The woman lost everything at the hands of the EPA. This is wrong.

We need a practical policy to guide the EPA, and it needs oversight.

[marks6806]

I love these green-worhipper labels: "deniers" That is hysterical. I wonder if any of them have any knowledge of what they think we are 'denying?' If they would take a non-biased look at the science (not the green-tained Gore-movie science - but the actual sceintific facts) they would find something else to cry-wolf about.

[RRW64]

What you are denying is obvious climate change. A non biased look at the science shows that the evidence for global warming is very strong. The "greenhouse effect" is certainly real, without the greenhouse effect of CO2 the earth would be much cooler than it is. The calculations using the Stefan Boltzmann equation are quite straightforward. I have done them myself as an exercise in physics back in my college days before anyone worried about global warming. Human activity is clearly increasing CO2 in the atmosphere dramatically. Global temperatures are higher than at any time in recorded history. Tree ring, lake deposit and ice core data indicate that while temperature in Europe were higher during the so called medieval warm period global temperatures were probably lower that in the early to mid 20th century. Global sea levels have increased consistently since 1950.

[RRW64]

While to "volcano CO2" arguments sounds good to climate change deniers it is totally bogus. The Iceland Volcano is putting about 300,000 tons of CO2 in the air each day. Human activity puts about 80,000,000 tons of CO2 in the air each day.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

[marks6806]

Like I said - linking human activity to global warming is less likely than raising the sea levels by having every human on the planet empty their bladder in the ocean simultaneously. We might as well all hold our breath for a few hundred years. But I think the climate change advocates should start holding their breath first.... hee hee