Senate Panel Begins Debate on Climate Bill

Sen. John Kerry, the Bill's Chief Author, Says "America's Leadership Is on the Line"

(AP)  Updated 4:19 p.m. ET

The Obama administration warned Tuesday that the U.S. could slip further behind China and other countries in clean energy development if Congress fails to pass climate legislation, even as the bill's chief author acknowledged that reducing heat-trapping pollution will increase energy costs.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a Senate panel that the U.S. has stumbled in the clean energy race and to catch up Congress must enact comprehensive energy legislation that puts the first-ever limits on the gases blamed for global warming.

"The United States ... has fallen behind," said Chu. "But I remain confident that we can make up the ground."

With weeks remaining before 192 nations gather in Copenhagen, Denmark to try to negotiate a new global treaty to slow climate change, time is running out for the Senate to pass a climate bill this year.

While the legislation is likely to clear the environment panel, where Democrats hold a five-vote majority, as many as five other committees have jurisdiction over the bill before it goes to the Senate floor. The House of Representatives has passed an energy bill.

Chu said enactment of climate legislation is the "critical step (that) will drive investment decisions toward clean energy."

Chu was one of five administration officials, including three Cabinet secretaries, to push for legislation before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee as it opened debate on a 925-page bill that would reduce greenhouse gases by about 80 percent by mid-century.

His comments were echoed by Democrats, including the bill's chief author Sen. John Kerry, a Democrat who told the panel that "America's leadership is on the line."

But in a replay of what happened in the House, which passed its version of the bill in June, Republicans and some moderate Democrats scoffed at the cost, which would put in place a cap-and-trade system that would put a price on heat-trapping pollution and allow companies to buy and sell permits to meet emissions targets.

Sen. James Inhofe, the panel's top Republican on the panel, and a skeptic of the science behind global warming, said Americans would not stomach the expense.

"This is something the American people can't tolerate and I don't think they will," Inhofe said.

An Environmental Protection Agency analysis released late Friday said the average household would pay an additional $80 to $111 a year to power their homes and fuel their cars if the bill becomes law and businesses pass on the cost of reducing pollution to consumers.

Kerry acknowledged that the bill would raise energy prices, but said the savings from reducing energy and the money to be made in new technologies were far greater.

"Are there some costs? Yes, sir, there are some costs," Kerry said. He added that while an array of studies show restricting greenhouse gases will lead to higher energy prices, "none of them factor in the cost of doing nothing."

Kerry got some much-needed backup from President Barack Obama, who made a stop at a solar energy site in Florida Tuesday.

The president warned that opponents, whom he did not identify, would work against the climate bill.

"They're going to argue that we should do nothing, stand pat, do less or delay action yet again," said Obama. "It's a debate between looking backward and looking forward, between those who are ready to seize the future and those who are afraid of the future."

[Virgil-1]

Guess who's in charge of climate control?It's not the gods of this world.

[sjc_1]

Just using fossil fuels more efficiently and renewable energy where we can will make a lot of things better. Less imported oil, cleaner air, lower CO2 emissions and all the rest make it all worth doing. If it can slow global warming and climate change then great, but just buying less imported oil would be a wonderful outcome to me.

[ibzjem]

Okay, how many times do we have to hear that GW is natural? We puny humans could never effect the environment. Right? Forget the massive deforestation, the increasing acidity of our oceans, the nearly depleted fishing reserves, the millions of metric tons of waste in our air, land, and water. Is this not fooling with Mother Nature?

Currently alternative energies are fueling more than 6.7% of our nations energy consumption. Actually 6.7% was the statistic two years ago. That includes Biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, wind, and solar power. We need more infrastructure to handle fuel cell cars, high speed trains, and other forms of transportation that other countries have had for years. Buy energy efficient cars and appliances. Reduce, reuse, recycle. Baby steps is what will get us to an energy independent and renewable future, but we need incentives. Americans don't do anything without incentives.

[LoRickFam]

GW AND GC (cooling) is natural. It was happening long before man came along. One volcano eruption spews more toxins and pollutants into the atmosphere that man can manage in over a year! Don't even get started on how much toxins Yellowstone National Park alone emits! Maybe we should "cap" and tax volcanos and natural geothermal formations.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and being as energy efficient as possible but let's be reasonable about it. Why isn't anyone paying attention to the environmental damage it takes to manufacture the cadmium batteries found in a Toyota Prius? Talk about a "carbon footprint"! And we thought a Hummer was irresponsible.

Bottom line is, common sense and reason has been thrown out. Anybody wonder why that is? Thirty years ago science and "experts" were selling global cooling and predicting an ice age if fossil fuel wasn't eliminated! Not exactly true was it?

The 6.7% you refer to is more of a supplement than replacement. The technology just isn't there and won't be for decades. In the meantime, if its energy independence we want, let's tap our own fossil fuel resources to end our servitude to Arab countries. And you are correct, let's take baby steps towards renewable energy for the future.

Anyone believe the Government is the vehicle to take us there? I don't either. Free Market Capitalism made this country the richest and most powerful in the world. I'll bet if we turned the free market loose on coming up with renewable energy solutions, (without government intervention!) we would have a reasonable commons sense solution faster than Al Gore could say, "Oops, I guess I was wrong!"

[ibzjem]

Global cooling from the 70s is a complete myth. Visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling. There are plenty of other places that describe that idea if you don't like wikipedia. Scientists were not selling global cooling. I don't buy it. Your common sense and reasoning fall short on this.

Have you every looked at temperature trends over the past 3 or 4 decades? The earth, I would argue, is not as volcanic as it once was. It should be lending to a cooling period if it were true that volcanoes are causing the warming. A couple of eruptions over a few decades is not adequate explanation for the symptoms we see.

Supplement or not renewables are contributing at an increasing rate. I don't see why we should be shouting at the top of our lungs to continue with old technology. We had electric cars with demand a decade ago and they were killed off. We have the grid to support 70% of us driving electric cars. It's like everyone giving up their computers and going back to electric typewriters. The technology is there, we need infrastructure to get it out to everyone. Plus that technology is changing at a much faster rate than internal combustion engines have changed in 100 years.

Now we get to the crux of the matter. Politics. You're of the "Drill Baby Drill" mantra. I assume mostly because you are either conservative or libertarian, most likely, or just don't like the Gore types. The precious Free Market doesn't really exist and for good reason. Do you think the free market is keeping your peanut butter safe from salmonella? How many tainted jars are you willing to eat before the market flushes them all out? Or your bridges from collapsing? Do you think your car would have air bags or other new safety features if we relied upon the free market? Do you think people would pay more for those items if they could get a cheaper car without them? And do you really think oil drilled at home would really be used here? It's all part of a world market, and there's really no telling where it would go. Plus it would take a decade to get new oil out of the ground. Time enough to ramp up other energy sources.

[LoRickFam]

You want to be technical and correct me regarding the facts of whether global cooling was real? Yet, you are drawn into the belief that "theoretical models" are fact? You can't have it both ways. You cite facts and reference to prove your point, but use theories and fault ridden models to "prove" GW?? Really??

I noticed you didn't address my comment bout the cadmium mines. Have you seen a picture of the cadmium wasteland in Canada? And you want more electric cars? Again, you can't have it both ways. You don't want the fallout from fossil fuels but you are willing to accept the fallout from electric cars?

I drive a '94 chev silverado natural gas powered vehicle. It emits 1/2 the carbon emissions and I pay .85 per gallon equivilent to gasonline. But, while I can drive 100 miles for less than $5, I don't think natural gas is the answer to oil dependence. It is a bridge to future energy solutions.

As for free market capitalism. Yes, I do believe the free market will keep peanut butter salmonella free. Come on. this is basic stuff. What happens to companies that don't act responsible in the free market system? They fail because no one will buy their product. Unregulated free markets are self regulating. Sure, there are some exceptions that need regulating(e.g. monopolies)but if the govt would let markets function properly, they self regulate.
In the free market you are given the choice of buying a car with or without airbags, you are not force one way or the other and you live with your choice. In big govt, you create a beaurocracy that costs billions of dollars and regulates the industry into bankruptcy. (e.g. GM, Chrysler).

So what's your alternative to Capitalism? Marxism? Socialism? Fascism? Oh, I know, Progressivism! Good luck with that! Let's see where it takes us in the next 3 years.

The free market economy doesn't exist anymore because we as Americans are loosing our Freedoms to govt regulation.

And what energy solutions can we get "up and going" in ten years?

[j_mcdonald-2009]

LoRickFam: "GW AND GC (cooling) is natural. It was happening long before man came along."

Right, man has never survived in the climates you describe. Doesn't that give you some pause for thought?

We haven't lived on Venus or Mars, either, and they experience some natural warming and cooling, but I sure wouldn't want to transform Earth into either of them.

The warming we are seeing now is decidedly NOT natural--it is happening thousands of times faster than anything seen before in the geologic record of the Earth, and is clearly due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane, at least if you're willing to believe every major scientific organization in the world and/or are willing to look at the actual data reported in thousands of peer-reviewed journals. (If instead you got your science degree from Talk Radio University and thus don't believe in actual data and evidence, then of course your conclusions will be, shall we say, creatively different.)


LoRickFam: "One volcano eruption spews more toxins and pollutants into the atmosphere that man can manage in over a year!"

This urban legend seems to get be repeated often. Out of curiosity, do you happen to remember where you heard it?

The truth of the matter is that over the past 150 years, all the volcanos in the world put together (including Krakatoa, Mount St. Helens, Vesuvius, Mt. Pinatubo, Mauna Loa, etc.) have contributed less than 1% of the CO2 man has released. Because the anthropogenic release is continually incresing, the current ratio is that man releases about 400 times the CO2 released by volcanos.

99.6% of the variance in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from 1900-2000 is completely accounted for by anthropogenic carbon emissions.

The correlation coefficient between cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions and increased atmospheric CO2 is r = 0.998 (where r = 1.0 represents an absolutely perfect match).

Some quick references for volcanic emissions (it's easy to find more if you look around):

[1] Stanley N. Williams, Stephen J. Schaefer, Marta Lucia Calvache V., and Dina Lopez, "Global carbon dioxide emission to the atmosphere by volcanoes," Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta (Journal of The Geochemical Society and The Meteoritical Society); Vol. 56, Issue No. 4 (April 1992 [1992-04]), pp. 1765-1770.

[2] Richard E. Stoiber, "Volcanic Gases From Subaerial Volcanoes on Earth" (pdf), Global Earth Physics: A Handbook of Physical Constants, AGU Reference Shelf 1, American Geophysical Union, 1995; Table 1, p. 310 [pdf: 3].

And a pretty good description of anthroponic CO2 (even though a bit dated, at 1999):

"How Much of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Accumulation Is Anthropogenic?" By Gary W. Harding, at

http://www.strom.clemson.edu/becker/prtm320/commons/carbon3.html

[LoRickFam]

Gee...stn_sage. Maybe you are looking forward to your energy bills quadrupling in the next 10 years! Haven't you been listening to the White House? They know and have admitted that Cap and Trade will dramatically increase energy costs while bringing in $200Billion per year to the Govt.

And Imartink... you are partly correct--We do desparately need to move forward, but not against climate change! (Climate change is a result of Mother Nature, not mankind. Remember the old commercials: Its not nice to fool with Mother Nature? Good advise!)

What we desparately need to move forward with is drilling for domestic oil and "proven" energy solutions like Crude, Natural Gas, and coal! (Do you know govt. has subsidised over 20billion on wind and solar in the last 30 years and that it still only accounts for 1/6th of 1% of our total US energy production?)

Fact: There are no near-term "alternatives" to Oil, natural gas, and coal! Like it or not our country/world runs on fossil fuel and will for decades to come. US Govt forecast shows that fossil fuel will supply about 85% of the world's energy needs in 2030!

Wind and Solar cannot produce enough energy to replace coal and Natural gas fired power generation in this country. Maybe you conservationist and Green citizens should look into the environmental footprint that solar and wind generation would leave if tried to replace fossil fuel power generation!

[stn_sage]

To LoRickFam: Buddy, settle down...you're going to 'blow a gasket' on this, and I, for one, truly don't want to see THAT happen!

I have a LOT of comments about this...but I don't have the time to do a treatise...and the other posters really don't want to read it, either!
So, I'll get to my points!

It's not MY FAULT...or yours', for that matter...that 'Cap and Trade' will increase energy costs! What would you have me DO about it! Let's put the responsibility where it rests, on the politicians in 'D.C.'!

Second, your 'fact' is NOT a fact, bud! There are MANY alternatives to fossil burning fuels! Namely, FREE ENERGY DEVICES! They don't require gas, oil, or coal...which is WHY they are being withheld from the market! They are efficient, environmentally-clean, low-cost, with little to no maintenance, and will run for YEARS virtually trouble free!

But...they DO have ONE drawback! If used, the gas, coal, and electricity industries won't be able to charge you...and in some cases...over-charge you...for their products anymore!

When you get the chance...look into it Rick...and expand your knowledge...take care buddy!

[LoRickFam]

stn_sage, You're right. I do need to settle down. Sorry for the tirade.
Point taken. But, free energy devices, while real, unfortunately aren't realistic until take seriously. Too bad they don't put as much effort and money into those devices as they do the climate debate.

[stn_sage]

Gee...doing nothing could be more expensive then doing something now...but, what if the Senate messes up and makes a disaster of it with the action they take?

Gosh, this is a difficult choice!

[lmartink]

We despeartely need ot move forward against Climate Change, and to begin building the new alternative energy sources such as wind and solar.