Bill they, or won't they?

Climate bill negotiations stall in House 35

Posted 4:54 PM on 19 Jun 2009
by Kate Sheppard
- More from this author
- Author Feed
Posted in
- Politics,
- Climate & Energy,
- Muckraker
Read More About
- Big Ag,
- climate bill,
- Congress,
- jackassery,
- legislation,
- offsets,
- Waxman-Markey bill

Share
- del.icio.us
- digg
- Facebook
- Reddit
- MySpace
- Buzz Up!
- Twitter
- Newsvine
- Google Bookmarks
- StumbleUpon
Comment

What’s up with the climate bill? You know, the one that’s supposed to be voted on in the House next week?

We’re wondering too! A report from one Capitol Hill newspaper suggests that negotiations have bogged down over the legislation’s provisions on agriculture, raising the question of whether the bill will actually get to the House floor before the July 4 recess.

American Clean Energy and Security Act authors Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) have been meeting with members of the House who have expressed concerns about the bill in its current form, including Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.). Details of those negotiations have been hard to come by.

Peterson, the most vocal critic of the bill, wants it to include pollution permit allocations for rural electric cooperatives. He also wants to make the bill more biofuel-friendly, and to include a provision stating that the U.S. Department of Agriculture will oversee domestic emissions offsets rather than the Environmental Protection Agency.

On Friday, Roll Call reported that Peterson says the talks “blew up last night” over the issue of offsets. It appears the bill authors offered an option of setting aside money a new greenhouse gas conservation program tied to an offsets program, but Peterson and other Ag Dems rejected it.

“It’s a whole new concept being brought in at the last minute,” Peterson said, according to Roll Call. “Many didn’t like it. ... The bottom line is we’re not going to consider anything unless we actually see the language and have it for three or four days so we can figure out what it does.”

“I’m tired of this running around in circles,” he added (which is probably what everyone involved in this issue is thinking these days).

Peterson has threatened to vote against the Waxman-Markey bill and pledged no votes from all the other 26 Democrats on his committee if these changes aren’t made. It’s not entirely clear what Peterson would be willing to agree to, or just how much the bill’s authors would be willing to give him. A deal was expected to be announced on Friday, according to a source close to the negotiations. But given the late hour, that’s not looking very likely at this point.

Just yesterday, the bill’s authors were optimistic. “I think we made some real progress,” Markey told reporters. “We’re continuing to try and resolve the issues within the existing framework.” Today, however, Waxman said a vote next week is unlikely, according to Reuters.

Wonkery note: When – or perhaps, if – lawmakers reach a deal, the changes would be introduced in the form of a manager’s amendment during debate on the House floor. Waxman would submit the amendment as a substitute to the version of the bill that passed out of his committee on May 21.

Comments

Kate Sheppard is Grist’s political reporter.

Delay And Deny Posted 7:17 pm
19 Jun 2009
Word to Waxman: How about running the LA subway through your Beverly Hills neighborhoods? Not gonna do it? Figured.
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 1:21 am
20 Jun 2009
WWAGD: Waxman has what kind of control over city subway planning? None.
Permalink
randino Posted 3:55 am
20 Jun 2009
We began this process with admonitions to not let the perfect stand in the way of the good. Then we were told to not let the good stand in the way of the mediocre. How it looks right now we will soon be told to not let the mediocre stand in the way of the truly disgusting. Heh, be of good cheer. We haven't even gotten to the Senate yet! Randy Cunningham Cleveland OH
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:52 am
20 Jun 2009
CSJ opined: Waxman has what kind of control over city subway planning?The Federal Government subsidizes most if not all mass transit.Waxman blocked the Red Line into Beverly Hills several times during his career by denying funding.
Permalink
enviroperk Posted 8:50 am
20 Jun 2009
Could this be credible? Or just another denier on climate change?http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/us-climate-report-assailed/
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 10:19 am
20 Jun 2009
"He also wants to make the bill more biofuel-friendly"Sigh. And that goes with CO2 reduction how?
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 10:22 am
20 Jun 2009
WWAGD: And so this is your method of stirring the pot when you have nothing constructive to say about a cap and trade bill?
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 10:28 am
20 Jun 2009
Fine, remove every line from the report about links between current natural disasters and AGW (Pilke's complaint) . Now what, Enviroperk? I still see mountains of evidence to act upon. Hmmm?
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 11:35 am
20 Jun 2009
Quote:The new federal report on climate change gets a withering critique from Roger Pielke Jr., who says that it
misrepresents his own research and that it wrongly concludes that
climate change is already responsible for an increase in damages from
natural disasters. Dr. Pielke, a professor of environmental studies at
the University of Colorado, asks: [Why] is a report characterized by [White House] Science
Advisor John Holdren as being the “most up-to-date, authoritative, and
comprehensive” analysis relying on a secondary, non-peer source citing
another non-peer reviewed source from 2000 to support a claim that a
large amount of uncited and more recent peer-reviewed literature says
the opposite about?
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 11:42 am
20 Jun 2009
CSJ says "WWAGD: And so this is your method of stirring the pot when you have nothing constructive to say about a cap and trade bill?"
Wow. Is that your way of escaping an argument you can't win? The point I made is about the map in question. It clearly shows that climate legislation is about the liberal coasts taxing the rest of America. I made my point that Waxman has a "do as I say; not as I do".
The argument is valid and stands. If you have anything to add other than whining, we're all waiting to hear it.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 11:44 am
20 Jun 2009
You have to read Pielke's blog...it puts an ice axe into the "science" of global warming!http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/06/obamas-phil-cooney-and-new-ccsp-report.html Imagine if an industry-funded government contractor had a hand in
writing a major federal report on climate change. And imagine if that
person used his position to misrepresent the science, to cite his own
non-peer reviewed work, and to ignore relevant work in the
peer-reviewed literature. There would be an outrage, surely . . .

Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 12:36 pm
20 Jun 2009
What map? This article is about an ignorant Agriculture Committee Chairman. You might be in the wrong thread.
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 12:41 pm
20 Jun 2009
Pielke, who makes a career out of sowing doubt had only ONE complaint about the report: the linkage to PRESENT DAY events. I said "fine, then drop that". The NOAA information used in the report IS published in peer reviewed science journals. See here: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090126_climate.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.abstract
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 12:42 pm
20 Jun 2009
Good and well put point.
Permalink
enviroperk Posted 12:49 pm
20 Jun 2009
What appears problematic is the quality of the "evidence".I would like to assume that only those parts of the report that may lack proper foundations, or be stating convient conclusions rather than actual conclusions from underlying research, are those parts that are in Prof. Pielke's area of expertise.Are any other sections of the report as questionable? I do find things like the photos of land loss due to a hurricane in 2005 not applicable at all. Especially if the evidence does not conclude that hurricanes are stronger due to global warming. That photo strikes me as a strange bit of content.Though I believe human CO2 emissions are causing global warming, if the real science (not the manipulated science ) shows otherwise, I would change my viewpoint on that.
We are staking our global economy on the Global Warming premise, it makes sense to assure the premise is backed by the best science, rather than "drinking the Kool Aid". Apparently, there are other forces at work. Forces that appear to environmentally green but may actually have other motivations.
Permalink
enviroperk Posted 1:02 pm
20 Jun 2009
Christopher,Thank you for the links, I have seen the first one and I didn't realize it was peer-reviewed. The report's conclusion begs for consideration:The pioneering study, led by NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon, shows
how changes in surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level are largely
irreversible for more than 1,000 years after carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are completely stopped.If it isn't reversable if CO2 emissions are completely stopped, should we be investing resources elsewhere? Or is the 450PPM the threshold you think? Therefore-- if we cap world emmissions NOW at the current 385 PPM , we can avoid the irreversability? Sorry to diverge on the bill, but if we cannot assure world CO2 levels below the 450ppm or so, the politics of the bill is moot.
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 1:25 pm
20 Jun 2009
No, the opposite.My understanding is that, while the "bathtub effect will mean it can take a millennium for REDUCTIONS to happen in the atmosphere and oceans, a relative PLATEAU can be achieved and the rising can stop. So the symptoms would be relatively (barring other forcers) frozen in place, but not worsen.It would be like the difference between an "L.A. Riots" version of the problem, and a "Rwanda" version of the problem.But I would expect an anti-regulation-at-all-costs biased person to use the info that way.
Permalink
enviroperk Posted 2:04 pm
20 Jun 2009
Thanks, that makes sense.Re: your last sentence: I am not sure painting people you do not even know with a broad brush adds much to your objective scientific reasoning cred.
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 2:50 pm
20 Jun 2009
I am highly comfortable and intellectually at ease with recognizing the likely misuse of "the bathtub effect" to campaign against CO2 regulation. Im not losing any sleep.I am not a scientist. I am not an expert. Im just another common informed citizen, amongst millions, who will help see major regulation of CO2 emissions, to the very end. And with no use of exaggerations in science.If you know of a violation, great. Lets put it in the ignore box and stick to the known evidence.

Pielke had a very narrow complaint and that should be looked into.Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
Permalink
randino Posted 5:08 pm
20 Jun 2009
Chris, you did well dealing with this troll attack. As another poster said on another thread in quoting Schiller, "Against stupidity, even the gods must struggle." Randy Cunningham
Permalink
enviroperk Posted 8:05 pm
20 Jun 2009
I guess this means I may be one of the attacking trolls. Ouch.Â Very sorry for the intrusion, not meant to be trolling. I just hope to learn by asking questions and hearing differing viewpoints. I am guilty of not understanding the boundries until I stepped over them. Nothing intentional.Thanks and good luck to Grist. Nice site. I have had some interesting discussions here in the past.
Best,
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 8:29 pm
20 Jun 2009
Enviroperk,

Its important to understand the context of this moment. People, including me, are sensitive. This is the moment. 2009 is the point where it all crests. Both the national and international agreement to address this are happening -- right now. Not in 2011. Right now. After this legislation is signed by us and Chinida, I'd LOVE to return to academic sipping of tea and pondering the what-ifs in a polite fashion. See you on the other side.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 9:01 pm
20 Jun 2009
I'd like it too, but you guys keep cooking the books with false data and phoney summations using secondary and tertiary sources.2009 is the point where it all crests. I sure hope so, becase it's (P)iled (h)igher and (d)eeper than ever before!
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 9:20 pm
20 Jun 2009
These ain’t no hippies: NASA http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/causes “Most scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.” NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2009/ocp2009-ccsp.htm “Climate research conducted over the past several years indicates that most of the global warming experienced in the past few decades is very likely due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities.” AGU (American Geophysical Union) http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml “The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.”

Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 9:27 pm
20 Jun 2009
And just for good measure, so you can go to bed:http://tinyurl.com/n5zypz A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK). The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified. There will always be some uncertainty surrounding the prediction of changes in such a complex system as the world’s climate. Nevertheless, we support the IPCC’s conclusion that it is at least 90% certain that temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface temperature projected to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8oC above 1990 levels by 21001. This increase will be accompanied by rising sea levels, more intense precipitation events in some countries, increased risk of drought in others, and adverse effects on agriculture, health and water resources. In May 2000, at the InterAcademy Panel (IAP) meeting in Tokyo, 63 academies of science from all parts of the world issued a statement on sustainability in which they noted that “global trends in climate change … are growing concerns” and pledged themselves to work for sustainability – meeting current human needs while preserving the environment and natural resources needed by future generations2. It is now evident that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change. Business as usual is no longer a viable option.

Permalink
Brudaimonia Posted 9:50 pm
20 Jun 2009
WWAGD,If you were really concerned about the importance of peer-reviewed articles, would you believe that one blog post could "put[] an ice axe into the 'science' of global warming", as you said earlier?It would mean that Pielke knows something that nearly every peer-reviewed article author reviewed by Naomi Oreskes in her meta-analysis, "Beyond the Ivory Tower", published in Science, doesn't. It's important to realize the overwhelming body of scientific evidence finding a very strong likelihood of the connection between human-caused GHG emissions and the harmful climatic effects on our livelihoods.As far as the link between climate change and natural disasters, it's true that we don't have rock solid evidence of a strong connection, but there is physical and statistical evidence that points to a possible connection. No one disputes that hurricanes tend to originate in warmer water; that's high school science. What makes bodies of water, like the Gulf of Mexico, warmer? Global warming.Secondly, even if a connection between tropical storm frequency has not yet been unequivocally proven, that's not the only way climate change can influence tropical storms, cyclones, and hurricanes. There's stronger evidence that climate change is making them more intense. See, for example:K. Emanuel. (2005). Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years."I find that the record of net hurricane power dissipation is highly
correlated with tropical sea surface temperature, reflecting
well-documented climate signals, including multi-decadal oscillations
in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, and global warming. My results
suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical
cyclone destructive potential, and—taking into account an increasing
coastal population—a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses
in the twenty-first century."and...J. Elsner, et. al. (2008). The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones."We find significant upward trends for wind speed quantiles above the 70th percentile...Our results are qualitatively consistent with the hypothesis that as
the seas warm, the ocean has more energy to convert to tropical cyclone
wind."So, there is evidence that climate change and natural disasters -- at least cyclones and likely hurricanes -- are linked.
Permalink
Peter Wood Posted 11:03 pm
20 Jun 2009
It is essential that any offsets are permanent, measurable, verifiable and additional, in order for them to be credible. For this reason, it would be much better for offsets to be administered by the EPA.There could be significant scope for emissions redutions and biosequestration via activities such as soil carbon, and grazeland management. It would be very difficult for many of these activities to meet the criteria required for offsets to be credible. For this reason, these emissions reductions should instead be financed by an alternative mechanism to offsets. The use of some revenue from auctioning or allocating permits could be used for these activities. They may perhaps be able to be administered by the Dept of Agriculture.
Permalink
Jana Chicoine Posted 4:10 am
21 Jun 2009
Does anybody grasp that this bill gives billions to subsidize increases in CO2 emissions frm the so-called 'renewables' sector? New biomass, waste-to-energy, and biofuel with the attending land use change, will actually increase CO2 emissions. Why are we doing that?Some of these sources will go to new demand, some may displace fossil fuels, but in either case the emissions will be greater than fossil fuel use for the forseeable future and will do the exact opposite of what we are calling for - we'll get immediate CO2 increases from that sector instead of immediate reductions.Crunching the numbers for biomass in the northeast, it looks like biomass emits about 1.5 times more CO2 per megawatt hour than coal. The "net carbon neutral' argument requires decades to re-sequester the carbon - time that we don't have, right? Why are carbon-rich combustibles subsidized right alongside wind and solar? Why are combustibles already getting the lion's share of clean energy funds in places like Massachusetts and Pennsylvania?There was a congressional briefing about this on Friday. Kate, were you there?www.massenvironmentalenergy.orgwww.maforests.org
Permalink
randino Posted 5:01 am
21 Jun 2009
Fighting trolls is like those old Kung Fu movies where the hero is fighting his nemesis in a maze of mirrors. Recognize that all they have to do is produce doubt. Meanwhile they demand that you produce whole stadium fulls of documentation. It is an old racket, first perfected when the chemical and agribusiness industry marshalled their response to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring. They as much as said that they did not intend on refuting her positions. All they had to do was raise doubt and keep the debate rolling, and rolling, and rolling. As long as the debate continued, no action would be taken and they won. Their rule book was picked up by the tobacco companies and another several generations of people smoked their way into the grave. Finally, there is ideology. Climate change denial is on the short list of things you must believe in to be a politically correct conservative. Ideologies become fused with identities. You will never budge this bunch. My suggestion. Disengage and get out of that hall of mirrors, grass hopper. Argue with fools, become a fool.Randy Cunningham
Permalink
veritone Posted 9:39 am
21 Jun 2009
I believe I was that poster you mentioned and the quote goes like this: "Against stupidity even the Gods struggle in vain." Schiller.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 9:56 am
21 Jun 2009
One, two, (one, two, three, four!)

Let me tell you how it will be;
There's one credit for you, nineteen for me.
'Cause I'm Rep. Waxman,
Yeah, I'm Rep. Waxman.

Should five per cent cap and trade appear too small,
Be thankful I don't take it all.
'Cause I'm Rep Waxman,
Yeah, I'm Rep Waxman.

(if you pollute the air;) - I'll tax your stack;
(if you dig for oil;) - I'll tax your pick;
(if you get too cold;) - I'll tax natural gas;
(if you take a break;) - I'll tax your a---------

Waxman!
(apologies to G. Harrison)
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 11:29 am
21 Jun 2009
WWAGD,The alternative to creating a financial incentive to change behavior, is with the muzzle of a gun pointed at you. The Japanese used armed Samurai to protect the forest from being cut down by greedy people who could not grasp their environmental impact. Call them "forest impact deniers".Now, which way would you prefer?The methodology of taxing polluters is about nonviolence and NOT cracking heads. Nothing else. And so your complaint is what?
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:06 pm
21 Jun 2009
Bush had the right idea. Funding the future instead of taxing the past. Through hydrogen, we could eliminate all the CO2. You may now attack hydrogen technology -- as you would be expected to...since, from the looks of it, you've drunk 5 to 6 times the normal amount of Kool-Aid.
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 6:11 pm
21 Jun 2009
Permalink
Brudaimonia Posted 7:07 pm
21 Jun 2009
Actually, most hydrogen these days, for transportation at least, is produced through steam methane reformantion, which uses a ton of energy, not to mention any methane that happens to escape into the atmosphere.
Also, I'll refer you to my earlier comment about the link between natural disasters and climate change.
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

Commented

Climate bill negotiations stall in House 35

Posted 4:54 PM on 19 Jun 2009
by Kate Sheppard

Posted in

Read More About

Related Stories

Add a Comment

Sections

Columns

The Fine Print

Climate bill negotiations stall in House 35

Posted 4:54 PM on 19 Jun 2009 by Kate Sheppard

Posted in

Read More About

Related Stories

Comments View as Threaded

Add a Comment

Posts With the Mosts

Recent Comments by ...

Sections

Columns

The Fine Print

Posted 4:54 PM on 19 Jun 2009
by Kate Sheppard