Lieberman-Warner moved from critical condition to the morgue
The fading hopes for the Lieberman-Warner climate bill have all but ended (see E&E News, “Sponsors lower expectations for Lieberman-Warner bill,” subs. req’d, reprinted below).
Serious climate legislation had been in critical condition for some months (see “Boucher lets conservatives block House climate bill” and “Don’t hold your breath on Lieberman-Warner passing in 2008.”). Doctors and family members finally pulled the plug this week, and the patient appeared to lose all vital signs. The coroner listed the cause of death as “apathy.”
The only hope for revival now rests in the faint possibility that Lieberman-Warner turns out to be either an immortal cop, a vampire private detective or possibly a relentless, indestructible killing machine from the future that had taken on the guise of so-so climate legislation in an effort to fulfill its mission of ruining life on this planet for homo “sapiens.” [Note to self: That was a bit harsh.]
More seriously, too many Senators simply wanted to do too much watering down of L-W, plus we have the little-known provision of the Constitution that says all pieces of legislation aimed at sparing billions of people from unimaginable misery must receive 60 votes. The messy details are below:
Senate sponsors of a major global warming bill lowered expectations yesterday on their chances for final passage as aides scrambled behind the scenes to complete a revamped version of the legislation before next month’s scheduled floor debate.
Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) shrugged off suggestions she is having trouble winning over moderates and conservatives from either party in her quest to find 60 votes and squash an inevitable filibuster.
“To tell you the truth, we don’t know if we’ll wind up getting 60 votes this time,” Boxer said in an interview. “But we do believe we’re making tremendous progress and we’re going to start the debate.”
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who provided a critical swing vote for the climate bill last winter when it moved out of the EPW Committee, provided a similar assessment. “I don’t think we can count on 60 at this point,” he said.
Aides to Boxer and Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) have been working over the last few weeks on a substitute to their original climate bill with several changes compared to the version adopted in committee last December. Lieberman said he expected the manager’s amendment would get wider circulation Monday, with a public rollout shortly after.
“The whole idea is to get a draft out to our colleagues, to stakeholders, and we presume, to the public to see what we’re thinking,” Lieberman said. “And then invite responses so we can continue to improve it.”
Warner yesterday said he was looking for changes before the floor debate that would allow the president to “pull back the throttle” if the legislation’s emission targets cannot be met with available technology, or if the U.S. economy was under stress through, for example, $5 a gallon gasoline.
Boxer has also promised several changes to the bill, including a “deficit reduction” amendment, as well as greater oversight of the carbon markets and specific funding directed toward cities to help promote energy efficiency and mass transit.
Many demandsThe Lieberman-Warner-Boxer camp is facing increasing demands from all corners of the Senate to change the bill that would establish a cap-and-trade system with midcentury emission limits of 70 percent below 2005 levels.
Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown told the Cleveland Plain Dealer this week he was holding out in his support for the Lieberman-Warner bill because it did not do enough to protect his home state’s manufacturing jobs while still stimulating investments in alternative energy. “I have serious concerns about any climate-change bill that doesn’t take into account energy-intensive industries like we have in Ohio — glass and chemicals and steel and aluminum and foundries,” Brown said.
“He’s concerned,” Brown spokeswoman Joanna Kuebler explained yesterday. “He’s leaning toward a no.”
Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington said in an interview that she is also pushing for changes in the Lieberman-Warner bill to benefit her home state’s abundant supplies of hydropower. “We want to make sure people who are already good at reducing CO2 emissions will continue to do that and not be penalized,” she said. Cantwell explained that she has not joined the bill as a cosponsor because she wants to keep working on it.
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said he wants a more beneficial emission allocation system for his state’s rural energy producers.
“Obviously, I represent a state that’s a significant power producer,” Conrad said. “Most people don’t think of North Dakota that way. But we produce electricity for nine states. We have the largest coal gasification plant in the country. We have very large reserves of lignite coal.”
In contrast, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) maintained that he is a long way from backing the Lieberman-Warner bill. Instead, he is taking a close look at an alternative climate bill circulated from Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) that opens with tax incentives for new energy technologies but falls back on cap and trade if the other ideas have not worked by 2030.
“It’s a more realistic approach to what technology is going to be required,” Nelson said. “Just legislating it, doesn’t get you there.”
[Note to Nelson: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!]
On the Republican side of the aisle, Sen. John McCain of Arizona plans a major climate-themed speech Monday inPortland, Ore., that his aides say will spell out in greater detail what he hopes to do on the issue if elected president this November. McCain will cover issues relevant to the Lieberman-Warner floor debate, including how to limit costs to the U.S. economy and also how to safeguard U.S. manufacturers concerned about international competition, an aide said.
Back in Washington, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) spoke on the Senate floor yesterday on a different method for using what are projected to be hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue raised through an auction of emission credits. Gregg suggested the auction revenue could go toward reducing personal income taxes, as opposed to its current function with Lieberman-Warner, which ranges from research and development of new energy technologies to helping low-income energy consumers.
“This should not be a windfall that expands the size of federal government,” Gregg said. “It’s not right to do that.”
May 8th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Once they voted Clinton/Sanders no giveaways to industry (100% auctions of permits only) it would be a huge expensive deal, so its not that terrible.
Better to wait till we get a real Democrat or near enough (Obama) into the White House and a decent cloturevote majority in the Senate.
Lets try again next year. Do it right.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Susan, the Senate is critical, but unfortunately right now it looks well short of 60 or 67 and really 67 are needed (e.g. for treaties). 54-46 is the D-R projection that they have over at
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
and of course not all Ds can be counted upon. For that reason, I’m not optimistic that we’ll see anything significant on the legislative front. It comes down to what the White House can do administratively. Fortunately the Supreme Court already ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that they can do a lot. Whether they will is another thing (look at how little got done in 1992-2000) or the Clinton gas tax holiday proposal.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
What are you saying, we should give up? If you don’t want to fight for a strong climate bill, fine, give up, go sit on the sidelines. But declaring the battle lost before it’s even begun? Honestly, it makes you look like you’re pulling for the bill’s opponents so when it goes down you can say, “See, I told you it was too weak and would never pass.”
May 8th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
I am just discouraged today.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Earl,
I know it won’t be 60, I know not every Dem is so hot, but it will help to have someone in the WH who will at least auction 100% of the permits.
I did not proofread: I meant to say
“Once they voted DOWN the Clinton/Sanders “no giveaways to industry” (100% auctions of permits only) it would be a huge expensive deal, so its not that terrible that it failed for this year.”
Miles, no: never give up. We can keep working to pass other pieces of the 12 Socolow/Pacal wedges these next 7 months.
Because 400 billion is a lot of money.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Might I have the bad manners to suggest that the two-house Democratic majority would not pass a bill this year even if they could arm-twist the 60 Senate votes, because their real priority is to keep the issue alive past the elections?
Come ‘09, you will then see a replay of what’s described above–everybody with a home-state industrial interest (read: everybody) digging in to make sure his or her ox is not Gored.
So put aside your disappointments of the moment. It is going to be a very long, unpleasant haul, especially with NO sunspots since the first of the year lasting more than 24 hours, NO net warming measured by satellite or surface stations over the past decade, the ARGO ocean buoys reporting cooler sea temperatures, NASA reporting the Pacific Decadal Oscillation having shifted into its cold phase, which might well last 30 years, Arctic sea ice recovering at a record pace, Antarctic sea ice coverage at an all-time high…I could go on and on but you get the idea.
Don’t you?
May 9th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
The final paragraph in Crustacean’s post above seems to lament that a cooler world is a bad thing.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Well, actually a cooler world is a bad thing for much of life - it reduces the food growing time as you move towards the poles in each temperate zone just as a start.
There will be another ice age at some point and last I knew an advancing ice sheet is a little more problematic than an ocean forecast to rise a few centimeters.
So I could see where colder is not necessarily better, and of course in reality warmer is not necessarily bad or good - it just is. And the faster everyone remembers this, the better off we all would be. 30 or 40 years ago, all the hype was global cooling, now warming, are we in for another bunch of hysteria on cooling in another few decades? I would suggest that all the alarmists relax and quit acting the part of chicken little. Weather varies, over huge periods of time. To think that any of us, whether skeptics or believer, has enough real temperature data to make a convincing argument to warrant any massive intrusive program to combat either warming or cooling, is the epitome of hubris.