September 29, 2009 4:36 PM

Senate: Cut Greenhouse Gasses 20% by 2020

(AP)  A Senate climate bill will require a 20 percent cut in greenhouse gases by 2020, deeper than the reductions mandated by the House, but also include stronger measures to try to avoid energy price spikes, according to a draft of the bill.

The draft obtained by The Associated Press, remains subject to change. But the overall carbon reduction requirements are expected to stand. The Democratic bill is to be released Wednesday by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee with a vote by the panel likely in late October.

The draft includes an economy-wide cap and trade system that would require power plants, industrial facilities and refineries to cut carbon dioxide and other climate changing pollution. While there would be an overall emission cap, polluters would be able to purchase emissions allowances to limit reductions. But the Senate bill does not lay out how emission allowances would be distributed, leaving that for later.

The bill is viewed widely as an early focus of Senate negotiations over climate in the coming months, but just a starting point as Democratic leaders seek to work out compromises - adding new provisions and dropping others - to garner the 60 votes that will be needed for passage.

The 684-page draft calls for a ceiling on greenhouse gas emissions beginning in three years, to be tightened annually so that emissions would be 20 percent lower in 2020 than they were in 2005. Emissions would have to be 83 percent lower by 2050. While the long-term cuts are the same as required by the House in June, the Senate bill has a faster early ramp-up, something many in industry had wanted to avoid. The House called for a 17 percent emission cut by 2020 and President Barack Obama originally had sought only a 14 percent cut.

But Democratic aides involved in crafting the bill said the legislation also includes measures that would make early reductions easier to achieve. And, they argued that information released since the House acted shows carbon dioxide emissions in the United States today already are 6 percent lower than what they were in 2005, a reduction attributed largely to the economic recession.

The bill also includes provisions that its sponsors argue will help avoid severe energy price spikes as the economy shifts more and more away from cheaper fossil fuels, especially coal for electricity production. The bill, for example, calls for more emission allowances to be held in reserve so they can be made available if energy prices soar, said the Democratic aides who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the bill's release.

The Democratic bill will be co-sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the environment committee's chairman, and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., two of the Senate's strongest advocates for aggressive action to counter global warming. It is expected to be taken up, and likely be approved, by Boxer's committee in the coming weeks despite opposition from GOP members.

As the draft began to circulate Wednesday among environmental organizations, it became clear the legislation is viewed by both supporters and opponents as largely a beginning for what is expected to be intense and difficult discussions and debate among senators in the coming months over climate legislation.

"It's a starting point for negotiations," said Anthony Kreindler, a spokesman for the Environmental Defense Fund, a leading proponent of cap-and-trade measures to deal with climate. "There are going to be efforts to strengthen it and efforts to weaken it."

While a stronger bill than the one passed by the House, it leaves gaps to be filled, said David Doniger, climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "It's a bill with all comers in mind," he said.

Republicans, with the exception of a few, have voiced strong opposition to cap-and-trade climate legislation calling it a massive energy tax on consumers as energy prices increase amid the shift away from fossil fuels. And many centrist Democrats - especially from rural areas and from states with energy intensive industries - have expressed reluctance to support any bill that does not protect against energy cost spikes and protect domestic industries.

The Senate draft does not spell out how emission allowances will be distributed, leaving one of the most contentious issues to further negotiations. The House would provide for free 85 percent of emission allowances to various industries, especially electric utilities to help reduce the cost to consumers.

Democratic aides, speaking on condition of anonymity because the bill had not yet been released, said it would include measures to benefit the nuclear industry and for natural gas producers - both attempts to garner broader support.

Unlike the House version, the Senate draft does not restrict the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases under the existing Clean Air Act. Democrats wanting a bill this year have used the argument that if Congress doesn't act, the EPA will.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 15 Comments
by stn_sage September 30, 2009 12:16 AM EDT
The 684-page draft bill calls for the first reduction to go into effect in THREE YEARS!

YEP! This is the work of the Senate alright! Put off for three years what should begin January 1, 2010!

I vote no confidence on the whole incompetent chamber!
Reply to this comment
by doc_holliday76 September 30, 2009 10:32 AM EDT
by stn_sage:
"YEP! This is the work of the Senate alright! Put off for three years what should begin January 1, 2010!"
--------------------------------




Yep.....pretty sad that the congresscritters gave the credit card companies months to gouge us more before the new bill went into effect.

Yep....pretty sad that the newest health care reform legislation doesn't take effect until 2013.

Yep....very sad that this newest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, after watching the expansion of coal-fired plants during bushworld, doesn't take effect for another 3 years.

It seems as if our elected congresscritters need to understand the consequences of their actions, which will be 45,000 Americans dying each year before health reform goes into effect; one million Americans declaring bankruptcy due to loan-sharking banks and credit card companies; and a steady increase of greenhouse gas emissions as our planet's warming is greatly accelerated!
by Gary_in_Seabeck September 29, 2009 11:51 PM EDT
Sure, a lot of scientists are on both sides of this. But since you prefer the UN IPCC, try this:

There has been atmospheric cooling the last 8 years, and no new high global annual temperatures in the last 11 years.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2001.5/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/offset:-0.15/plot/gistemp/from:1998/offset:-0.24/plot/uah/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998

So, what did the head of the IPCC said more than 1-1/2 years ago concerning the lack of new annual high global temperatures:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1171501720080111

Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said (more than 1-1/2 years ago) that he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.
"One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents," he told Reuters, adding "are there natural factors compensating?" for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.

Also in this article from more than 1-1/2 years ago, Amir Delju, senior scientific coordinator of the World Meteorological Organization's (WMO) climate program, said temperatures would have to be flat for several more years before a lack of new record years became significant.

We are now more than three quarters of the way to having significant doubts about the GCMs, according to Amir Delju's own criterion. Which hypotheses in the models need adjustment? Which hypotheses need to be rejected? What new hypotheses (like Svensmark's solar-GCR-cloud hypothesis shown here: http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1180849) need to be embraced and incorporated into the models?

This is coming from the head of the IPCC. This is coming from the head of the UNs WMO. Were they wrong almost 2 years ago?
Reply to this comment
by doc_holliday76 September 30, 2009 10:22 AM EDT
by Gary_in_Seabeck
-----------------




Why are republican'ts so science-challenged?


September 17, 2009
Arctic sea ice reaches annual minimum extent

Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year, the third-lowest extent since the start of satellite measurements in 1979. While this year?s minimum extent is above the record and near-record minimums of the last two years, it further reinforces the strong negative trend in summertime ice extent observed over the past thirty years.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
by HGOODGUY September 29, 2009 8:17 PM EDT
Why don't we start with cutting all the flatulant, toxic gas coming out of the mouths of Republicans in congress!!!
Reply to this comment
by lovetheair September 29, 2009 8:44 PM EDT
Why so hate filled and intolerant HGOODGUY. You don't sound like such a good guy to your fellow American. Don't you think Republicans have a right to their opinion and can't you respect that?
by doc_holliday76 September 30, 2009 10:18 AM EDT
by lovetheair:
"Don't you think Republicans have a right to their opinion and can't you respect that?"
------------------------------------




NO....as long as they parrot the glen beck conspiracy theories, the republican'ts are just becoming more and more irrelevant!
See all 5 Replies
by sjc_1 September 29, 2009 8:11 PM EDT
I find it surprising that the Senate is taking the lead on this. If we had started back in 2000, I would say that we could meet that goal. Since Bush pretty much let coal power plants to expand without upgrading, it is highly unlikely that we can meet that goal.

A lot of the CO2 that we emit comes from coal fired power plants. CAFE standards will help, but without cleaning up coal, we will not meet those targets. Natural gas combined cycle power plants emit much less per megawatt and are much more efficient, but they cost more and the coal industry won under Bush.
Reply to this comment
by doc_holliday76 September 30, 2009 10:13 AM EDT
by sjc_1:
"A lot of the CO2 that we emit comes from coal fired power plants."
------------------------------------




Very true, since about 50% of all our electricity is generated by coal-fired plants, antiquated with very dirty emissions. It appears that the new senate bill will subsidize the nuclear industry even more, and even though I'm not a fan of radioactive waste and a finite source of power, it's probably a better idea if we can start shutting down more of these coal-fired plants.

If we are serious about meeting the 20% reduction by 2020, we need to continue the solar/wind expansion we've seen the last few years, reduce energy consumption through more efficiency and add some nuclear power plants to make-up for the loss of the coal-fired plants.
by Gary_in_Seabeck September 29, 2009 3:40 PM EDT
When the DOT-COM bust happened 11 years ago, a lot of people lost their shirts. Investments in junk stocks like walk-my-dog.com lost everything. Those stocks were worthless. But there were still some stocks that were based on real value, google, bestbuy, yahoo, etc., dropped in value but did not die. Smart investors survived.

Last year, the mortgage backed securities crashed because of the government required percentage of sub-prime mortgages, they crashed but not to zero. They were still based on real estate that physically exists. There is still value remaining.

There has been atmospheric cooling the last 8 years, and no new high global annual temperatures in the last 11 years.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2001.5/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/offset:-0.15/plot/gistemp/from:1998/offset:-0.24/plot/uah/from:1998/plot/rss/from:1998

When the carbon credit scheme goes bust, because mommy earth decides to prove CO2 does not control climate, ALL carbon credits will be worthless. There will be no good carbon credits vs. bad carbon credits. And who will be holding these worthless credits after investing hundreds of billions of dollars? Power companies, manufacturers, bakeries, farmers, delivery companies, you name it. They will ALL go bankrupt.
Reply to this comment
by stuart-johns1 September 29, 2009 7:35 PM EDT
Well maybe so but alot of scientists disagree with you on this. And alot of people agree with you too.

But the scientists are who my bets are on, not any blogger. No offense to you, of course.
by doc_holliday76 September 30, 2009 10:02 AM EDT
by Gary_in_Seabeck:
"There has been atmospheric cooling the last 8 years, and no new high global annual temperatures in the last 11 years."
----------------------------------------



Obviously gary, you cannot read a simple graph, since even paul shows at http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#wti the warming trend.

"If you look at the trend data, you can see the current trends in °C, between 0.13-0.17°C/decade, or, if it continues at the same rate, between 1.3 and 1.7°C per century."

-----------------



It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that your lies of cooling are NOT supported by even your own link which is "cherry-picked" from paul's 30-year graph. I'm not a fan of "cap and trade," but the science of a warming planet is clearly shown, and we need to do 'something' to lower our greenhouse gas emissions.
See all 15 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook