Sens. Lieberman (I) and Warner (R) are, as you may know, attempting to put together a global warming bill that can get through the Senate. They're picking bits and pieces from all the other bills floating around. A hearing on Wed. Tues., with testimony from a variety of big money types, should reveal something about how they plan to play it.
Here's what E&E has to say (sub. rqd):
Lieberman and Warner are a little more than three weeks into talks on a compromise climate package that would establish a cap-and-trade system covering most sectors of the U.S. economy. The senators say they are building from at least nine different proposals, including four bills that Lieberman cosponsors.
"They've got essentially a notebook that's about the size of the Manhattan phone directory they're trying to work from," said Frank O'Donnell, head of the advocacy group Clean Air Watch.
Aides to Lieberman and Warner acknowledged last week that their bill may not be ready for official introduction until after Congress returns from the August recess -- a slight shift from their earlier announced plans. But the aides also insisted that any delay does not mean they cannot reach agreement over the coming weeks on some of the most important details (E&E Daily, July 18).
"We have started pen to paper," a Lieberman aide said Friday.
Few doubt that Lieberman and Warner have given themselves a difficult task. A number of politically sensitive items must be resolved, including the level for first-ever emission reduction targets and the method for allocating tens and potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in carbon dioxide credits.
Also, the senators say they will write a bill that limits costs on the economy. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) introduced legislation this month with a "safety valve" that puts a $12 per ton ceiling on the price industries must pay during the program's first year when emitting carbon dioxide. But opposition to that specific approach remains strong among environmentalists and key lawmakers, and Lieberman and Warner are likely to be on the lookout for other ideas.
Warner, for example, said last month he supports an "emergency off-ramp" from the new climate program. Details of exactly what Warner's approach would entail remain unclear.
In dealing with international competition, Lieberman and Warner have several options. One approach backed by major labor groups would require U.S. trading partners such as China and India to purchase pollution credits if they do not have sufficient global warming policies in place after about a decade.
More on Warner's important shift on global warming here.
I predict that what Lieberman and Warner produce will be a weak-ass brew. Nobody who reads this site will like it. Nonetheless, it may well turn out to be the best that can get through the Senate.
Does that mean we should support it, or that we should wait for a different political landscape in 2008? Discuss.
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [UPDATED]
Al Franken (D-Minn.)
Comments
View as Flat
Billhook Posted 8:21 pm
23 Jul 2007
the issue of whether a climate bill can pass in the senate seems of tertiary relevance to me.
First is the matter of whether its clauses would help or hinder
the UNFCCC's adoption of the requisite global policy framework of "Contraction and Convergence",
without which neither India nor Africa will sign on, and both China and EU look very doubtful.
Second, with the denialist opposition demanding appeasement, it is questionable whether the senate bill could actually reflect such industry support as is now emerging.
For example, the following is from a news post on Global Commons Institute (http://www.gci.org.uk) and demonstrates some of that emerging support.
"US National Petroleum Council [NPC - Chair Lee Raymond] are calling for
a global carbon emissions framework [NPC&C?] in a report just out
called, 'Facing Hard Truths': -
"As policymakers consider options to reduce carbon dioxide emissions,
the United States must provide an effective global framework for carbon
management, including establishment of a transparent, predictable,
economy-wide cost for carbon dioxide emissions."
http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/Facing_Hard_Truths-Report ...
"
That the Warner-Leibermann bill may be the best that can currently pass the senate
thus seems of little relevance -
If I were a hardline fossil-state senator, I'd be planning to allow a spoiler bill to pass,
i.e. one that does little of itself
but wrecks the chance of global agreement of a Treaty of the Atmospheric Commons by 2012.
Thus I'd say oppose what is not worth having for all you're worth !
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
miles44 Posted 12:06 am
24 Jul 2007
If a weak bill passed, people would think, "There! That whole global warming thing is taken care of." And if we tried to get a harder bill passed down the road, Republicans would say, "See? We told you so. Those economy-killing treehuggers won't be satisfied until we're all out of work just to protect one more spotted owl."
Read more of my rants on global warming, recycling, and organic beer at The Green Miles!
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:15 am
24 Jul 2007
This is one case where gridlock is called for...if, for some reason, the Gore loonies were able to get some dumb "Global Warming" bill passed, it would be the biggest boondoggle in the history of America.
Hopefully, the Senators will use every slimy skill in their political trickbag to make the Greens think they got something, and at the same time leave the rest of us alone to progress in the 21st century.
John Bailo
You Read It Here First
Permalink
SamK Posted 2:22 am
24 Jul 2007
The EU is a perfect example of this. There phase I cap was too high and the price for a ton of carbon is almost 0. They have tightened the cap for phase II (08-12) and futures are trading at 20-25 euros per tonne. According to most business analysts on the subject, this is about the price target where many companies will make structural changes to their business methods instead of just buying the offsets.
The Montreal Protocol, for reduction of ozone depleting gasses is another case to consider. The cap was tightened even quicker than the original framework specified. This would most likely happen with CO2 as well. There are a lot of low hanging fruit in terms of savings and once the more difficult challenges need to be tackled, there will be a strong enough constituency for finding solutions (green building professionals, highly efficient cars, financial sectors, politicals) that stopping further reductions will be more difficult than continuing, but this can't happen until we start.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 3:06 am
24 Jul 2007
I'm not sure why enviros have a big problem with this idea. Practically speaking, it's essential that the price of carbon not go up too quickly right out of the gate. If it does, they'll rescind the bill rather than let it wreck the economy. An effective price scheme needs to start low, and ratchet up in a steady and predictable manner.
I think that, in reality, we'll be lucky to get anything that has teeth in the first five years of it's existence. If the safety valve clause only applies in the first year, I'd be thrilled.
Permalink
mihan Posted 6:19 am
24 Jul 2007
Once we get used to the idea, the price can be increased.
Same reason unions don't make what seem like tiny concessions: if you start paying (even a tiny amount) for something that used to be a free benefit, the employer is free to ratchet the price up and up in subsequent negotiations.
Permalink
Gary Gifford Posted 9:32 am
24 Jul 2007
Cheers,
Gary Gifford
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:14 pm
24 Jul 2007
Pubs did not let democrats do anything when they were in the majority. This stinks.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink