Climate and energy

As noted earlier, the Warner-Lieberman Climate Security Act is being debated today in the Senate.

CEP is nonpartisan – you may have noticed that we usually just refer to “supporters” and “opponents” on policy issues, and leave their parties out of it unless the affiliations somehow make a difference to the story. We tend to find that climate and energy issues have the potential to transcend party lines.

However, try applying this approach to covering the U.S. Senate. Their dynamics make partisan politics in Kansas seem like we are all holding hands and singing hymns together.

So, the below is highly abbreviated. In part to avoid the partisan jabs they keep zinging each other with.

This live blogging is just for fun, so CEP can keep notes on different policy arguments. You can listen in live here.

****************

Mitch McConnell – carbon regulation will cost too much and when gas prices are going up this bill is really bad timing and I need to head out to a meeting now.

Harry Reid – we have to protect the beauties of nature and what McConnell said shocked me – shocked me – because gas prices have gone up 250% since the Republicans came into power but the EIA says that this bill will offset the price increases from this bill and the Republicans are planning to filibuster and we won’t get to vote. Global warming is real and is caused by manmade pollution – drought, changed growing seasons, sea level rise, increased precipitation, increased wildfires – it’s caused in part by burning fossil fuels. We gotta fix it. The one thing we can’t afford is delay. And Warner-Lieberman will restore America’s economic growth.

Jeff Sessions – this is a huge income redistribution scheme and this is a bad time to be taking this up and 30 hours is not enough we can do a lot now but we shouldn’t rush it with this bill and we need to stop buying foreign oil this is a wealth transfer and we need to get our energy at home and I really, really like the Wall St Journal editorial page don’t make fun of it this legislation is not a good idea and it shouldn’t be done in this fashion we must be good stewards over this marvelous earth over which we have dominion and energy is powerful force for good electricity is a great thing good for our families if we didn’t have it we would still be hauling water in buckets from the spring can’t see it in any other light. Many are convinced the world is warming but few would dispute the immensity of the earth and complexity of forces at work in our climate and climate experts have developed complex models to explain and monitor forces that have been warming us but apparently not for last ten years – some think these models are fact, some don’t there is dispute there are some legitimate questions that carbon dioxide -

MH – forget it, he’s getting tangled here, can’t follow. And for partisans, yes, Reid got tangled too, they all do. Regardless of party, these are all politicians. They tangle. Anyway, Sessions is debating global warming and saying that being prudent means NOT taking action right away especially since it will cost money. Supporters of the bill are essentially saying that being prudent means TAKING action right away because it will cost even more not to.

Back to Sessions – this is a sneaky, back door tax that will affect the middle class and churchgoers and veterans and old people capandtrade didn’t work in Europe won’t work here conservations should be a new ethic in this country what about wind and cellulosic ethanol and more natural gas production it’s much cleaner than oil and we need nuclear power. (Actually, he’s now making a brilliant argument for a carbon tax versus cap and trade. that’s funny.) Don’t give the money to lobbyists and bureaucrats! lawsuits, lobbyists… cap and trade is bad forget this legislation and do things that will work and get rid of our dependence on foreign oil.

MH – Senators are supposedly limited to ten minutes each. I’m not thinking that’s actually true.

Boxer and Inhofe (the Senate’s leading global warming denier) are debating order of debate on the legislation. Clerk reads bill officially.

Boxer – (she is going twenty minutes, since they are on bill). The world is watching us historic day big issue climate change global warming whatever call it either one we have a small window to act. This is “tri-partisan” legislation – Independent Democrat Republican. greatest challenge of our generation requires landmark legislation and we need to vote on it and if you vote against it you have to explain why you denied global warming to your constituents and even the Bush White House believes in it. military, intelligence, etc all believe we need to act or refugees droughts floods wars will result all over world. And say yes to green jobs. (and then she says things about gas prices, current admin, etc.) forget status quo of big oil climate change bill can change all this and quit trying to scare consumers. Also, we can offset price increases with tax relief and rate relief routed through the utilities. For off ramp price of carbon needs to be high enough to make it worth investing in – between $22-$30. Millions of jobs. Do this legislation now to help get us out of the recession this bill gives us hope. This is consensus legislation we check in with scientists and policy experts and religious leaders and partisans and businesses and mayors – 25 hearings plus lunches dinners people in Europe, they messed up in beginning, we learned – it took forever to get it through all the hoops and we did it and I had to compromise – I had to admit I was wrong on certain issues and I had to change – we all had to work together. There are people who say there is no global warming – well, there’s people who still say HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, or that airbags don’t save lives. Whatever. Bring it on. And we have to get away from oil. If you’re afraid, vote no. If you want to address energy independence and the threats scientists say we face vote yes on motion to proceed.

Sen. Warner and Inhofe go at it over time allocations.

Arlen Specter – mentions his ongoing chemotherapy for hodgkins glad to be here to talk about global warming historic day we must move ahead on this issue I will vote yes we need to reconcile the interests but it will be hard to get sixty votes. bingaman and he started months ago on their own legislation. my state is a coal state we’re all going to have to give up a little.

Inhofe – a lot of people really oppose this legislation but will vote to get it on floor and vast majority of scientists do not believe in climate change but that is not part of debate here that’s for another day. Republicans stand for legislation that protects families workers global fairness this bill isn’t it we can’t interfere in the free market any approach that addresses climate change must also address nuclear power we are on verge of nuclear renaissance in this country. Coal is our most abundant energy we must invest in clean coal for energy security we must explore carbon capture but can’t hold coal hostage to this one technology we must promote natural gas to compensate for fuel-switching don’t want to hurt our industry we have limitless supply of natural gas, almost, must build it up, must open offshore resources. Must consider how climate legislation impact our competitiveness ie with developing nations if they don’t participate why bother look at China this will really reorganize our economy innovation comes from the private economy consumers will pay the costs the $6.7 trillion costs even though $2.45 trillion goes back to them government can’t pick winners and losers. Solutions have to be national in scope not unilateral not states acting independently this bill fails on all counts will make us even more dependent on foreign energy it was hastily considered without correct process there’s a new version on the floor that we haven’t seen before yes they had more than 20 hearings but they were on the impact of climate change 50 years in future not financial impacts now. Chairwoman didn’t know how to do it. Procedural irregularities. Quotes Wall St Journal. Troubling bill. Too fast too new no time to review it. needs more financial analysis and environmental benefits analysis. largest bill ever considered before Congress. tonight’s vote is only a procedural vote that allows us to limit debate on bill. it will be interesting and informative to see how many senators vote for largest tax increase ever to hit America.

Benjamin Cardin – historic day. historic day. energy leaders in sustainable economic growth will retool American economy for 21st century on path to energy independence. (MH – is anyone noting a trend here…? is this legislation maybe historic?) This act is good for country economy national security environment will reassert our leadership in world. we know the science, we face real dangers extreme weather disruption to food supplies. Bill is self-financing will reduce government borrowing American businesses will see unprecedented growth especially renewable energies energy efficiency worker training. Heavy industry benefits also – iron steel pulp paper cement, carbon-heavy industries will be okay. Time expires. yay proud good vote for it for america to fight greenhouse gases

(MH – there is mention that this debate could take weeks…?)

Joseph Lieberman – for first time in history… etc etc… talks about his initial legislation with McCain (MH – in 2005) Even the administration’s own report shows that climate change will hurt staple crops in the US, lower yields, arid regions will have more frequent wildfires, sorry MH had to talk on phone to someone missed it. Impact of climate security act on economy will be negligible it will not hurt us economically.

John Warner – yields to Boxer – who mentions that Sen Kennedy’s surgery was successful.

John Warner – there are great complexities in studies of climate and weather, and there are questions – but there are no questions that carbon dioxide is one of the causes of change, and it is time to deal. we cannot do nothing. We cannot constantly postpone. this bill represents a consensus, middle of the road position, we can’t satisfy everyone who wants immediate controls, or those who just wanted to wait and see. So many colleagues contributed to the bill – and we also took from Bingaman-Specter bill. And there is a great feeling across America that we must move and move now – do something. Doing something is not an option. Let’s do something. I commend them. This will all be largely owing to the public. They will send back a message that doing nothing is not an option. We have to do best we can. We need to show public this instition can address complicated subject and reach common ground and understanding. I now have two amendments – one dealing with authority of president. Unforeseen things could occur in meeting law, so we give President authority to deal with provisions. And Congress then has option to agree or not. Ie, if provisions hurt economy president can adjust timetable. And this bill does not damage coal, in fact it helps it. Just give us time to explain to coal industry how this is done. Second amendment relates to nuclear power – we must rely on nuclear power as growing source of energy for this country.

Lieberman – let’s have full and open debate, let amendments come forward this problem is too urgent and too real to keep saying no no no hard to find what people used to say, that climate change is not occurring. now question is what are we going to do abput it. this is balanced middle of the road approach. and this is a declaration of energy independence, we have to cut dependence on foreign oil and secure and better our future of country and people. When people asked Sen. Warnr why he supports this legislation he said two words – “science” and “grandchildren”

Kit Bond (MO) – I agree to cut carbon emissions but careful of costs can’t slash family budgets and hurt farmers and families with mortgages and can’t raise their energy costs Missouri families are suffering from high prices. This bill will make families and workers suffer. It will raise $6.73 trillion but it won’t give it all back to them. And the cost rolls down hill on consumers they will pay for it in energy prices and everything will cost more. Energy companies just pass those costs on. these are impossible mandates cap and trade is massive taxation without the right technology. MO will lose 76,100 jobs by 2030 if we enact L-W. Energy costs for electricity and gas will be higher. cap and trade has regrettable impact on Midwest. West coast is not much affected we are so coal heavy. And for all this impact on families and workers this bill won’t have measurable impact on world temperatures, won’t reduce it enough, look at China. We need to cut carbon without cutting family bidgets and we can do that by increasing nuclear power. And we need to figure out how to reprocess spent fuel. And coal to liquid and coal gasification. carbon sequestration. better batteries to power full-sized automobiles. Cellulosic biofuels. caps without technology are $6.7 trillion taxes. we need to do this differently.

Inhofe- Domenici is coming and he is big supporter of nuclear energy it;s necessary to be able to run this great America and I want to talk about that chart of gasoline prices. OK and MO have issues with cap and trade and with how gas prices will rise under this bill.

Warner challenges the source on Inhofe;s statistics – that’s over the life of the bill, right? 2020? 2030? Inhofe um uh yes no switches time frame. Warner again – let me finish this up. Let’s be candid – this bill is twnety years ahead. The recent gas increases have nothing to do with thtis bill, and this bill has checks and balances to avert this – I am listeing patiently, and hearing a lot about what is wrong – so who is going to say what is right? When you talk about price increases, give time periods. If this bill becomes law then it will put in place mechanism to RELIEVE THESE PRICE INCREASES. Emphasis his.

Klobuchar (MN) – historic moment (MH – geez) it;s not just kids with penguin buttons anymore. It;s hunters, city councils, small towns, businesspeople, we see lake superior at historic lows, changing weather, this is eveyday people who care about climate change, it;s not a partisan issue, our Republican governor and Democratic legislature worked together on this.

Domenici (NM) – on nuclear power. MH had to take a break for a second and proof other things – but if you’ve read much of our stuff, you already know the discussion on nuclear anyway. OK. For the rest he basically repeats Bond and McConnell. If reducing carbon means worrying families about their budgets then don’t do it. we need to know the side effects of this controversial legislation that won’t even do the job.

Inhofe – This is not a discussion about science that is for another day there is a lack of science on this issue even though Al Gore had prominent scientist do study if all of developed nations signed on to Kyoto treaty and its emissions requirements – how much would it reduce temperature in 50 years? answer – seven-one-hundredths of one degree. after all that economic pain. Las Vegas Review Journal (MH, what??) says that consuemrs are already struggling with gasoline costs and new mandates will only make matters worse. Cleveland Plain Dealer said that — um, MH lost it. I hadn’t gotten lost in a tangle for three hours, I was due one… now he is talking about ethanol mandates and feedstocks and – I don’t know. We need renewables for future but right now we need to coal to run the machine called America, and we will also need nuclear and we need clean coal technollgy, it;s out there, and we need natural gas and nuclear, of course (I think none of the other opposition to the bill came down to talk, so now he is trying to fill the last minutes. Support and opposition gets equal time, BTW, on the floor). Repeat of all his previous arguments. carbon regulaltion equals redistribution of wealth, regressive on poor, I know we’ll hear that that is taken care of but it won’t be elderly poor will suffer the bill is a job killer etc. big government is not the way to cut carbon.

(MH – the “if you make industry pay more it hurts poor people argument.” You all see these patterns when they pop up, right? all over the policy world, all sorts of perspectives use these)

Boxer – today we are voting on whether we want the status quo in energy policy, or whether we want something different. This is a moment to come across party lines, just like the drafters of this bill – we didn’t agree on lots of things but we figured it out for the good of the country. I don’t mind debating on the fact of the bill, but I have heard so much fiction – they are using numbers that are coming out of the air that are not based on modeling or solid research, like ours. And he called it the Boxer tax bill 0 there is no tax in this bll, it is modeled on acid rain bill. In fact, it gives relief. There is no tax in this bill. And there is huge cnsuemr relief. So here we have a bill that takes care of consmers and business – that gas price business is just out of the air. Our mdeling shows that worst case scenario gas prices will go up 2 cents per year by 2030, and new CAFE standards will actually help that. During last seven years, that;s when gas prices have gone up 250%. EIA says that. The administration’s energy department. Without climate change bill we have seen this increase. Our bill will get us off big oil, foreign oil, new technologies will set us free. And look at the job growth. Great Britain has dne great and reduced emissions and got new jobs. Apollo Alliance said this bill could create over three million new American jobs gross domestic product blah blah MH missed it sorry. We need the end of the status quo this is the opportunity to do it. The workers support this bill. They’re smart and they read this bill. they know their future is wrapped up in new technologies and green jobs can only be filled in america time is of the essense spend $1 now and save $5 later the time is now this is above politics! above partisanship! if you brought your child to supermarket on warm day would you heave ths child in the car NO we wouldn’t leave our child in a hot car we can’t do this to the next generation (eileen is screaming in background of office, BTW) america must act and say to other countries you must act too we don’t wait aroudn on India and China we’re america we don’t do that. the religious community supports us ENN IFPL the catholic climate change iniaitives read it in the scriptures don’t ruin or destroy the world that is the moral reason we must act.

Lieberman – amen sister. you can see all the argument forming here I appeal to you to vote to proceed on this bill we all need to learn and need to deal with bill. Main argument against our proposal is cost, we want to discuss this, this is not a tax increase. We rejected a carbon tax, didn’t guarentee it would reduce emissions. We rejected command and control option too. And market-based choice.

Warner – this bill has just been placed on everyone’s desk, I hope they all let it go forward. it shows americans we are trying to solve one of most difficult problems facng american energy prices carbn emissions all of it this is our joint effort if you have a better idea bring it forward. Bring forth our ideas as the founding fathers intended. I now have a letter from 20 large industrial firms who support this bill.

Inhofe – price of gas didn’t just go up during republican administration but its the democrats’ fault for voting against increasing drilling or refining capacity. this is not a tax bill? look at how much money it generates consumers don’t get it all back. Labor is not all for this, mine workers and autoworkers are not. And many evangleicals are not for this bill, and those are all scripturally based.

Time expires.

They vote – shall the bill go forward? 74 yay, 14 nay, the motion passes and the bill can proceed.

(Yeah. But proceed how?)

Boxer – I understand that my colleagues do not attend to fillibuster, so tomorrow can we proceed tomorrow?

there are objections. some dispute. but they will get it sorted out. moving on till tomorrow, amendments, etc., lots of people want to talk, Boxer wants to start now, doesn’t want to wait 30 hours, the opposition is blocking her with a delay.

McConnell – this is sweeping legislation we need the 30 hours. Congressional Budget office says it would be $900 million tax increase.

Kerry – come on. the first amendment that comes up is subject to endless debate, theres no limit – there will be endless debate, period, that 30 hours is silly. we need to get to an amendment soon, this will take a while. this notion of 30 hours with no amendment without talking about bill is specious.

More discussion, debate, drama – the people need time for us to discuss the bill, they don’t know what it’s about, they need the 30 hours, people care deeply about the environment and there will be lots of technical amendments… etc….

they may be arguing all this off camera. MH can’t tell.

Boxer again – questioning the weird procedures going on right now. she will be on the floor all day tomorrow, and challenges opposing side to show up. And bring on the charts and the models. She’s ready.

OK… MH’s husband called, he;s making dinner, he wants to know when she’ll be home, we’ll just look up how all this ended tomorrow, ok?

:)

Basically, Boxer can’t get immediate permission to begin amendment process. So tomorrow will be a matter of waiting and seeing, if that part of the debate begins again. You can check back here, maybe (no idea what MH schedule is like tomorrow yet) or you can check the U.S. Senate website to see what is on the schedule.

— Maril Hazlett, www.climateandenergy.org