Claire and present danger

McCaskill says House climate bill will sink in Senate 21

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) doesn’t think that the climate and energy bill that passed the House last month stands much of a chance in the Senate.

And if climate legislation is going to pass the Senate, it would have to have a “very gradual implementation,” McCaskill told conservative Missouri talk radio host Mike Ferguson on Tuesday. She also said she would not vote for the climate bill that the Senate rejected last year, nor would she vote for the House bill (Waxman-Markey) as it stands.

“If there is going to be enough support for the bill, it will be a very gradual implementation as we move toward changing to wind and solar and other kinds of energy,” said McCaskill. “I’m going to be one of those trying to craft it in a way that is very gradual, that is not going to hurt a state like Missouri that is so coal dependent.”

She said she will probably make those on the left and right angry in this debate, and will be “working with a group of moderates in the middle” to shape the Senate bill. She acknowledged that the science shows that action on climate change is urgent, and also that there is a need for the United States to be a leader in the world in crafting climate policy, but didn’t seem too interested in acting very quickly.

“We need to be a leader in the world but we don’t want to be a sucker,” she said. “And if we go too far with this, all we’re going to do is chase more jobs to China and India, where they’ve been putting up coal-fired plants every 10 minutes.”

McCaskill has also expressed concerns about the House bill via Twitter, where she posted during the debate, “I hope we can fix cap and trade so it doesn’t unfairly punish businesses and families in coal dependent states like Missouri.”

The bill that passed the House, however, already includes major concessions for the coal industry, including free distribution of the majority of pollution permits, $60 billion for carbon-capture-and-sequestration technology, and the grandfathering of old coal-fired power plants for more than a decade.

Kate Sheppard is Grist’s political reporter.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. Rmoen Posted 4:31 pm
    08 Jul 2009

    America needs clean, cheap energy -- not clean, expensive energy. I'm a Democrat who thinks the House overplayed its hand. Daily I read editorials, comments and letters-to-the-editor from all over the nation.  Support for cap and trade is evaporating.  Whereas a week ago it was maybe 2-to-1 against cap and trade, opinion now seems to be 8-to-1 against. The Senate will be wise to heed the overwhelming lack of public support and stop this disastrous legislation from passing into law.

    Everything about the cap and trade bill is wrong.  It will make energy more expensive -- possibly big-time expensive.  It will enrich a new class of financial speculator.  Hundreds of lobbyists had a hand in it.  Cap and trade could also drive-out manufacturing of every description.  Plus, it's worse than a tax because only 15% of the proceeds from auctioned permits go into our national treasury.  And the kicker?  We'll never even know if cap and trade worked.

    -- Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com

    Permalink

  2. greenpeacetempe Posted 5:50 pm
    08 Jul 2009

    BOOOOO!!!!!!She is an embarrasment to the principled democrats and republicans in the house who decided to take a stand on global warming. I hope Boxer and the excellent leadership can persuade her to support.

    Permalink

  3. randino Posted 6:18 pm
    08 Jul 2009

    This is the type of mentality that will sink this country and this civilization.  It is not the wild eyed jihadies blowing themselves up in market places in the Middle East that will destroy us.  It is the timid and cautious souls who do not want to be too rash, or too extreme, even when they are facing a threat of monumental porportions. "Yes, I agree that global warming is a threat." Bull shit. As Edward Abbey said, "Sentiment without action is deadly to the soul."  And the planet.  We are hostages of timid little minds.  They will be the death of us. People like McCaskill make Inhofe look principled.  At least you know where he stands. To hell with them all.Randy Cunningham

    Permalink

  4. veritone Posted 6:18 pm
    08 Jul 2009

    You seem to be oblivious to the need to deal aggressively with the threat of global warming. You make not a single mention of it in your remarks. You fail to understand the disposition of the 85% of permits that aren't being auctioned. As Robert Stavins pointed out, fully 80% of that 85% are to ensure that energy remains affordable across the country. Only 20% of that figure goes to businesses.You claim that ACES will raise energy prices, ignoring entirley the CBO study which says its cost will be negligible. And you acknowledge nowhere Paul Krugman's conviction that capping greenhouse gases will have the effect of a major technological revolution throughout our economy, stimulating investment in technology and creating jobs like nothing else on the horizon.Having visited your website just now I see that you are a card-carrying climate denier. Small wonder then how shallow and non-sensical your remarks are. Are you funded by the fossil fuel industry? It sure seems to me like you are. Your site spouts the entire litany of the climate denial industry's nonsense. I hope readers will put your remarks in proper perspective.

    Permalink

  5. veritone Posted 6:20 pm
    08 Jul 2009

    Hey don't sugar coat it now, Randy! I applaud everything you said: one big fat ditto!!

    Permalink

  6. georgiact Posted 7:41 pm
    08 Jul 2009

    Let's see...Global temp declining for 8 yearsOcean temp declining for 3 yearsSea level falling for 3 years"More than 90 percent of the world's glaciers are growing" Robert W. FelixAll while CO2 increased over 5% since 2000.Yes, CO2 is a problem.  Yes, CO2 is a problem.  Yes, CO2 is a problem 'cause the GC Models tell me so!

    Permalink

  7. Jesse Jenkins's avatar

    Jesse Jenkins Posted 8:07 pm
    08 Jul 2009

    I'm reminded of the piece I wrote back in April for Grist, "The Sherrod Brown Test: Finding Consensus on Climate Policy."  It seems there has been very little effort (or at least effective effort) from the architects of this bill to actually form a proactive strategy to find common ground and secure the support of this group of moderate Democratic Senators. We've all had plenty of repeated warnings from these Senators, McCaskill chief among them, that they will not support a toothy carbon pricing bill.  They've been telling us that in no uncertain terms since they rejected Lieberman-Warner bill back in June 2008.  The writing has been on the wall sense then (and largely ignored): if you're counting on high carbon prices or a binding cap on carbon emissions to transform the U.S. energy system, you'll find no success in the U.S. Senate. We've had a full year to develop a Plan B, a strategy (both policy and politics) that can succeed in transforming the way we make and use energy in this country and building a clean, prosperous energy economy without requiring a high carbon price.  My effort to develop such a plan, a plan that can pass the Sherrod Brown (or Claire McCaskill) Test can be found here and here.  But we've all had time to develop such a plan, including the chief architects of climate policy strategy in DC (which sadly does not include this policy analyst or his small think tank).  Now time has almost run out.  Will a change in strategy and policy be attempted in the Senate, or will we simply see the already concession-ridden and non-transformative ACES bill get even weaker and weaker to secure passage?  Given the urgency of the climate challenge, I hope desperately for the former and shudder to think of the results of the latter.Keep up the good writing Kate.

    Permalink

  8. its easy being green Posted 9:50 pm
    08 Jul 2009

    You're wrong, georgiact:"Global temp declining for 8 years"No it hasn't...the last 14 years have been the hottest ever recorded.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global-blended-temp-pg.gif"Sea level falling for 3 years"Globally, it hasn't.http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise_png"the glaciers are growing"Uh no, they're melting. The National Snow and Ice Data Centre and their State of the Cryosphere division,
    on their Glacial Balance page, report an overall accelerating rate of glacial mass loss.

    Permalink

  9. randino Posted 4:01 am
    09 Jul 2009

    People like McCaskill, and like Sherrod Brown, are to climate change what Neville Chamberlain and the America First isolationists were to Hitler.  There!  Now my storage tanks of bile are drained and I feel much, much better.Randy Cunningham 

    Permalink

  10. georgiact Posted 6:36 am
    09 Jul 2009

    Its easy being green...  Are you kidding me?  Wikipedia and global warming art are your sources!  I suppose June 2009 was the warmest on record too.And the NSIDC does not track glacier advancement/retreat.  I suggest you stretch your search to include additional sources.Here are a few things to broaden your understanding of the recent science/debate.http://www.pensee-unique.fr/courtillot3.pdfhttp://www.nipccreport.org/index.htmlI think everyone should at least listen and consider the arguments of the other side.  Do you have the courage to give the other side an honest listen?

    Permalink

  11. Rmoen Posted 6:40 am
    09 Jul 2009

    Reasonable people sometimes disagree.  Are you reasonable, Vertione?  My site is self-funded.  Personal attacks don't belong in this discussion.  I understand it is the way of zealots who believe they know what's best, but the truth is we need science not name calling.  We need thinking not lock step marching.Under cap and trade a several trillion dollar market for carbon credits will develop.  Much of these costs will be passed down to the consumer.  As I said in my post, I'm a Democrat.  I'm fundamenttally opposed to enriching Wallstreet at the expense of the consumer.If instead of cap and trade the United States had a national mandate to replace coal generation plants with natural gas and nuclear energy, plus if we replaced our commuter cars with battery-powered electric cars, we would drastically reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce CO2 emissions faster and beyond the proposed cap and trade targets.For twenty years I devoutly believed CO2 caused global warming.  Now, I'm not to sure. I have spent many hours reading the IPCC climate reports searching for the smoking gun that proves CO2 drives global warming.  There is none.  Clearly, however, there is an agenda.  It is my belief the USA needs our own 'climate truth commission' before we reorganize and burden our economy with CO2 caps.-- Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanUSA.com  

    Permalink

  12. Javaman Posted 7:15 am
    09 Jul 2009

    Whether you believe it or not, global warming is happening and wishing it away or denying it exists will just make more room for those of us who do believe and are preparing.So to those deniers, when the poop hits the fan and you need help from us who do know it's happening, take a walk, you had your chance.In the mean time, the climate bill is worthless as it stands. It has been so watered down that it will basically have no effect what so ever when and if it's ever implimented.We are speeding toward the cliff and instead of slamming on the breaks people are flooring the gas peddle.we had a great ride, did some interesting things, none of which was all that important, when you take them in the larger context. That context being that the earth as we know it, is ending.they are wishing really hard if they (the powers that be) think we are going to limit the temp rise to only 2 degrees globally. So very amusing. At current models and by the real climatologists out there (not economists from the epa claiming to be one), we are looking at at least a 4 degree rise. And by a mild definition, that is a civilization ender. there will be people around but the concept of large cities or organized city states will have gone with the wind or in this case got with the heat.Think of a world returning to roughly the 13th century with good sprinkling of todays tech.I'm middle aged, I won't live long enough to see the full effect, but todays generation will. This is why I'm so thankful I never had kids. I don't have to explain to them how we completely screwed up this planet.flame if you want. It's your only outlet other than whistling past the grave yard.

    Permalink

  13. nobenno Posted 11:15 am
    09 Jul 2009

    Careful there Rmoen, you are going to get turf toe.

    Permalink

  14. justlou Posted 11:21 am
    09 Jul 2009

    Higher energy prices, regardless of the source, are inevitable with or without climate legislation.  But moderates like McCaskill are simply discounting all of the future negative costs associated with the dirty sources.  In this respect there is no difference between her position and those of the reactionary right legislators like John Shimkus.  This is a very sad, but very predictable development.  "Yes we can" is in the can.  Artificially maintaining "cheap" fossil energy is only pushing the "transition" to a later date, and raising the chance of a much harder reckoning with the inevitable bottleneck. 

    Permalink

  15. nobenno Posted 12:17 pm
    09 Jul 2009

    <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 </xml><![endif]--> <!--
    /* Style Definitions */
    p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
    {mso-style-parent:"";
    margin:0in;
    margin-bottom:.0001pt;
    mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
    font-size:12.0pt;
    font-family:"Times New Roman";
    mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
    @page Section1
    {size:8.5in 11.0in;
    margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
    mso-header-margin:.5in;
    mso-footer-margin:.5in;
    mso-paper-source:0;}
    div.Section1
    {page:Section1;}
    --> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>
    /* Style Definitions */
    table.MsoNormalTable
    {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
    mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
    mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
    mso-style-noshow:yes;
    mso-style-parent:"";
    mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
    mso-para-margin:0in;
    mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
    mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
    font-size:10.0pt;
    font-family:"Times New Roman";}
    </style> 123...

    Permalink

  16. claudsam Posted 12:42 pm
    09 Jul 2009

    georgiact -- Isn't that something. You question Wikipedia as a source for rather basic statistical facts and then refer us to a link connected with Heartland Institute? Very interesting.

    Permalink

  17. SkyHunter Posted 6:44 pm
    09 Jul 2009

    RMOEN,So you are telling us that for 20 years while average solar flux declined and global temperatures rose you decided to question the validity spectral physics???Maybe you should start with something simpler and easier to understand than the IPCC Assessment Reports.GEORGIACT,Your first link is to a paper where they study land temperatures. Since the land responds faster to changes in solar flux than the oceans there is nothing surprising in their findings.Your second link is to a denialist web sites and is not a credible source. Wikipedia and Global Wrming Art are acceptable links as long as they are well cited. Global Warming Art and Wikipedia are both transparent. You can go directly to the cited data sources and make your own graph if you think they made a mistake.

    Permalink

  18. SkyHunter Posted 9:07 pm
    09 Jul 2009

    And the NSIDC does not track glacier advancement/retreatReally?You never heard of GLIMS?That is an acronym for Global Land Ice Measurements from Space. (NSIDC)Maybe you should more thoroughly study real scienctific sources and lay off the junk science. 

    Permalink

  19. Tricia G Posted 4:28 pm
    10 Jul 2009

    Randy, as I have observed for some months now, has really nailed it with his comments. He's nailed our mostly hopeless elected people, some of whom are quite clueless. It was jaw-dropping for me to read Sen. McCaskill's acknowledgment that action on GW is urgent but that she was unwilling to do so. Incomprehensible!

    Permalink

  20. georgiact Posted 4:00 pm
    13 Jul 2009

    to Skyhunter & claudsamThe difference between us is that I read everything and decide whether the conclusions or opinions are supported by the science whereas you will not read and evaluate anything from a source you deem tainted.  Thus, you can never have a complete understanding of the arguments of both sides or the holes in the arguments of either side.So, maybe you can point me to where the AGW theory has been proven!  I have not seen the proof yet.  Actually, the proof against it appears to be piling up.By the way, I live in So. NE and have yet to put in my window A/C units because it has hardly reached 80 degrees and the nights are still cold.  i usually have to put them in before May ends.  Sure sounds like warming here... or maybe its climate change, just in the oposite direction.

    Permalink

  21. Rmoen Posted 4:32 pm
    13 Jul 2009

    I agree, Georgiact.  Rather than address
    new climate science and facts (or even old climate science and facts)
    the AGW crowd are quick with character assassination and denial. 
    Moreover, Democrats have turned climate science into a form a religious
    zealotry, where attacking heretics is the norm.  This has backfired,
    however.  Now AGW has no credibility with well over half the country, all Republicans, and many Democrats like me.AGW and cap and trade
    will not be embraced by America until the USA convenes its own
    non-biased 'climate truth commission'  and it finds AGW valid.  One
    does not need to be a scientist to review the United Nations' IPCC 2007
    Climate Report and understand the fix was in.  In the UN's own words (p 95)
    "The topics have been chosen...for understanding the risks of
    human-induced climate change."  Since they did not consider whether
    Mother Nature was the cause of global warming, it is no surprise they
    found CO2 guilty.--Robert Moen, http://www.energyplanusa.com 

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement