by Jim Tankersley
The Senate's environment committee is set to take up an energy and climate-change bill demanding a 20 percent cut in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, a stricter target than one approved by the House during the summer, according to an 801-page draft of the bill obtained by the Washington Bureau.
The bill, to be unveiled Wednesday and co-sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), will serve as the starting point for what promises to be a long and complicated series of negotiations that may not produce a final bill until next year at the earliest.
It includes several departures from the House bill. It includes new protections designed to minimize the cost of emissions permits for utilities and other major greenhouse gas sources. It preserves the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to regulate emissions unilaterally.
And it offers new incentives for nuclear power plant construction - a provision that many Republicans have sought aggressively, and which could be crucial to attracting bipartisan support.
The legislation also delays several key decisions - such as how to allocate emissions permits under the bill's centerpiece cap-and-trade system - for future discussion.
The details of the bill send an important signal to international delegates preparing to negotiate a new global warming treaty in December: Essentially, they show the maximum range of how far the United States could go to curb its emissions over the next decade.
The blank spaces indicate just how much Boxer, Kerry and the Obama administration are willing to deal in order to pass a climate bill, which Democrats are pitching as a tool to spur "clean energy" job creation and curb global warming, but which many Republicans and industry critics warn could cripple the domestic economy.
Environmentalists immediately hailed the draft bill as a major step toward Senate action on climate, and they expressed hope that such action could come before climate negotiations open in Copenhagen, Denmark, a little more than two months from now - even though the bill appears stuck in legislative traffic behind health care and perhaps a pending overhaul of financial regulations.
"This appears to be a very solid start - one we hope will get the attention of the entire Senate and galvanize action this year," said Frank O'Donnell, president of the Washington-based group Clean Air Watch.
David Doniger, climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the draft a "green flag" for Senate action. "There's still time for the Senate to get something done this fall," he said.
The bill is likely to meet immediate resistance from many Republicans and top industry groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which - under fire from member companies who have criticized or left the group over its climate position - released a statement earlier today supporting emissions limits in theory but reiterating its opposition to the House climate bill.
Chamber President Tom Donahue said in the statement that the group opposed the House bill, which is less strict than the Senate draft, "because it is neither comprehensive nor international, and it falls short on moving renewable and alternative technologies into the marketplace and enabling our transition to a lower carbon future."
Comments
Headline: "Senate Climate Bill Tougher than House"
More accurate headline: "Senate Bill More Expensive, Stupider than House"
Posted by: Bruce | September 29, 2009 4:33 PM
If people think the fake outrage coming from the Teabaggers and the Glenn BeckerHeads was bad during the health care debate, wait until we start debating Climate Change and Immigration...
Every single right wing lunatic fringe, Timothy McVeigh wannabe is going to crawl out from under their rocks and try to scar everyone.
Of course these very same knuckle-dragging Repugs didn't have a problem with Bush and Cheney committing war crimes, torturing and spying on us illegally.
Posted by: donnie | September 29, 2009 4:52 PM
Support for cap-and-trade is evaporating. Daily I read editorials, comments and letters-to-the-editor from all over the nation. When the House passed the bill it was maybe 2-to-1 against cap and trade, opinion is now overwhelmingly against. The Senate will be wise to heed the overwhelming lack of public support and stop this legislation from passing into law.
-- Robert Moen, www.energyplanUSA.com
Posted by: Rmoen | September 29, 2009 4:52 PM
Yes, let's pass an "energy" bill that drives MORE manufacturing jobs overseas and drives up energy costs for the people. Hey Lefties, when there are no jobs to get, no manufacturing jobs, the blue collar sector becomes nonexistent for all practical purposes, and your utility bills double or even triple, look in the mirror as to why that is.
Posted by: John D | September 29, 2009 5:02 PM
Hey Righties, when there are no jobs to get, no manufacturing jobs, the blue collar sector becomes nonexistent for all practical purposes, and your utility bills double or even triple from the cowboy trickledown Reganite economics policies that Bushco passed, look in the mirror as to why you're a very same minority right now.
Posted by: John D | September 29, 2009 5:02 PM
Posted by: janet | September 29, 2009 5:21 PM
Hey donnie, please remember, dems don't debate, they ram through legislation without reading it and as for global warming that is a fact so there will be no debate there either. It will be fun to watch Boxer extend the nuke offer to get repub support then later yank it under protest from her own party. There is no need for bipartisanship, the dems will self destruct over this.
And donnie, the knuckle draggers don't seem to have much of a problem that your messiah retains the "right" to torture, continue to commit war crimes in Afghanistan or spy on those nice people in NY and Colorado. We do object when the liar in chief blatently lies about what he plans to do then does the opposite. Doesn't he have the balls to make a decision or was Bush just smarter than this dope smoking poser?
Posted by: Hans | September 29, 2009 5:38 PM
Hey donnie, please remember, dems don't debate, they ram through legislation without reading it and as for global warming that is a fact so there will be no debate there either
Posted by: Hans | September 29, 2009 5:38 PM
*******************************************
.
Yeah, I remember in 2003-2005 when the Dems rammed through, with no debate, their tax cuts for the rich and Iraq war funding with only 51 votes....oh...wait a minute.....that was the Republicans?......nevermind.
It's not our fault that you can't read.
Posted by: Lars | September 29, 2009 6:32 PM
For more information about energy research projects including carbon sequestration, visit Idaho National Laboratory's facebook site. http://www.facebook.com/idahonationallaboratory
Posted by: htomfields | September 29, 2009 6:59 PM
Dumb Dumb Janet, manufacturing jobs did not leave because of Reagan tax cuts. Please explain, if your nonexistent brain can.
What has caused manufacturing jobs to leave are uncompetitive wages, uncompetitive regulations, high manufacturing costs -- all of which are basically caused by liberal policies.
And as far as what is in the minority, seems to me the Demoncrapic party is looking at some major losses within the next year or so.
Posted by: John D | September 29, 2009 8:36 PM
Climate change legislation,
A solution in search of a problem.
Posted by: Terry | September 29, 2009 9:53 PM
This sort of throws a little damper in the theory. Have fun this winter New England
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amm7GJfWypJE
Posted by: Terry | September 29, 2009 10:10 PM
I heard the bill specifically exempts Union members and Algore.
Don't worry Donnie JohnEE, we won't scar you.
Posted by: Exempt the Chinese Too | September 29, 2009 10:18 PM
Climate change legislation,
A solution in search of a problem.
Posted by: Terry | September 29, 2009 9:53 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.
Yeah, the Big Oil companies that serve as the Republican parties overlords are only making multi Billions in profit off of the backs of American taxpayers. That's just not right! They should be making multi Trillions off of the backs of the American taxpayers.
That's what Ronnie Raygun would want!
Posted by: anti terry | September 30, 2009 12:45 AM
This sort of throws a little damper in the theory. Have fun this winter New England
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amm7GJfWypJE
Posted by: Terry | September 29, 2009 10:10 PM
Terry, what part of the word 'May' dont you understand?:
The U.S. Northeast MAY have the coldest winter in a decade because of a weak El Nino.
Arguing about something based on a 'Maybe' is so right up your ally.
The point of this bill is to tackle the what is inevitable in our future not what 'may' or may not happen this winter!
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | September 30, 2009 8:43 AM
Yeah, I remember in 2003-2005 when the Dems rammed through, with no debate, their tax cuts for the rich and Iraq war funding with only 51 votes....oh...wait a minute.....that was the Republicans?......nevermind.
It's not our fault that you can't read.
Posted by: Lars | September 29, 2009 6:32 PM
Hey Lars, was that the same war the dems continue to fund without debate? By the way, everyone who paid taxes saw a tax cut. Too bad they didn't ram through spending cuts as well. Close to 50% of the people in this country don't pay taxes, maybe you could break from lib tradition and give them some of your vast wealth.
Posted by: Hans | September 30, 2009 10:18 AM
Earth to Scot: Global temps have stabilized in the past decade and in fact have FALLEN the past two years! Chicago is on pace for one of its coolest years ON RECORD! The Northeast is having one of its coolest years ON RECORD! Climatologists excpect global temps to continue to cool for several years now.
Global warming: Fiction, not fact.
Posted by: John D | September 30, 2009 3:55 PM
Scottie,
You think my theory of a warm New England winter hangs on the word "may", but the theory of "global warming" is based upon rock solid certainity? All those global warming mathematical models that have temps increasing like a hockey stick are a certainity?
Get a grip MORON
Posted by: Terry | September 30, 2009 4:45 PM
It's a waste of time debating a science-based issue with the scientifically challenged 10% fringe of the Grand Teabagger Party.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/opinion/28krugman.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=krugman&st=cse
Posted by: Climate Change is based in science | September 30, 2009 5:52 PM
ccBS,
You take the word of Krugman, the economist, on global warming. The problem w/Global warming is one prove the globe is warming and then find the cause.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081126073955AAHV8X0
Here's the history behind the AGW chicken littles
http://www.oilempire.us/climate-time.html
We should have been gone long ago.
Posted by: Terry | September 30, 2009 8:25 PM
It sounds like something we need right now, jobs and clean energy.
Posted by: Lisa | October 1, 2009 8:30 PM