Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Who's to Blame for All the Dithering on Climate Legislation?

By Faiz Shakir, The Progress Report. Posted November 5, 2009.


Yes, Inhofe is behind much of it, but he's only part of the problem.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This story was written by by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Brad Johnson, and Zaid Jilani.

On Tuesday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel called on the U.S. Senate to "tear down walls of today" and "work in common in order to stem the potential catastrophe that can result if we continue to see global warming continue unabated." Her plea was "met with silence from most Republicans." In June, the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act to "for the first time put a price on carbon emissions" in the United States. Overcoming a Republican boycott, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted 11-1 this morning in favor of its version of the House bill, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act. The legislation, co-sponsored by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA), has been met with intransigence by both Republican and Democratic senators. Fossil fuel companies, conservative business lobbying organizations, and right-wing pundits have led the resistance. Exxon Mobil alone spent $7.2 million on lobbying in the last quarter -- more than the total of the entire alternative energy sector or environmental organizations. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which called for a "Scopes monkey trial" on climate science in August, suffered months of defections and outside pressure. Grudgingly accepting the need for action, the Chamber is still opposing "targets and timetables" for reducing carbon pollution. Procedural delays and the protracted battle over health care legislation ensure that a bill to tackle the climate crisis and rebuild our economy will not pass this year. However, the urgent need for clean energy reform continues to build, and some politicians are beginning to heed the grassroots call for action.

INHOFE'S BOYCOTT: Fellow Senate Republicans endorsed Jim Inhofe's (R-OK) plan to boycott the legislative markup of the Clean Energy Jobs Act. Inhofe's GOP compatriots on the environment committee hoped to block action by refusing to participate in the markup on the pretext that the Environmental Protection Agency's economic analysis of the bill is not "complete." Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) -- a wavering moderate who, unlike Inhofe, admits global warming is real -- has demanded a new five-week-long EPA analysis of the legislation, using artificially pessimistic estimates. However, the EPA has found that the Senate legislation closely resembles the House text, which underwent the full analysis, at a cost of $135,000 in taxpayer money, and released the results of its modeling of the differences. EPA officials testified that the differences between the bills are too small to change the outcome of the modeling exercises. In a letter sent to Boxer, the committee's chair, ranking member Inhofe and his counterparts on five other committees said any attempt to begin the markup before acceding to his demands "would severely damage" its chances for passage. The letter's signatories are the top Republicans on the six Senate committees that will consider this legislation -- environment, energy, agriculture, commerce, foreign relations, and finance. The Republican boycott of climate hearings entered its second full day yesterday. During the hearing, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) argued that being the "party of 'no show'" is a miscalculation that harms the nation, saying, "I think it is unfortunate that the party of 'no' has now devolved to the party of 'no show.'" The boycott prevented the consideration of any amendments to strengthen the legislation. The vote to end the boycott this morning puts Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in charge of the bill's future progress in the Senate.

GRAHAM'S ENGAGEMENT:
In a New York Times op-ed last month, Kerry and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) discussed their agreement on a framework for mandatory global warming pollution reductions linked to government support for the nuclear, coal, and natural gas industries. Yesterday, Kerry, Graham, and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) discussed how they were working on climate legislation in concert with other senators and White House officials. Graham rebuked senators unwilling to address carbon pollution, saying that he has "seen the effects of a warming planet." Graham called for the U.S. to "lead the world rather than follow the world on carbon pollution" to "create millions of new jobs for Americans that need them." Graham has "crossed the climate Rubicon," abandoning denialist conservative activists by recognizing the threat of global warming and working with Democrats. Conservative activists have accused Graham of "going to bed with John Kerry," making a "pact with the devil," and called him a "traitor," "democrat in drag," and a "wussypants, girly-man, half-a-sissy." The American Energy Alliance, "funded in part by oil and natural gas companies, utilities and other energy-industry firms" and staffed by Republican operatives, is running ads in South Carolina accusing Graham of supporting "new energy taxes" that will "further harm our economy and kill millions of American jobs." But Graham also has local supporters, who argue that "Graham is fighting for South Carolina's needs in the national energy debate." John Courson -- a conservative South Carolina state senator and former Marine -- shot back that "when you see all the ads attacking Lindsey Graham for supporting energy reform, just remember this: The special interest groups are protecting their own profits. Lindsey Graham is fighting for South Carolina."

TIME TICKING DOWN: Although Graham said yesterday that the planet "is in peril," he also joined with several Republicans -- Sens. Susan Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME), Judd Gregg (NH), and Lisa Murkowski (AK) -- to support Voinovich's delay tactic of demanding further analysis of this draft legislation. This dithering reflects the scene on the international stage, as the world's diplomats struggle with the task of crafting the successor to the Kyoto Protocol, the global climate treaty ratified by every major nation but the United States. Negotiators are now in Barcelona in preparations for next month's conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. However, developed nations are unwilling or unable to commit to needed reduction targets or financing for developing nations -- in large part because of the inability of the U.S. Congress to take timely action. "African nations walked out" of the talks yesterday, "threatening to do so again unless wealthy nations commit to cutting carbon." Meanwhile, the burning of coal and oil is killing 20,000 Americans each year and costing $120 billion annually. The United States spends a billion dollars a day on imported oil. Georgia's recent $250 million flood was so "epic" and "stunning," the U.S. Geological Survey says "the flood has defied its attempts to define it." Tropical cyclones are battering Nicaragua, Vietnam, and the Philippines, killing over a thousand people and forcing the evacuation of "more than 115,000 people." "The severity of climate change impacts," 18 national scientific organizations told the U.S. Senate last month, "is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climage change

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
The Democratic leadership in both houses is just as out of touch as the Republicans
Posted by: cplot on Nov 6, 2009 1:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even Kerry and Boxer are proposing coal, natural gas subsidies as the solution to our impending global warming disaster. We need a serious response to climate change catastrophe. To see what a real program would look like see: 2020 Vision

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Global Warming" is an Al Gore-NWO/globalist whore scam to further tax & control us sheeple!
Posted by: JohnTruth2001 on Nov 6, 2009 8:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wake-up, already!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: go back to sleep Posted by: ScottP
Cap and trade is wrong
Posted by: lclark on Nov 6, 2009 8:08 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's just a financial mechanism.

Want to really reduce carbon emissions, use a public works project to massively deploy wind turbines, solar panels, a more efficient grid and covert all heating and transport to use electricity and energy derived from amble electricity (such as hydrogen breakout from ocean water.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» technology can't save us Posted by: inverse_agonist
» Appropriate technology Posted by: greenknight
Declare Economic War On Fossil Fuel Production
Posted by: Gaubladt on Nov 6, 2009 10:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Develop an alternative to fossil fuels
Produce it en masse
Then distribute the resultant energy all over the world at below cost to destroy the fossil fuel economy!
It's called product dumping; we all know it works like a charm. Companys have been doing it for hundreds of years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Get a clue
Posted by: wormfarmer on Nov 6, 2009 11:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The state of our economy is such that in order to sustain our quality of life, the
system is asking our populace to let the garrison state establish itself as the primary form of defending the status quo. Our country is still attached to the life of pursuing a
petroleum based existence, without exploring other methods of moving our society. We
have the promise of hydrogen, but that concept is one that is dangled before us as the
answer to our energy needs. It will still be there in twenty years, for hydrogen is
problematic in both cost and storage. Currently we have the pursuit of petroleum, but
what about other forms of fuel for travel? There is electricity, it is renewable, can be
attained from a number of different sources, and is low in cost. The initial cost is not
cheap, still has some questions regarding acceptance by the public, but the technology to
pursue this alternative exists.
Anyway you look at the problem, we have to stop using oil as our crutch. It won't
be easy, will take time, and money, but we need to look at this with a future perspective.
We want to stop global warming, pollution, aggression, stop letting corporate profit
govern our economic existence, stop the dependence on oil, stop pursuing military
solutions to achieve this end. It Can be done, we just have to work at it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Looking at this a different way
Posted by: luanetodd on Nov 6, 2009 12:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So the climate is different than it was when I was much younger. Anyone who says otherwise has just not lived long enough to see the changes for themselves.

Will this destroy the planet? I think not, but it may make life for humans on the planet difficult or impossible. The planet will survive us unless we literally blow it to pieces. In fact, maybe this is the Planet's way of saying "Shape up or I'll ship you out".

We are using shorthand ways to try to explain what I think is really happening because nothing about the natural world works in a vacuum.

Because we insist on using the lazy ways to produce food we have embraced all the high tech fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, seeds, distribution systems that require petroleum in large quantities. Whether we like it or not, that cheap source of sustaining life for us is getting harder to find, more expensive to acquire and will sooner rather than later not be available to sustain us. There is a reason why the oil depletion allowance for oil companies has been in place since the industry began. The industry knew oil and gas would eventually disappear.

The real issue, for me, is that we have so completely short-circuited the natural processes that allowed humans to survive and multiply. We farm the land to the point where it is a sterile medium, incapable of catching, holding and filtering water back into the acquifers. We irrigate unmercifully and build our homes on marginal lands then wonder why we have to endure water rationing when the water sources disappear. Really dumb.

We act like if we deny that there is an end to fossil fuels or if we deny that using them to the extent we do now is dirtying up the air we breathe we can make uncomfortable truths go away.

Sometimes I listen to all the gloom and doom about lost jobs and I think "Buggy whip makers when everyone was driving cars". There is a point where one looks at what is needed now and gives up the worn out paradigm. So many people want to stop time and evolution (change) either because they have a huge investment in the current situation or because they fear and resent having to learn a new way. If our forebears had applied that logic we would all still be clustered on the east coast and no one would have followed the sun.

I have no idea where all this will go but I do know standing still is never an option. The survivors will be those who find ways to adapt to the new conditions. They will go back to the landsmen and true agriculture gurus and relearn who the Planet provided for species and act accordingly.

One place I love to visit is the Biomimicry Institute because they are putting a lot of effort into learning and applying the Planet's solutions to our current situation.

Some of us will survive and the Planet will most assuredly survive. I hope I live long enough to see the new ways we do things.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Support a strong climate bill
Posted by: greenferret on Nov 6, 2009 1:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The climate targets currently proposed by Washington are unbearably weak - far behind what the IPCC says would give us a 50:50 chance of avoiding disaster.

Tell President Obama and your senators to support a 40% emissions reduction by 2020 to avert global crisis.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Demopublican Corporatist Lickspittles Aren't Satisfied...
Posted by: Prinzowhales on Nov 6, 2009 8:16 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...with the huge profits to be made with the Democratic 'reforms' in health care...now they want you to pay for being dependent on their carbon rackets...so that Al Gore and his hyena banker relations can make trillions on carbon trading.

Al Gore is a second generation step-and-fetch for Armand Hammer--of unblessed memory--the son of a founder of the Communist Party in the US and who spawn is married into the banking family that financed the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Hammer was a noted Communist Agent of Influence and head of Occidental Petroleum which at one time owned Iowa Beef Processors and Peabody Coal--the biggest US coal concern at one time, if memory serves. Gore's Nobel Prize came from the same dark hole as Obama's...a committee of shills pulled it out of the their nether regions.

Have you ever asked yourself, Climate Patrollers, why this Sierra-Oscar-Bravo is one of your leaders? Is he there by talent? Strength of intellect? Character? Sound policies? His performance under Clinton?

Take the rings out of your noses! Stop supporting anti-Progressive, faux-Liberal pieces of crap like Fat Al Gore--which is far crazier than Al's wife playing rock music backwards to find Satanic messages.

DOWN WITH THE DEMOPUBLICAN REGIME! TROOPS HOME NOW!! If you want to pay for decreasing carbon emmissions...tax Goldman Sachs at 120% of income!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dithering? What dithering?
Posted by: willymack on Nov 6, 2009 11:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's no dithering going on here.
It's OBSTRUCTION, pure and simple, by crooks like inhofe, graham, and the other turds who either own businesses or are on their payroll.
In a sane and just world, they'd be in jail.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement