Climate Bill Moves Forward in Senate

Despite Republican Boycott, Committee Approves Bill in 11 to 1 Vote

(AP)  Updated 12:07 p.m. ET

Senate Democrats sidestepped a Republican boycott Thursday, pushing a U.S. climate bill out of committee in an early step on a long and contentious road to passage.

At least five other committees still must weigh-in on the measure, but the partisan antics early on threatened to cast a pall over the bill — one of President Barack Obama's top priorities. While the measure makes its way to the Senate floor, nations are preparing to meet in Copenhagen, Denmark next month to hammer out a new international treaty to slow climate change.

In June, the House narrowly passed its version of the bill, which must be reconciled with whatever measure the Senate approves.

Another complication is that the Senate measure must garner 60 votes in the 100-member chamber in order to ward off Republican delaying tactics.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, had delayed the crucial committee vote for days because of a Republican protest over whether the cost of the legislation had been fully examined. But the California Democrat moved quickly to pass the bill Thursday, which for the first time would set mandatory limits on heat-trapping gases, without any of the seven Republican senators on the panel present. The measure cleared the panel on a 11-1 vote.

Boxer said the Republican demand for more analysis was "duplicative and waste of taxpayer dollars."

"Advancing the bill is a necessary step on the road to garnering the 60 votes we need," said Boxer, who introduced the bill along with Sen. John Kerry in late September. "We are pleased that despite the Republican boycott, we have had the will to move this bill forward."

In the hopes of broadening support, Kerry, a Democrat, announced Wednesday he was working with independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham and the White House to secure votes for a climate bill.

Sen. James Inhofe, the top Republican on the committee, implored the panel to not proceed with what he called strong arm tactics minutes before the vote. He left shortly after making his statement.

Of the 11 Democrats present at the vote, only one — Sen. Max Baucus, a Democrat — voted against the legislation, saying that concerns he had with the bill were not fully addressed.

Baucus specifically cited the bill's call for a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020. He said he would like to see that target lowered to 17 percent, with a trigger to raise it to 20 percent if other countries adopted similar measures.

"I am going work to get climate legislation that can get 60 votes through the U.S. Senate and signed into law," Baucus said.

To move the bill out of committee without Republicans present meant the Democrats could not amend the legislation, and many Democrats on the panel expressed disappointment that they did not have a chance to improve the bill.

[Virgil-1]

Climate Bill!
Yes,bill the taxpayer!

[pianoman42]

I'm a fan of ubrew12. But you won't change the deniers, ubrew12. My father smoked 50 a day. He died at 86, not from cancer, which proves the smoking/cancer link is a myth put out by government employees, doesn't it.

[P0STING_AWAY]

by pianoman42 November 7, 2009 7:16 AM EST
I'm a fan of ubrew12. But you won't change the deniers, ubrew12. My father smoked 50 a day. He died at 86, not from cancer, which proves the smoking/cancer link is a myth put out by government employees, doesn't it.
---------------------------------------------------------
You IDIOT.
Smoking kills THOUSANDS of people a year.
Just because your father dodged the bullet means NOTHING.
Let me guess .... you are a Tea-bagger? A member of the Tin-Foil
hat crowd? A Sarah Palin enthusiast? etc

[j_mcdonald-2009]

POSTING_AWAY -- you need to turn up your sarcasm-detection knob...

[LtSmily]

So ubrew12 can I get the next powerball numbers from you since you can obviously "see" the future and you know "when" not "if" something is going to happen? Look, sarcasm aside, if you were an Eskimo 10,000 years ago living peacefully on your 1/2 mile thick glacier in present day Michigan, with no factories "spewing evil gases" into the atmosphere, and all of a sudden they started melting, would you panic, or would you try your best to see if the earth goes through warming and cooling phases regardless of human activity (which obviously it does). Here is what we know:
Those "evil non green" gases make up about 3% of the total atmosphere.
Mathmatically if we were to reduce "green house gases" by 20% or even by 50% in the next 30-50 years, how much of an effect IN TOTAL will that have on the miniscule portion of atmospheric gases considered bad?
Every study I have seen in support of any climate change theory has been either Government or UN funded. Given either institution's track record, how are those studies any more reliable than a study done by "big oil" that denies GW? These scientists that are creating an atmosphere of fear, get their funding from Governments, who stand to gain the most if any climate legislation is passed.
The list could go on and on, the point is, you or I could put two different data sets, with very narrow parameters into any computer model, and come up with totally different outcomes. We do not know what will happen to the climate in 100 years. We can give educated guesses, based on past performance, but that is like picking stocks with a blindfold. We do know the climate bill as it stands, if passed, will hurt the poor and middle class the most, that is not speculation. I love the science behind any discoveries, but when Government politicizes that science, it becomes irrelevant because of man's inherently greedy nature.

[ubrew12]

"how are [gov't or UN] studies any more reliable than a study done by "big oil" that denies GW?" Indeed. And why would Philip Morris lie about the danger of tobacco? If you don't know why 'big oil' has a vested interest in GW being bunk, then that's OK with me, cuz you're going to die of lung cancer pretty soon anyway. I can't help you with your own naivete. 84% of American scientists, polled last summer by the PEW group, support the notion that GW is real and human caused. Care to speculate what fraction of these scientists depend on GW being 'real' for their funding? (hint: most scientists are NOT geophysicists).

"you or I could put two different data sets, with very narrow parameters into any computer model, and come up with totally different outcomes" Yeah, well, my outcome would be garbage cuz I'm not a climatologist. Am I guessing correctly that your outcome would be garbage too, and for the same reason? But, among bonafide climatologists, there isn't much disagreement, and there hasn't been for 15 years. (and please don't tell me you are confusing meteorological predictions with climatological ones, cuz I'm pretty fvcking tired of dealing with THAT source of stupidity).

Right now, AllState insurance won't insure any property within a few feet of sea level on the Eastern Seaboard. We can talk hypothetically all day long, but eventually, for those charged with PUTTING MONEY ON THE TABLE, this issue is already resolved. You lose.

As it stands, if you own property within 3 ft of current sea levels, ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, you need to sell your property. Believe, as a matter of faith, whatever you want. But, as a matter of $$$$$$$, sell your property NOW before it is revealed, in a few years, to be worthless.

Talk is cheap. But when push comes to shove, the THREE members of Congress MOST INVOLVED in moving this legislation forward are ALL from states with massive coastal properties now at risk. Kerry (D), Liebermann (I), and Graham (R) all have HUGE political stakes in whether GW is real or not. NOTE, when the rubber meets the road, how they vote on this issue, and you will KNOW the truth from the falsity.

[LtSmily]

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. Record Rains in parts of the US., Pakistan, and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in CENTURIES. In Canada?s wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climactic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandra?s are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
Tell Tale signs are everywhere, from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland, to the southward migration of warmth loving creatures like armadillos from the Midwest. Since the 1940?s the mean global temperature has DROPPED about 2.7 degrees F.
This from a Time article June 24th 1974. So that was 35 years ago, and in the 35 years since, we have recovered that temperature fluctuation that happened in the previous 35 years from the 1940?s. Man knows not the Law of Unintended Consequences when playing with fire, but he sure knows how to screw his fellow man with Laws of Intended Consequences, that have quantifiable results we can measure, when passing B.S. legislation. We do not know what will happen with the weather 100 years from now, regardless of whether or not we do or do not enact climate change legislation ,and especially IN SPITE OF computer simulations that are filled with data that may or may not be accurate enough to predict the weather. On the other hand, we do know what will happen with taxes, and we do know what will happen to the most vulnerable in our society, and we do know that China, India, and Brazil could care less about our ?environmental crusade?.
And while I intend no personal disrespect towards Skyk, we do know that WE THE PEOPLE, have no input in ?our? government, and ?our? government has not been a part of WE THE PEOPLE for over 100 years (read progessive agenda), and we can rest assured that WE THE PEOPLE are the last thing on ?our? government?s agenda when passing legislation. Real change is effected from the bottom up, not the top down.

[ubrew12]

Cooling has been happening for 10 years, NOT 30, and even then it's not statistically significant (more years of data needed): so the 'conclusion' that we are now cooling is erroneous (esp given the statistically significant warming we've undergone in the last 100 years).

But, in the last 10 years, polar ice melting has accelerated. As with a cup of heated ice-water, the planet may just be pausing in its warming as ice melts from the ice-caps, and will then resume. Although GW deniers are 'cheered' by the 'cooling' of the last 10 years, they can't deny that evidence of polar melting is growing and predictions of sea level change are growing more and more dire.

[pjk12354]

At least there is one Republican who can see what global warming can do. Maybe the rest will start listening to him

[ubrew12]

Graham's state of S Carolina has over 2800 miles of tidally-affected coastline, and this coastline WILL be affected by global sea level rise (currently projected to be 4 feet by 2100). As a politician, he needs to get out in front of this issue, or he'll get replaced by enraged homeowners once the sea-level 'sh*t hits the fan'.

I think its 'too little too late' for him, however. You'll notice that the two democrats pushing hardest for this legislation are also from states on the Eastern Seaboard (Kerry-Mass, and Liebermann-Conn). Likewise, they want to say they tried to 'do something' when their wealthy coastal constituents lose their homes (thats 'when', not 'if')

[mopar1956]

You people are so easily influenced by the media and the government. I hate to tell you but ice does not melt unless it gets above 32 degree. The artic does not get above 32 degrees, ever. The only thing that can melt the ice in the arctic is the ocean currents.

We can not raise the temperature of the ocean by ourselves. It take underwater volcanic activity to do that. Our little bit that we do can not melt the ice.

[co2max]

Crap and Tirade - Just another way for the Democrazies to give us all the shaft and all for the sake of a NON-PROBLEM.

Here's your chance to have a voice against the proposed Treaty of Copenhagen: You can sign the Instrument of Repudiation--

http://www.webcommentary.com/climate/climate.php

[doctor_know]

What would motivate them to do that?

[louiville35]

by doctor_know November 5, 2009 11:46 AM EST
... that will be re-invested in the US economy to research and implement energy solutions to get us off mid-east oil!

Cheers!
===========================================================

Yeah they are going to tax us an additional $200 Billion each year and plow a whopping $1 billion back into research and development each year. Want to guess where the other $199 Billion dollars each year are going to go? So do I, somewhere in the fine print you'll find the names of filthy rich banking/investment mogals who want "Cap n Trade" so bad they will do anything like hire thousands of people to blog about the world ending or something.

[lmartink]

The cost of doing nothing could be far greater............

It's like the classic mechanic says, "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later." And the longer you wait, the higher the cost. Same thaing applies here.

It's time to turn and fairly face our future. It's not the 20th Century anymore. I think the consequences of doing nothing is pretty risky.

[ken1dall]

These commies never give up. What next???? It is almost time to take to the streets!

[doctor_know]

I dont see anything about the communist party here....

[troutfishyman]

by endurorob_5 November 5, 2009 1:07 PM EST
skyk-2009 November 5, 2009 12:39 PM EST
ajvw, I don't know about that but you let this nation stay on Middle Eastern Oil and I CAN assure you all of us will be paying a LOT more... a WHOLE LOT MORE!


We ahev plenty of our own oil reserves but of course those are off limits.





Google "australian oil spill" and see your drill baby drill program in action.

[louiville35]

So your answer is? (environmentally impact neutral solution hopefully and not involving us all dying........)

[ubrew12]

solar thermal collection. one-eighth the land area of Arizona would collect enough energy to power all America, just by itself. And its base power since solar thermal stores solar energy as molten salt.

[Empire-George]

by endurorob_5 November 5, 2009 1:19 PM EST

How many businesses and jobs will go away if national energy costs go up like that.
_________________

Why think of businesses, when they are busy playing Captain Planet and saving the world with a Prius and taxation ?