Climate Bill Faces High Hurdles in Senate

Washington Post: With Democrats Deeply Divided, Republican Support Is Necessary for Bill to Move Forward

(Washington Post)  This story was written by Juliet Eilperin.

---

The climate-change bill that has been moving slowly through the Senate will face a stark political reality when it emerges for committee debate on Tuesday: With Democrats deeply divided on the issue, unless some Republican lawmakers risk the backlash for signing on to the legislation, there is almost no hope for passage.

Like the measure adopted by the House, the legislation favors a cap-and-trade system that would issue permits for greenhouse gas emissions, gradually lower the amount of emissions allowed, and let companies buy and sell permits to meet their needs -- all without adding to the federal deficit, according to projections. But key Republicans are making their opposition clear, even as Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) has enlisted Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) as his most visible GOP ally in gathering support for the bill.

Sen. George V. Voinovich (Ohio), a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee who was initially seen as one of the few Republicans who might consider backing the majority, is helping lead the opposition.

"Why are we trying to jam down this legislation now?" he asked during a hearing last week. "Wouldn't it be smarter to take our time and do it right?"

He wrote Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson twice this summer to ask for a more detailed economic analysis of the House-passed climate legislation, and he has joined the other six Republicans on the committee in boycotting the climate bill's markup, scheduled for Tuesday.

The measure has deeply divided Democrats. With states in the Midwest, South and Rocky Mountain West dependent on fossil fuels for energy, many senators are worried about the legislation's impact on industry and consumers.

"I think at the end of the day, the people who turn the switch on at home will be disadvantaged," Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) told CNBC on Friday, explaining why he did not think the bill Kerry had sponsored along with Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) could pass.

So Democratic leaders, with the support of the Obama administration, are trying to sway at least half a dozen Republicans by offering amendments to speed along their top priority: building nuclear power plants.

Graham has suggested provisions on nuclear power and offshore oil drilling that could win his support for a cap-and-trade climate bill. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) has established a bipartisan working group of 17 Senate offices that is close to producing a detailed amendment aimed at hurrying the construction of U.S. nuclear reactors.

But it remains unclear whether that approach will hold currency in the current era of political polarization. One of the top Republicans whom Democrats hope to recruit in this effort -- Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), whom Graham and Kerry recently buttonholed on the Senate floor -- has voiced skepticism about the legislation.

"A tepid nuclear title isn't enough to get her to support a bad climate bill," said Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Murkowski.

Graham and Kerry are set to meet Wednesday with Energy Secretary Steven Chu, as well as with Obama's top climate adviser, Carol M. Browner, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to discuss a possible compromise. They are also setting up meetings with colleagues on the issue.

"There is nowhere near 60 votes for a nuclear power bill on its own. There's not 60 votes for a cap-and-trade bill as it's currently constructed," Graham said in an interview. He said combining the two measures is "the only way you'll get to 60 votes."

It is what Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope calls "the old formula for bipartisanship."

"They would agree on a goal, they would not agree exactly on the means to a goal, and they'd come up with a legislative solution that takes elements from both sides," he said.

And Graham, for his part, has become a lightning rod for controversy back home. On Oct. 22, the American Energy Alliance, an advocacy group funded in part by energy companies, launched a radio, TV and online advertising campaign in South Carolina that has cost "close to $300,000" so far, according to the group's spokesman, Patrick Creighton.

Featuring a Halloween theme, the TV commercial warns of "some scary stories coming out of Washington" and says, "The latest is Senator Lindsey Graham's support for a national energy tax called cap-and-trade."

Creighton said the group questions why Graham says a deal will help offshore drilling, which Congress has already allowed.

Groups backing the climate bill came to Graham's defense last week. They aired radio and television ads that featured state Sen. John Courson, a conservative Republican who became concerned about global warming after witnessing the decline of polar bears in Churchill, Manitoba.

Senate Panel Begins Debate on Climate Bill
Obama Pressured to Push for Climate Bill
Senate Dems Try to Rebrand "Cap and Trade"

"Out-of-state interests are attacking our Senator Lindsey Graham," Courson says in an ad underwritten by Republicans for Environmental Protection, "because he's backing an energy plan that produces more power in America."

Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said he is optimistic that the parties can reach an accord because Americans are not divided along party lines on global warming. "Is there bipartisanship in the country? I think clearly there is," he said.

State lawmakers who came to advise the White House last week on climate saw a different picture. "We looked for any Republican, in any state legislature in the country, who supported a bill," recalled Minnesota state Rep. Jeremy Kalin. "We found not a one."

[dadown]

The cap-and-trade bill is pure folly. It won't fix anything and will cost us billions more that we can't afford. Read this article for the details:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Save-the-planet_-Kill-cap-and-trade-8456687-67288577.html

[Stevenapoli7]

True that. $1200 increase per family of 4 for CO2 emissions. Give me a break. Global warming is mythical. How is Africa, China, and India going to come up with the money to drive a Toyota Prius?

[philipclarkson]

The global eco imperative

In December 2009 the United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen will be a pivotal moment for decisions regarding the continued survival of all dependent species.

Our carbon footprint is exponential, and correlate's, to a rise in global ambient temperature?s that are keeping pace with our species developments and expansions worldwide.

We have sacrificed the global environment on the altar of expediency, and now in the lifetime of our species we are facing adverse global climatic change.

It is no coincidence that as the globalization of industrialized developments gathers pace fueled by unprecedented technological advances, global warming increases exponentially!

And with former stagnant developing countries coming on track, like China, India and Russia, this has exacerbated the situation further.

It is the historical innovative usage of the finite resource (petroleum) coupled with rapid development and change in land usage that has brought this monumental problem to our door.

There is a clear correlation between exponential fossil fuel usage, and global carbon emission levels, which are a major global warming driving force.

Sadly, the very resource (petroleum) that fuels our global growth enhances the greenhouse effect, which exacerbates global warming. We are caught in a desperate loop, a user cycle.

Practically every aspect of our lives involves using resource that pollute. We are addicted to pollutants, like the smoker who has been told to quit the habit or it will be terminal, we promise, then relapse through lack of willpower, and clear understanding.


Radical c o 2 emission level reduction is the only game in town and must have a timescale that allows for Global adaptation, coupled with nuclear and inclusive renewable sustainable Solutions, that measure up to the extent of the problem.

(Some Solutions for the mitigation of long-term radical adverse global Climate change)

Make sure emissions peak in 2012 and decrease as rapidly as possible towards zero after that.

Developed countries must make cuts of 50 percent on their 1990 carbon emissions by 2030 with mandatory regulation by United Nations.

Developing countries must slow the growth of emissions by 20 percent by 2040, with support from industrialized nations

there is an inexorable link between global Eco-equity and global financial equity.

It is clear there is a need to link global sustainable economies, with global Eco-sustainability.

Failure to coalesce, for the mitigation of global adverse climatic change, will force the planet to make that decision for us, whatever action we take then, will ultimately benefit the planet.

Long live, the planet.

[Ms_enza]

Sad that science gains knowledge faster than society gains wisdom...

[ubrew12]

This mornings news: "According to a new report led by the U.S. Geological Survey, we "face the possibility of much more rapid climate change than previous studies have suggested." The report found that in light of recent ice sheet melting, global sea levels could rise as much as 4 feet (1.2 metres) by 2100. The IPCC (in 2007) had projected a rise of no more than 1.5 feet by that time, but satellite data over the last two years show the world's major ice sheets are melting much more rapidly than previously thought. The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are losing an average of 48 cubic miles of ice a year, equivalent to twice the amount of ice in the Alps. The models used by the IPCC did not factor in the dynamic where warmer ocean water under coastal ice sheets accelerates melting. (About 600 million people currently live in low lying coastal areas.)

According to the Worldwatch Institute, of the 33 cities predicted to have at least eight million residents by 2015, some 21 coastal cities will certainly have to contend with sea rise impacts, however severe they may be. So it may not just be bye-bye to parts of Bangkok, but adieu to bits of Boston, many of Malibu's glamour spots and even sections of lower Manhattan.

Prime examples of top tourist destinations at risk of this are the Maldives, where many of the islands are less than one metre above sea-level, as well as Goa, and river deltas such as the Mekong. In the USA, Florida's beaches and Everglades are at a particularly high risk from rising sea levels, as well as North Carolina's Outer Banks In terms of cities, New Orleans is in the most danger. But wealthy cities such as
Hamburg, London, Miami and New York City would all be seriously threatened by 4 feet of sea-level rise.

The report also found that the drought which began in the North American Southwest about 6 years ago could be the leading edge of a new climate regime for a wider region. Edward Cook, climatologist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, says that periodic droughts over the past 1,000 years have been made more intense and persistent by climate warming. Cook told the press conference, "What this tells us is that the system has the ability to lock into periods of profound, long-lasting aridity." Cook added: "If the system tips, that would have catastrophic effects on human activities and populations over wide areas."

The panel said two other systemic changes seem less imminent, but are still of concern. Vast quantities of methane gas are locked in ocean sediments, wetlands and permafrost. If these are destabilized by global warming it would create blowouts that would cause an abrupt temperature shift. The panel said blowouts appear unlikely in the next 100 years but steady emissions of methane could double. Tom Armstrong, senior adviser for global change programs at USGS, explained, "This is one of those things that keep people up at night, it's a low-probability but high-risk scenario. If it were to occur, it would be life-changing...We need to be prepared to deal with it. There are no policies in place to deal with abrupt climate change."

The panel also looked at the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic Ocean, which sends warm water north and cold water south, warming Western Europe. Some scientists say the circulation could collapse if enough ice melts and dilutes the salty Atlantic. The panel found this scenario unlikely in the short term, but warned that the Gulf Stream's circulation strength might decline 25% to 30% by 2100.

It was clear that sea ice melt has accelerated considerably over the past 2 years. This report confirms those observations. When the first climate models predicted the North Pole could be ice free by 2100, it was met with disbelief and called alarmist at best. It is now clear that the Arctic will be ice free by 2030 and that climate change is accelerating. Nations are laying claim to mineral rights in an ice free Arctic and shipping companies are calculating routes over the North Pole."

[Biggest_Rick]

When something is changing, it does so in a semi-constant manner. If for example we are going through a period of global warming, then it stands to reason that ocean temperatures for example will rise continually. If the climate is truly warming than there is nothing that would create an outlet for the build up of heat. In this case, the ocean has actually been colling over the last 6 to 8 years and the promised open water at the North Pole has not materialized. This is where much of global warming theory falls apart, because in a constantly warming environment heat has no where to go but be absorbed and thus cause more warming. The planet goes through ups and down in global temperatures on a natural cycle and to me it is awfully arrogant to think that somehow man is altogether responsible for climate change. The climate was changing up and down long before people walked on the earth and will be changing up and down long after we are an extinct species.

[ubrew12]

Incremental measures, over time, can halt climate change. The half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is 800 years, so its already too late to halt a 3ft rise in sea level. The longer we wait, the more dramatic the changes have to be. Already, people are talking about injecting aerosol pollutants into the upper atmosphere. Will it cool the planet by dimming the sun? yes. Will it ruin crop yields? yes. Will it kill thousands susceptible to emphysema? Yes. But, if the consequences of global warming get a bad as I think they are going to get, we are going to go there even if it kills thousands of people.

I just think people like you should know their blood will be on your hands. If we start immediately, we don't need to take drastic measures, but if you get your way on this issue, that is all that will be left.

[Noval53]

Climate "Mad" Scientist and their supporters are beginning to look and sound a lot like Zealots of some kind of Earth Worship Religion. If you don't join them and sing along, you'll be treated like an infidel. Look at the extremist comments; saying blood will be on your hands if you don't join this chicken little club and support the cause. What a bunch of crackpots.

[the74blaster]

by Noval53 November 3, 2009 8:10 AM EST
Climate "Mad" Scientist and their supporters are beginning to look and sound a lot like Zealots of some kind of Earth Worship Religion. If you don't join them and sing along, you'll be treated like an infidel. Look at the extremist comments; saying blood will be on your hands if you don't join this chicken little club and support the cause. What a bunch of crackpots.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I assume that you can offer poof that the data collected that shows a direct relationship between Carbon dioxide and temperatues is incorrect.

Provide a website and lets see if you can convince me to join the Flat Earth Social Club who continues to fight the fact that GW is a real issue.

[stevador39]

Climate change is probably beyond human control. But it is being used to distract us from the pollution that is destroying the quality of our air, water and food. The environment is being poisoned by profiteering corporations. People can control corporate pollution.

[ubrew12]

The official estimate of global sea level rise by end of century is 3 feet. Unofficially, it could very easily reach 3 feet by 2030. That's going to cover Manhattan, S florida, much of the Eastern coastline, and Waikiki.

BTW, nothing we do now will prevent this. This is just last centuries warming finally soaking into the Greenland and W Antarctic ice shelves. Our inability to take action on this issue now will doom us to 6 feet of sea level rise by end of century.

[Biggest_Rick]

I don't think it is so much a "climate" bill as a TAX bill. This bill will have hardly any effect on world climate while having a hugely bad effect on industry here in the states. It will create new costs for manufactuers and will cost manufacturing jobs as well as cost average American families big dollars in both direct and indirect taxes. I hope it dies a quick death.

[lightningF]

This is no climate bill,this is a diaster waiting to happen. The Democrats added language to it that allows the administrators of Social Security and Medicare to draw from the General fund if the Cap and Trade(energy) bill costs jobs. That shows that they expect this bill to cost the Americans more jobs. Is that what we need now? Higher energy prices and a loss of jobs. What the hell is wrong with the Democrats,have they all lost their minds,or are they so power hungry that they just don't care about the American Tax Payers any more?