Boxer Faces Recalcitrant Democrats On Climate Change Bill
Friday November 6, 2009 3:48 p.m.
Barbara Boxer, Democratic chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee recently employed an obscure committee rule to force through her version of climate change legislation without any Republicans on the committee even being present. This method is ruffling feathers in both parties.
The bill, as proposed by Boxer, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020. A “cap-and-trade” system would be employed to cap emissions and force polluters to buy credits to offset the amount of carbon they produce.
Southern and rust-belt Democrats are already objecting to the manner in which Boxer pushed through the legislation because it prohibited members from either party from introducing amendments. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, for example, hoped to insert provisions that would help protect jobs provided by the coal industry in his state.
Many experts and Senators involved in climate change legislation saw Boxer’s controversial approach as a dead-end. John Rockefeller, Democrat from West Virginia, wasn’t ready to sign on to the plan:
The Senate is not ready to travel at their rate. The balance on this is among people like myself who come from coal states or manufacturing states. ... We have to be satisfied that it’s a good bill, and I’m not at this point.
But Boxer might simply be attempting to move the notoriously slow-moving Senate forward on climate legislation in order to build some sort of consensus before the US meets with 192 other nations in Copenhagen next month to discuss climate change. “The Senate can’t be paralyzed,” said Boxer.
Republicans boycotted the committee after Democrats rejected their request for further economic analysis of the bill; the only Democrat to vote against the Boxer proposal was Max Baucus from Montana. Baucus, famous for his attempts to water-down health care reform, again sought to dilute a progressive piece of legislation by weakening the carbon-reduction mandate from 20 to 17 percent.
However, John Kerry, a co-sponsor of the Boxer climate legislation, is attempting to barter a bi-partisan deal with moderate Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and Independent Joe Lieberman that would focus on expanding nuclear power capacity and offshore drilling. Graham has come under fire for working with Democrats on climate change from conservatives--many of whom reject the notion that climate change even exists. But Graham sees green job creation and the need to wean the nation off of foreign oil as potential benefits of a bipartisan environmental bill. “Now, it’s time to find a bill that will make good policy,” said Graham. “Clearly, there are not 60 votes for that product.”
Ultimately, the plan proposed by Boxer is only one of six that may arise from various committees working on climate change. The President has yet to throw his weight behind any specific proposal, and if the health care debate is any indication of his level of involvement, he may remain somewhat aloof on the subject.
Democrats, on the other hand, may reach a roadblock in the amendment process as coal-state and conservative members of their party seek to weaken the bill and liberals fight for stronger legislation.
There are 3 comments
Baucus strikes again. Democrats in Montana must be thrilled with their Republican Senator.
That must be why they refuse to strike back.
Won't anyone in Montana rid us of this meddlesome Senator?
More about why emission trading is wrong:
Emission Policy Alternatives
http://ceolas.net/#cce1x
Introduction: The need - or not - to deal with emissions
The Overall Picture
Emission sources, land and ocean cycles, agriculture and deforestation
1. Direct Industrial Emission Regulation
Mandated reduction of CO2, monitored like other emission substances
2. Carbon Taxation
Fuel Tax -- Emission Tax
3. Emission Trading (Cap and Trade)
Basic Idea -- Offsets -- Tree Planting -- Manufacture Shift -- Fair Trade -- Surreal Market -- Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs -- Allowance Trading -- Companies: Business Stability + Cost -- In Conclusion
4. Contracted CO2 Reduction
Private companies compete for contracts to lower CO2 emissions.
.
Emission Trading / Industrial Carbon Taxes / Energy Efficiency Regulations, are all wrong
Notice, as you say, the wrangling necessary with the bloated Kerry-Boxer bill !
Assuming a need in the first place to deal with emissions,
(which may be advantageous in terms of lowering all else they contain, whatever about CO2), then
ELECTRICITY generation (coal, gas) and TRANSPORT (mainly automobiles) alone account for nearly 80% of CO2 emissions.
Dealing directly with these sectors alone,
with emission tax (for cars, allowing free choice)
and emission caps (for electricity generation)
rather than Cap and Trade,
is therefore enough to meet initial emission reduction targets,
simplifies negotiations,
and has several advantages:
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc1x
1. Local environmental benefit as said, from less pollution of sulphur and all else that’s in the emissions, regardless of the less certain or immediate global benefit from CO2 reduction – and that is one reason why the focus on carbon trading is wrong, compared with the focus on reducing fuel combustion emissions.
2. Electricity supply alternatives which together with improved grid distribution gives better competition and keeps down electricity bills for consumers.
3. Transport alternatives (using electricity, hydrogen and other energy sources), which also reduces the dependency on oil imports.
Funding and Impact
Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect on electricity bills or transport cost.
The impact on the businesses is further lessened by the stability and predictability surrounding the funding.
Since only electricity and transport are involved, other business continues as usual and consumers and society in general are spared expense and disruption.
This is even more obvious from energy efficiency regulation not being necessary either.
No Trade Problems
Unlike with Cap and Trade, that involves cement, steel and other industries having to face imports from unregulated countries, electricity and transport changes are not just more limited, but also largely local.
Compare with
today’s all-encompassing Cap and Trade (emission trading) suggestions, with unpredictability, expense, and needless disruption from normal business practice on one hand, or unnecessary profiteering from free allowance handouts with little actual emission reduction on the other hand
– together with extensive energy efficiency regulation on what people can or can’t buy and use
.
Post a Comment
You are not logged in:
Log In | Register