The Senate held a cloture vote this morning to bring to a close debate on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, a vote that would have allowed the amendment process to begin. After four days of conversation and delays, the bill died, failing to reach the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture by a vote of 48-36. Unable to move forward, Democratic leadership yanked the bill from the floor.
In a press conference following the vote, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) were optimistic about the vote despite not clearing the 60-vote hurdle.
"This is a giant step forward," said Lieberman. "It may be a small step for mankind, but it's a giant step for the United States Senate. It puts us on the path to getting this done hopefully next year."
Boxer and Lieberman said they are counting this as a 54-36 vote, because Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), Joe Biden (D-Del.), and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) all submitted statements [PDF] declaring that had they been present today, they would have voted for cloture. Boxer said their greatest expectation at the start of this process was to get 51 votes.
Both Lieberman and Boxer noted that the last major vote on a climate bill -- on the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act in 2005 -- got only 38 votes.
"In America, change doesn't happen overnight," said Boxer. "This was a good ending for us."
She said today's vote -- and the support from both presidential candidates -- is a positive development, and creates a "road map" for next year.
"We will have the Senate next year, and we will have a president who will be hospitable to this subject," said Boxer.
Most Democrats voted for and most Republicans voted against, but there was some cross-over. Democrats Mary Landrieu (La.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), and Tim Johnson (S.D.) voted against cloture. Republicans Susan Collins (Maine), Mel Martinez (Fla.), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Gordon Smith (Ore.), John Sununu (N.H.), Elizabeth Dole (N.C.), and lead cosponsor John Warner (Va.) all voted for.
After the vote, Brown spoke up in defense of his "no." "I am committed 100 percent to passing a robust cap-and-trade policy," said Brown. "I could not settle for this legislation because it may hurt my state ... I would introduce a bill that would combat global warming without hurting families."
The entire list of those who voted against cloture:
Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)
Wayne Allard (R-Colo.)
Kit Bond (R-Mo.)
Sam Brownback (R-Kan.)
Richard Burr (R-N.C.)
Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
Michael Enzi (R-Wy.)
Jamees Inhofe (R-Okla.)
Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.)
Pat Roberts (R-Kansas)
Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)
Jim Bunning (R-Ky.)
Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)
Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.)
John Barrasso (R-Wy.)
Dick Lugar (R-Ind.)
Tim Johnson (D-S.D.)
Pete Domenici (R-N.M.)
George Voinovich (R-Ohio)
Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
David Vitter (R-La.),
Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.)
John Thune (R-S.D.)
Orrin Hatch (R-Utah)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
Richard Shelby (R-Ala.)
Robert Bennett (R-Utah)
Thad Cochran (R-Miss.)
Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)
Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)
John Ensign (R-Nev.)
Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.)
Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
U.S. warns China against ‘stillborn’ climate deal
What are the chances of a cap-and-trade system being established in the U.S. this year?
Comments
View as Flat
NoImpactMan Posted 12:51 am
06 Jun 2008
This follows, of course, Hansen's findings and Bill McKibben and his 350 campaign.
Why wait for the legislators to figure it out? Why wait until the election to start building a head of steam?
You can read my House resolution here. I'm asking my Congressman to move it forward. I'm looking for other people to take it to their Representatives, too.
I'm also looking for someone to lobby for a concurrent piece of legislation in the Senate. Who wants to be in charge of that?
This may be the dumbest idea ever but it's time for the citizens to take charge.
All the best,
Colin aka No Impact Man
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:00 am
06 Jun 2008
But atleast it gets these Republican Senators on record, such that they can be voted out of office. :)
Permalink
GreenGhost Posted 1:53 am
06 Jun 2008
GreenGhost-Creeping into any environmental discussion.
Permalink
randino Posted 2:05 am
06 Jun 2008
Brown has so far only shown a talent for sterling rhetoric, and wonderful statements on the need for action on climate change. As an old community organizer in Cleveland once said, "A statement a day, keeps the Devil away."
We who have backed him in the past are undergoing a massive crisis of faith. We are still waiting for deeds. I wonder if that great getting up morning will ever arrive?
I wonder. Will I be breaking the law if I take my Sherrod Brown yard sign out to my front lawn and burn it?
Randy Cunningham
Cleveland, OH
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
DarthPetrol Posted 2:26 am
06 Jun 2008
Most Americans see LW-B for what it is: environmental socialism, a transfer of wealth from the citizens to the government and then to lobbyists and special interests. It is pork barrel spending on steroids.
If you want a cap and trade bill, fine, follow Robert Reich's advice. Tax fuel at the point of sale and divide the tax revenues up equally among every American through a direct rebate. No skimming off the top by the politicians.
Then you can spend your rebate on a Prius or solar panels, or whatever you want. I've heard that organic cotton, union made Che Guevera t-shirts are very popular with the average Democrat Party member and Grist reader.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:32 am
06 Jun 2008
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:39 am
06 Jun 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 2:45 am
06 Jun 2008
Actually Colin, this is the best suggestion I have read to date on this board. Citizens should lobby their representatives. That's the way the system is suppose to work. And if enough citizens are concerned, then the system will respond......... maybe not exactly as you wish, but it will respond. Beats the alternative........ sitting here whinging on the net about how bad everything and everyone is.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
F James Handley Posted 3:42 am
06 Jun 2008
As legislation, it had no hope of enactment and wouldn't have put a dent in greenhouse gas emissions.
Its first glaring flaw: Giving away the majority of permits to past polluters.
Second: handing out what revenue it would have collected to big (mostly dirty) energy instead of returning it to citizens as a dividend, as proposed by Sen. Corker (R-Tenn) and Rep. Markey (D-Mass).
Third, the safety valve (or off-ramp) was inadequate -- leading to wide price fluctuations.
Finally, it would have been a bonanza for emissions traders, poised to profit from price volatility and speculation.
Consensus among ecomomists: a revenue-neutral carbon tax with dividend is the "gold standard" for climate legislation. Now we have a little time to organize and educate about measures that might really work without fouling up the economy and giving away trillions.
See http://www.carbontax.org for details.
Permalink
randino Posted 4:01 am
06 Jun 2008
Ed Abbey once said that sentiment in the abscence of action, is injurious to one's soul. I can't think of Sherrod without thinking of that saying.
Oh, by the way, I did burn my Sherrod Brown yard sign and I am sending it to him tomorrow.
Randy Cunningham
Cleveland, OH
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:08 am
06 Jun 2008
Permalink
randino Posted 5:35 am
06 Jun 2008
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
GreenGhost Posted 10:40 am
06 Jun 2008
GreenGhost-Creeping into any environmental discussion.
Permalink
Zephaniah Posted 6:06 am
07 Jun 2008
Although the Republican leadership short-circuited meaningful debate on solutions to the climate crisis, I was pleased to hear so many Senators last week advocating immediate action to stop global warming. Fifteen years ago when I mentioned that burning fossil fuel was going to melt ice caps, raise sea levels and destroy our economy people looked at me like I had just escaped from an asylum.
Now a majority of the Senate has agreed that something needs to be done to reduce use of fossil fuels. Some Senators seemed well informed about the issues.
How is the environmental community doing in providing support for them?? Lots of environmental organzations have great websites with lots of facts, and different opinions are ricocheting around about what to do.
But I have not seen anything like a concerted effort to come to an agreement on best possilble recommendations or coordinated lobbying. ??Does it exist and I missed it?
If you couldn't watch C-SPAN last week, here is a taste of what I heard.
Senator Kerry outlined the dire consequences of failing to reduce our carbon emission, emphasizing how the predictions of some years ago have already occurred much sooner than expected.
Sen Klobuchar talked about the need for nationwide standardization of data on carbon emissions. Sen Menendez said that the federal government should be required to calculate the costs of inaction on climate, in farming, forestry, insurence etc. Sen Lieberman emphasized the security threat of our dependence on foreign oil. Sen Durbin saying that we have to look at the economic cost of bringing steel half way around the world, and use the free market to let US entrepreneurial talent to get out in front of this problem.
Senator Sanders gave examples of successes in clean alternative sources of energy
So did Senator Baccus, talking about the growth of windpower in Montana.
From Colorado two different voices emerged. Sen Slazar advocated support for renewable energy (and carbon sequestration). Sen Allard, on the other hand, questioned the science of global warming and the need to do anything different now!
Sen Boxer, who led the effort with an appropriate sense of urgency and excellent factual exhibits, said that if we wait for 100% certainty terrible things will happen, and that we are now at 99% certainty.
Waiting 2 years to act will double the rate at which we have to cut emissions.
She said we will be looking then at:
$422 billion in increased hurricane costs
$350 billion in increased insurance costs
$141 billion in increased energy costs
$950 billion in increased water costs
Also, what she said repeatedly was, if you disagree, what DO you think we should do?
Permalink
Zephaniah Posted 6:06 am
07 Jun 2008
Although the Republican leadership short-circuited meaningful debate on solutions to the climate crisis, I was pleased to hear so many Senators last week advocating immediate action to stop global warming. Fifteen years ago when I mentioned that burning fossil fuel was going to melt ice caps, raise sea levels and destroy our economy people looked at me like I had just escaped from an asylum.
Now a majority of the Senate has agreed that something needs to be done to reduce use of fossil fuels. Some Senators seemed well informed about the issues.
How is the environmental community doing in providing support for them?? Lots of environmental organzations have great websites with lots of facts, and different opinions are ricocheting around about what to do.
But I have not seen anything like a concerted effort to come to an agreement on best possilble recommendations or coordinated lobbying. ??Does it exist and I missed it?
If you couldn't watch C-SPAN last week, here is a taste of what I heard.
Senator Kerry outlined the dire consequences of failing to reduce our carbon emission, emphasizing how the predictions of some years ago have already occurred much sooner than expected.
Sen Klobuchar talked about the need for nationwide standardization of data on carbon emissions. Sen Menendez said that the federal government should be required to calculate the costs of inaction on climate, in farming, forestry, insurence etc. Sen Lieberman emphasized the security threat of our dependence on foreign oil. Sen Durbin saying that we have to look at the economic cost of bringing steel half way around the world, and use the free market to let US entrepreneurial talent to get out in front of this problem.
Senator Sanders gave examples of successes in clean alternative sources of energy
So did Senator Baccus, talking about the growth of windpower in Montana.
From Colorado two different voices emerged. Sen Slazar advocated support for renewable energy (and carbon sequestration). Sen Allard, on the other hand, questioned the science of global warming and the need to do anything different now!
Sen Boxer, who led the effort with an appropriate sense of urgency and excellent factual exhibits, said that if we wait for 100% certainty terrible things will happen, and that we are now at 99% certainty.
Waiting 2 years to act will double the rate at which we have to cut emissions.
She said we will be looking then at:
$422 billion in increased hurricane costs
$350 billion in increased insurance costs
$141 billion in increased energy costs
$950 billion in increased water costs
Also, what she said repeatedly was, if you disagree, what DO you think we should do?
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:14 am
07 Jun 2008
This Bill was the most egregious usurpation of human rights since the Josef Stalin opened the adult daycare center known as the Gulag Archipelago.
It will looked back on as simply madness...the madness of a crowd hysteria brought on by aberrant "leaders" such as Gore who misused fame, power...and most of all those who stood beneath him.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:34 pm
07 Jun 2008
"More negative waves man. It's a beautiful day. Can't you say something positive and righteous and hopeful for a change?"
Every post you ever write is "we're doomed".
Well, if that's true, then I want to have fun while I'm here. If you insist on wringing your hands and whinging all the time, can't you do it in a more private space.
I'll bet you're a lot of fun to hang out with......
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
steve7138 Posted 4:11 am
10 Jun 2008
They both need to be accountable for this misstep!
ss
Permalink