Todd SternAs Dave lamented last week, most of the predicting and posturing preceding the Copenhagen climate talks amounts to little more than Some Person Guessing. You might consider the weekend news from the UK Observer -- which reported the Obama administration's intention to set a provisional target for U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions -- to be more of the same, though it at least relies on the head of Obama’s climate negotiation team.

From the Observer:

President Barack Obama is considering setting a provisional target for cutting America's huge greenhouse gas emissions, removing the greatest single obstacle to a landmark global agreement to fight climate change.

The Observer has learnt that administration officials have been consulting international negotiators and key players on Capitol Hill about signing up to a provisional target at the UN global warming summit in Copenhagen, now less than three weeks away.

Todd Stern, the state department climate change envoy, said the administration recognised that America had to come forward with a target for cutting its emissions. The US, which with China is responsible for 40% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, is the only major developed nation yet to table an offer.

"What we are looking at is to see whether we could put down essentially a provisional number that would be contingent on our legislation," Stern said from Copenhagen, where he was meeting Danish officials.

By doing so, the administration would get out ahead of Congress—pledging something that 67 senators may not be willing to ratify. It has so far refused to do that in its climate work, to the detriment of its international popularity. But this is what European Union countries do all the time, Rob Bradley, the World Resources Institute’s director of international climate policy, said on Friday. They make agreements at the international level, then pass national legislation to make good on their promises. And, said Bradley, they’ve grown tired of hearing why this doesn’t work in the United States.

Stern’s suggestion—a U.S. commitment contingent on Congress passing legislation—could help the administration work around that dilemma.

Finally, a bit more from Agence France-Presse:

The United States will present an emissions target at upcoming UN climate change talks in Copenhagen, a senior official said Monday, as President Barack Obama mulled whether to attend the conference.

The official refused to be drawn on what that target would be but indicated that Obama would announce it in the next few days along with a decision on whether he will fly to the Danish capital to give added impetus to proceedings.

Added impetus to proceedings--let's hope our inspirer-in-chief finds a more inspiring way to put it.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

George Voinovich

At a hearing on the Kerry-Boxer climate bill in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Nov. 3, Sen. George Voinovich was the only Republican to show up (for a whole 15 minutes!). He explained that Republicans were boycotting the proceedings because they wanted to wait until the EPA completed a more thorough economic analysis of the bill.  He insisted that he did “want to work on a bipartisan basis” and that requesting further EPA analysis was “not a stalling tactic.”

Voinovich has been arguing for further economic analysis ever since the House passed its version of a climate bill, Waxman-Markey, this summer.  He made the point in a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson [PDF] in July. When the Kerry-Boxer bill was unveiled in late September, he called for “time [to be] allowed for a thorough vetting of what has been proposed.”  And in late October, in remarks to the Environment and Public Works Committee [PDF], Voinovich stressed the importance of dealing with climate change, but again argued that more in-depth economic analysis was essential: “Climate change is a serious and complex issue that deserves our full attention. I acknowledge [the] commitment to timely legislation, but the abbreviated process by which this legislation is moving is not conducive to thoughtful, bipartisan climate change legislation.” He ended his statement by warning against attempting “to jam down this legislation” through the Senate: “Wouldn’t it be smarter to take our time and do it right?”

The senator also has concerns about particular provisions in the bill.  “One of my problems with this legislation is that the caps are unrealistic in terms of the availability of technology,” he said. And Voinovich argues that forced emissions reductions would result in significant transfers of wealth from fossil fuel-dependent regions of the country to areas that are less reliant on coal: “California is going to make out like a bandit with this legislation. To jam this thing through here is not going to be good and America is going to be very, very upset about it.”

——-

Here’s more on Voinovich and climate, as written by Kate Sheppard on July 30, 2009:

Sen. George Voinovich has acknowledged the problem of global warming, but wants to take a cautious approach in addressing it. He sponsored a weak climate bill last year that never got any traction.

He is retiring when his term ends in 2010, so he has leeway to support climate legislation without fear of political repercussion.

At the same time, Voinovich is a big supporter of fossil fuels.  Last year, he told Grist that the U.S. should “get every drop” of oil out of U.S. soil.

Voinovich doesn’t like the climate bill that passed the House in June. “In my view, the Waxman-Markey bill fails on all accounts,” he said at a panel on the future of coal that he hosted with Democratic Sen. Tom Carper (Del.).

“You’ve got a bill that is 1,200 pages, and there is just a lot of crap in there,” he said. (Actually the final version came in at more than 1,400 pages.) He criticized the near-term emission-reduction targets in the bill, saying that 17 percent by 2020 is “too high for us.” He’s also worried that the bill would allow carbon offsets to be purchased from foreign sources, arguing that could result in more U.S. cash going to China. “With modest $15 per ton, we could send $15 billion to China,” he said.

He stalled confirmation of the EPA’s deputy administrator while demanding that the agency provide a new analysis of the House climate bill that was more to his liking.

Track the debate and take action >>>

Voinovich has outlined his own priorities for a climate bill, including a cost-containment mechanism (also known as a “safety valve” or “off-ramp”), a requirement for international action, and major funding for carbon-capture-and-sequestration technology.

He seems willing to work on passing a climate bill this year. “There is a lot of work yet to be done; but from my perspective, it’s still open,” Voinovich said. “I’m leaving the Senate at the end of next year and I think there is the possibility in getting something done that’s meaningful.”

Do you know more about this senator’s stance on climate legislation?  Tell us.

Find out about other senators by clicking on their names in the right column.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Al FrankenSen. Al Franken wrote the following letter to a Grist reader in early November, expressing support for “comprehensive energy legislation” and a “national energy plan that keeps our country moving down a path to a homegrown economy with more jobs, more innovation, and more opportunities for investment.”

The senator has been concerned about the possible loss of manufacturing jobs to countries without emission-reduction plans (e.g. China and India), and in August he joined with nine other Democrats in writing a letter to President Obama calling for a climate bill to include tariffs on goods from countries without binding emission targets. Franken continues to express that concern in this letter to a constituent:

Dear [Constituent],

Thank you for contacting me about energy and climate change legislation.  I appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns with me on this important issue for Minnesota and the nation.

One of the reasons I support comprehensive energy legislation is that Minnesota is uniquely positioned to become a global leader in clean energy production.  Whether it’s harnessing the wind in Pipestone, growing the next generation of bio-fuels in Willmar, or tapping into geothermal energy in Appleton, Minnesota is ready to lead.

We have the potential to foster a new industrial revolution—a 21st century economy built on changing the way the world makes and uses energy.  Right now, China and Germany are winning the race to develop solar and wind power, but together we can change this.  Minnesotans can ensure that the world’s energy future is found in the farms and rural communities of Benson and Bemidji, not the factories of Beijing and Berlin.  We need a national energy plan that keeps our country moving down a path to a homegrown economy with more jobs, more innovation, and more opportunities for investment.

Minnesota is in a position to benefit from the national energy legislation that Congress is now considering.  But it’s critical that we get the details right.  On August 6, 2009, I sent a letter to President Obama urging that any national climate change program include incentives to force China and India to reduce their emissions.  These incentives will ensure environmental integrity and economic security here at home.  Additionally, I am working to secure new economic opportunities for Minnesota farmers in the emerging market for carbon offsets.

Over the next few months, as the Senate completes work on its energy plan, I will work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that Minnesota is best positioned to reap the benefits of the new energy economy and that any legislation does not put an undue burden on consumers like you.

Track the climate debate and take actionThank you again for contacting me, and I look forward to hearing from you in the future on this or any other matter of concern to you.

Sincerely,

Al Franken
United States Senator

Do you know what your senators think about climate legislation?  Ask them, then tell us what you find out.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Dick Durbin

In this letter to Grist reader and Illinois constituent Kevin Wolz, Sen. Dick Durbin signals strong support for the Kerry-Boxer climate bill:

Dear Mr. Wolz,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the creation of a national “cap-and-trade” program to address global warming. I appreciate hearing from you.
 
Global warming is one of the most significant environmental crises we face. Most scientists believe that increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will raise the earth’s temperature by as much as three to ten degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.
 
I believe Congress needs to take action to address global warming. Science has shown that we can’t afford to wait any longer. If we tackle the sources of carbon pollution and take steps to reduce the impacts of global warming, we can protect our environmental future while expanding our economy. However, if we choose to ignore global warming and its consequences, we are placing our planet and our future in grave danger and could face large-scale economic consequences that threaten our national security.
 
Senator Boxer of California has introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733) to help our nation take meaningful steps toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating global warming. It would establish a national cap-and-trade system and would cap greenhouse gas emissions at 20 percent below the 2005 level by 2020, with a goal of reducing emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050.
 
In addition, S. 1733 would make a significant investment in energy efficiency and the development of clean, domestic energy sources. By supporting energy efficiency, renewable energy, carbon capture and sequestration, and other clean energy technologies, this legislation will move our nation toward energy independence, strengthen our national security, and protect our environment. An investment in clean energy will also mean the creation of a wide range of new jobs here in the United States, jobs which cannot be outsourced.

Your voice is a valuable part of this discussion. I will keep your thoughts in mind as the Senate continues to debate the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. Please feel free to keep in touch.

Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator

Track the climate debate and take action

Durbin has long fought for action on climate change. In 2007, he introduced legislation that would require a “National Intelligence Estimate” assessing the national security implications of climate change. In 2006, Durbin joined 39 other senators in writing a letter to then-President Bush calling for “a national program of mandatory limits on global warming pollution that slows, stops, and reverses emissions.” And in 2003, he sponsored an amendment that would have required cars and SUVs to get 40 miles per gallon by 2015.

Do you know what your senators think about climate legislation? Ask them, then tell us what you find out.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Lester Brown came to our office today and had a nice chat with us Gristers. (Have you watched my diavlog with Brown? It's must-see tv!) The guy is wicked smart. You really, really should buy his book Plan B 4.0 -- it's the best summation of humanity's converging ecological problems and the best roadmap to solving them, all in one compact package.

One thing from our chat jumped out at me. In the context of a debate about the clean energy bill in Congress (he thinks it's worse than nothing), Brown made the point that there's actually a lot of good carbon policy in the pipeline, which will get us some big gains in the short-term. He cited the boost in fuel efficiency standards from the EPA and DOT; green stimulus spending flowing through DOE and states; EPA's denial of recent coal mining and power plant permits; new federal enforcement of appliance efficiency standards; EPA's new CO2 reporting requirements; and various state-level policies like renewable mandates.

These are indeed good policies! Notice anything they share in common? That's right: they bypass the U.S. Congress.

This gets at one of the few reasons why members of that dysfunctional body might want to muster the will and the votes to change some of the more arbitrary procedural roadblocks preventing them from getting anything done. If they continue being exemplars of pompous, self-important paralysis-by-looking-busy, the country is just going to figure out more and more ways of doing policy around them. They're going to become increasingly irrelevant. Surely they don't want that!

Related Links:

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

FOX News and TrollCat agree: Global warming is BUNK!

George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [UPDATED]

It was less than a year ago, but everything seemed so different then. George W. Bush was still in the White House, but officials gathered at the annual international climate talks, held last December in Poznan, felt new hope in the chilly Polish air: President-elect Obama had, against many expectations, made it clear that combatting global warming was to be a priority for his incoming administration.

George W. Bush may no longer be president, but America is once again seen as the bad guy in the effort to negotiate a new climate change pact. Above, a gagged "Statue of Liberty" at a 2007 climate protest in Britain.jystewart via FlickrThe hope grew, if anything, in March when Obama's new climate envoy, Todd Stern, traveled to Bonn and addressed the first of this year's long series of climate negotiations. "We are very glad to be back, we want to make up for lost time, and we are seized with the urgency of the task before us," he told the delegates, promising to engage "powerfully, fervently" in the talks, which were tasked with preparing for the vital climate negotiations in Copenhagen next month.

Things look very different today. In the eyes of most of the world, the United States has again emerged as the principal obstacle to a new international climate agreement, in stark contrast to India, China and other rapidly industrializing developing countries that, despite the widely held view of a year ago that they would be unlikely to cooperate on drafting a new pact, have actually moved further and faster to address the climate crisis.

As the final preparatory talks wound up in Barcelona at the end of last week without finalizing a negotiating text for Copenhagen, almost everyone had accepted that a new agreement would not be finalized in the Danish capital, thanks to the United States' failure to deliver on last year's hopeful signals.

Martin Kaiser, Greenpeace's policy director, said U.S. intransigence was "threatening to kill the prospect of a legally binding Copenhagen treaty." Oxfam added: "The U.S. shadow is looming large over the climate talks."

Key delegates vented their frustration by breaking with protocol to point the finger towards Washington. "Clearly, the U.S. has been slowing things down," said Artur Runge-Metzger, the European Union's chief climate negotiator. Alicia Montalbo, chief negotiator for Spain (the next country to hold the rotating European Union presidency), echoed Kaiser's sentiments more indirectly, saying: "There's a certain level of frustration in seeing that not all countries share (the) vision." More of the same came from Denmark's climate minister, Connie Hedegaard: "We can't imagine having an agreement without the United States, they have to be a part of it," she told Agence France-Presse.

After visiting President Obama last week, Frederik Reinfeld, the Prime Minister of Sweden (and current EU president) said the slow progress of the U.S. Senate's climate bill made adopting a legally binding agreement in Copenhagen impossible. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, addressing both houses of Congress on the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, devoted most of her speech to the need to address climate change, stressing: "We have no time to lose."

Leaders across the globe occupying different spots on the political spectrum are also committed to achieving a climate deal soon. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy are on board, and they enjoy increasing support from such key developing country leaders as Hu Jintao of China, Manmohan Singh of India, Felipe Calderon of Mexico, and Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil. Given the broad coalition for climate action, the Obama administration risks running into its greatest foreign policy crisis to date if it continues to stand in the way of a strong, new agreement.

In a sense, this is not Obama's fault. He is the strongest advocate for action on climate change in the White House, just as his predecessor was its most fervent naysayer. He is personally as convinced of the importance of the issue as Merkel, Brown, Sarkozy, or any other leader -- even if his closest political aides are not. And there is insufficient understanding in the rest of the world of the constraints imposed by the U.S. system of governance.

Never before has such a vital, international treaty depended so crucially on the 535 members of the U.S. Congress. Even previous environmental breakthroughs, such as the Montreal Protocol on the ozone layer or the Washington Convention on Endangered Species, were preceded by U.S. legislation. As such, the rest of the world is experiencing for the first time how its vital interests can be affected by American politics, as senators from coal or oil states object to legislation that would curb emissions from fossil fuels.

There is only limited understanding of Obama's plight in the rest of the world, since in most countries the executive controls the legislature. It is understandable enough for a citizen of the Maldives, faced with the disappearance of his or her country due to rising sea levels, to become impatient that the "most powerful man on earth" is so constrained by his political system. But that is the fact of life, and the rest of the world needs to be careful not to make it more difficult to get the bill through Congress.

Mind you, the United States does not help when it attacks developing countries, as Stern did last week, for focusing "on citing chapter and verse of dubious interpretations…designed to prove that they don't have any responsibility for action now, rather than thinking through pragmatic ways to find common ground to start solving the problem." When those same countries have moved so much further on the climate issue over the last year than the Americans, this sort of rhetoric can only be seen as inflammatory.

Millions of words have been exchanged over the past year, but success at Copenhagen hangs on just one -- trust. If there was trust, Obama could get the space he needs to win the political fight he faces at home. Unfortunately, it is a scarce and diminishing commodity as Copenhagen approaches. The president and his fellow leaders need to focus in the next few weeks on building it.

Related Links:

China, India, US Commit to Seal Copenhagen Deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Richard Lugar

“I don’t see any climate bill on the table right now that I can support,” Sen. Richard Lugar said on Nov. 10, dashing any hopes that he might get behind some version of the Kerry-Boxer legislation that’s moving through the Senate.  “We really have to start from scratch again,” he continued. 

Lugar has been leaning this way for some time. The first week of November, he joined with other Republicans in demanding a more in-depth EPA analysis of the Kerry-Boxer bill; the Republicans insist they need more info on the bill’s potential economic impacts, while Democrats accuse them of trying to stall the process. 

In September, Lugar noted the dangers posed by climate change and said the U.S. must reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, but criticized the Waxman-Markey climate bill that passed in House in June.  “To give the impression that somehow the Senate must pass a bill comparable to the House, or anything in that ballpark, seems to me is not a very good idea and is one I’m likely to oppose,” the senator said.  Lugar argued that the bill would penalize coal-dependant states like Indiana, which gets more than 90 percent of its electricity from coal.

Asked what kind of climate bill he could support, Lugar responded, “I frankly don’t know, although I’m deeply interested in this.” But he has indicated that he would prefer to focus on energy efficiency and investment in renewables rather than cap-and-trade.  “The real way of approaching this is through conservation, through building modification, through the change in how electricity is delivered,” he said. “Leaving aside cap-and-trade and some very large federal legislation which, in my judgment, is not going to make much difference in CO2 for 20 years, we can make a difference now.”

——-

Here’s more on Lugar and climate, as written by Kate Sheppard on August 24, 2009:

In 2006, Sen. Richard Lugar’s Indiana tree farm purchased credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange, a good indication that he realizes federal climate policy is coming down the pike. He voted for the Climate Stewardship Act in 2003 and 2005, but voted against cloture on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act last year.  This year, he’s a key swing vote on climate legislation.

As the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, Lugar has been outspoken about the need for the U.S. to become more energy independent and address climate change.

“We should recognize that energy issues are at the core of most major foreign policy, economic, and environmental issues today. Technological breakthroughs that expand clean energy supplies for billions of people worldwide will be necessary for sustained economic growth,” Lugar said at a January hearing on international climate challenges. “In the absence of revolutionary changes in energy policy that are focused on these technological advancements, we will be risking multiple hazards for our country that could constrain living standards, undermine our foreign policy goals, and leave us highly vulnerable to economic, political, and environmental disasters with an almost existential impact.”

“The United States should recognize that steps to address climate change involve economic opportunities, not just constraints,” he continued.

But Lugar has been adamant that any climate strategy should be part of a global effort, and big developing countries like China and India should be compelled to participate.

Track the debate and take action >>>

He has also expressed concern about the transparency and enforcement of cap-and-trade, as well as its potential costs for coal-dependent states like Indiana. And he wants biofuels and adaptation efforts to play a larger role in climate policy.

Lugar has downplayed the prospects of passing a climate bill in the Senate in 2009. Approving a plan to reduce emissions is “a tough sell to people who are in a recession and whose light bills are going up,” Lugar said in June. “The votes just haven’t been there, and I’m not sure they are now.”

Do you know more about this senator’s stance on climate legislation?  Tell us.

Find out about other senators by clicking on their names in the right column.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Mark Warner

Sen. Mark Warner recognizes the need to take action on climate change, but wants to ensure that legislation will not negatively impact the economy.

Warner seems a safe bet to support the Kerry-Boxer climate bill. In recent months, he has underlined the severity of the climate crisis and the steps necessary to solve it. Speaking to the National Energy Summit and International Dialogue in September, Warner strongly emphasized the need to take immediate action: “The idea that we’re going to, for one more year, delay trying to take action on this critically important issue around energy would be a competitive, financial and potentially environmental disaster.” Soon thereafter, he stood with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) as they unveiled their climate bill, signaling his support for the legislation..

As Warner told Grist during his 2008 Senate campaign, he favors a wide-ranging approach to energy issues: support for renewables and next-gen hybrids, much higher fuel-efficiency standards, a big boost for energy R&D, government-funded research into carbon-capture-and-sequestration technology, "a fresh look at nuclear," and expansion of domestic oil and gas production.

In this letter sent to a Grist reader in early November, Warner sounds generally supportive of climate legislation, but again emphasizes the importance of protecting the economy in the midst of the current downturn:

Dear [Constituent],

Thank you for contacting me about global warming and related legislation.  I appreciate hearing your views on this important issue.

In order to best protect America's citizens and environment, I believe that we need to develop a comprehensive energy policy that both reduces our emissions and utilizes alternative sources of energy.  Doing so would not only help to preserve the environment, but would also create green jobs and ultimately lower domestic energy costs.  Any discussion of our national energy policy must also consider the international scope of this challenge as individual nations confront problems such as the finite supply of fossil fuels, overhauling outdated energy infrastructures, and many other important environmental challenges.

Members of the relevant Congressional committees are currently working on legislation that would address climate change on a national level, and I look forward to participating in this debate during the 111th Congress.  Though the science surrounding this issue supports the need for dramatic changes in policy, any comprehensive legislation to address climate change must balance this interest with the need to keep our economy viable during this challenging time.

Thank you again for your input on global warming.  Please be assured that I will continue to monitor related legislation and will consider your views as the Senate debates and votes on relevant legislation.  I very much look forward to serving the Commonwealth during the 111th Congress.

Sincerely,
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator

In a 2008 campaign video, Warner lays out his plans for addressing energy concerns and climate change:

Track the climate debate and take action

Do you know what your senators think about climate legislation?  Ask them, then tell us what you find out.

Find out about other senators by clicking on their names in the right column.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Joining Tom Philpott on the anti-BPA bandwagon, the New York Times columnist Nick Kristof had an op-ed Sunday detailing the mounting evidence against the hormone disrupting chemical. One comment in particular summed up the debate nicely:

"When you have 92 percent of the American population exposed to a chemical, this is not one where you want to be wrong,” said Dr. Ted Schettler of the Science and Environmental Health Network. “Are we going to quibble over individual rodent studies, or are we going to act?”

One of the problems we face when it comes to regulating toxic substances is that the EPA and the FDA aren't generally able to apply a strong "precautionary principle" the way regulators do in Europe. In essence, a strong precautionary principle would allow our government to act even when, as stated in a European Commission document, "scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive, or uncertain." In those cases, advocates for a particular substance would need to demonstrate unequivocally the substance's safety. Instead, we require almost total scientific consensus regarding a substance's danger before the EPA or the FDA will act.

As a result, a great part of the scientific debate over BPA becomes "quibbles over individual rat studies" -- and over the rats themselves. The best explanation of the Great Rat Debate comes from a must-read February 2009 Fast Company article about the shadowy network of so-called "product defense firms" that are used by industry to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt over any research that questions the safety of commercial products:

The largest and most influential industry studies [of BPA] have been conducted by Rochelle Tyl of the Research Triangle Institute, a private lab in North Carolina. Tyl's first BPA study, published in 2002 at a cost that Tyl puts at around $2 million (also funded by the Society of the Plastics Industry), examined three generations of rats and found no adverse effects at low doses. Yet here, too, there are questions of protocol. The study used a rat strain called the CD Sprague-Dawley, which has been shown to be insensitive to synthetic estrogens like BPA. (A Japanese study found that the CD Sprague-Dawley rat can withstand a dose of synthetic estrogen more than 100 times greater than what a female human can tolerate.) As of early 2007, of the 29 studies that have shown no harm due to BPA, 13 have used the CD Sprague-Dawley rat. Nonetheless, when the FDA declared BPA "safe" this fall, it relied almost exclusively on Tyl's work -- a shortcoming that the agency's science board publicly criticized in October.

With the government's National Institute of Environmental Health having announced a new set of BPA studies, there was concern that those same estrogen insensitive rats would be used, thus guaranteeing a "false negative" result in industry's favor.

I recently spoke with John Bucher, associate director of the government's National Toxicology Program, the group overseeing the research. He confirmed to me that while the new government-funded BPA studies would not use the CD Sprague-Dawley rats, they would use the NCTR Sprague-Dawley rat, derived from the CD strain back in the 1970s. While they may have similar names, they are supposedly very different rats. The CD Sprague-Dawley rat is bred and sold exclusively by the lab services company Charles River. The NCTR Sprague Dawley rat has rather been bred by the National Center for Toxicological Research for almost 40 years. Said Bucher, "we’ve used this rat for estrogenic compounds in many different studies and we are confident that it is estrogen sensitive."

The theory goes that the CD strain is estrogen insensitive because these rats have been bred for size, since the faster the rats grow the quicker they can be sold. Meanwhile, these oversize rats are fed a soy-based feed. Soy is high in phytoestrogens (recall the ongoing debate over soy in infant formula). Such breeding practices are in the opinion of some a recipe for growing estrogen insensitive rats. The NCTR strain has not been selected in the same way (i.e. the rats display a much greater range of sizes) nor is it fed so much soy and is thus more sensitive to estrogen.

But according to Dr. Frederick vom Saal, a leader in the study of endocrine disruptors in humans, the difference between the two rat strains is minimal. He questions why the FDA has endorsed another rat study instead of one using mice, given that the rat in question appears to be "5000 times less sensitive than mice" to synthetic estrogens. Vom Saal, along with other leading scientists, recently sent a strongly worded letter -- available here for the first time -- to the FDA protesting this very decision [PDF] and calling on the FDA to halt the new rat trials.

But as Dr. Urvashi Rangan -- director of technology policy at Consumers Union, whose recently released study of BPA in food started this latest round of media attention -- observed to me, the whole issue of estrogen sensitivity in rats is beside the point.  The existing studies contain all the evidence of BPA's danger that we need. As she put it, "you already have solid grounds to take precaution today and get it out of food substances."

And thus are we brought back to our lack of a precautionary principle and the fact that the FDA still refuses to endorse a ban based on the existing science. And whatever uncertainties may still exist, there is one branch of government that can, if it so chooses, let the precautionary principle guide its decisions. I'm talking about Congress, of course. A majority vote is all that's needed to ban any substance on the planet. Rather than wait for the new studies, which will take years to complete, Congress should simply act now and ban BPA on principle. The precautionary principle, that is.

Related Links:

More NYC farmers markets accept food stamps and sales soar

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Roger Wicker

Sen. Roger Wicker plans to oppose the Kerry-Boxer climate bill.  In this letter to a constituent, he writes, “I am opposed to any sort of system to cap carbon emissions permits because it would have no effect on climate change and is an unwarranted tax increase on the American people.” Wicker calls for more offshore drilling and nuclear power to boost energy supplies.

Dear [Constituent],

Thank you for contacting me regarding our nation’s energy policy.  I am glad to have the benefit of your views on this issue.

It remains important that Congress work to ensure that the U.S. has an ample supply of cheap, abundant energy. While we need to continue developing alternative energy sources like wind, solar, and biomass, the cornerstone of any new proposal must include exploration of our offshore resources and the expansion of nuclear power.

The U.S. Interior Department estimates there are 19 billion barrels of oil currently off-limits to production in our nation’s deep waters.  This equals the amount of oil we have imported from Persian Gulf countries over the last 15 years.  We should be able to develop our own oil resources. Last fall, Congress removed a decades-old ban on offshore oil and gas drilling and authorized the exploration of oil shale.  However, the Obama Administration moved quickly to put these projects on hold, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar delayed action on increased drilling off America’s coasts.

Currently, Congress is considering two bills relating to the reduction of carbon emissions. In the House of Representatives, Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced the America Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) on May 15, 2009. On June 26, the House narrowly passed the legislation by a vote of 219 to 212. The Senate has yet to consider this legislation. In the Senate, Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733) on September 30, 2009.  Both of these bills require substantial reductions on carbon emissions, with the American consumer ultimately bearing the costs. I am opposed to any sort of system to cap carbon emissions permits because it would have no effect on climate change and is an unwarranted tax increase on the American people.

Knowing of your interest in the subject, I have attached a column I recently wrote addressing these issues.  Be assured I will continue to work for a comprehensive solution and will keep your comments in mind as Congress considers legislation affecting our nation’s energy policy.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can ever be of assistance.

Track the climate debate and take actionWith best wishes,

Sincerely yours,

Roger F.Wicker
U.S. Senate

Do you know what your senators think about climate legislation?  Ask them, then tell us what you find out.

Find out about other senators by clicking on their names in the right column.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Carl Levin

Sen. Carl Levin is certainly concerned about climate change, but it’s unclear whether he will support the Kerry-Boxer climate bill. In this letter sent to a constituent in early November 2009, the senator stresses that other nations must commit to binding greenhouse-gas limits. He calls for a climate bill that will account for regional differences in the U.S., impose tariffs on goods from countries that haven’t committed to action, and preclude states from setting their own, tougher standards for automobile emissions (California, he’s talking to you): 

Dear [Constituent],

Thank you for contacting me regarding global climate change.

There is an overwhelming consensus among scientists that global warming is occurring and that human activity is causing it. As a result, we need to act with urgency to reduce the levels of global greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to prevent catastrophic impacts from occurring. During this century, scientists predict average temperatures could increase between 2 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit. Even small changes in average temperature could lead to extreme climatic events, such as heat waves, droughts and flooding. Portions of countries and entire islands could be lost to rising sea levels, crop yields could significantly decline and water shortages could occur. Over time, the impacts of climate change also could threaten our national security.

I believe the best way to address global warming is through an effective and enforceable international agreement that binds all nations to reductions in greenhouse gases, including China and India. It is imperative we find a way to bring them and other large emitters into a binding agreement to control greenhouse gas emissions. If we do not get these countries on board, what we do in the United States will only have a marginal impact on controlling global greenhouse gas emissions and could lead to even more U.S.-based companies moving overseas.

While addressing global climate change presents a daunting challenge, it also provides economic opportunities. A number of studies suggest investment in clean energy could generate significant new employment opportunities. A June 2009 report released by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that between 1998 and 2007, jobs in clean energy grew at a national rate of 9.1 percent while traditional jobs grew by only 3.7 percent. In Michigan, clean energy jobs grew by 10.7 percent over the same period. By investing in research and development and advanced technologies, we can generate good paying jobs in the manufacturing and technology sectors.

On June 26, 2009, the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES, H.R.2454) by a vote of 219 to 212. This legislation would establish a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system and includes a number of energy-related provisions, such as renewable electricity standards and energy efficiency requirements. On September 30, 2009, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S.1733). This bill is similar to the House bill in that it sets up a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system and provides incentives for the development of clean energy technologies. On November 5, 2009, this bill was approved by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

The Senate bill would cap greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates the Senate bill would result in a cost impact of approximately $100 per household, averaged over the 2010 to 2050 time period. Before climate legislation is debated by the full Senate, S. 1733 will be merged with legislation authored by four other Senate committees: Energy and Natural Resources; Agriculture; Finance; and Foreign Relations.

Several factors need to be taken into account as the Senate works to address climate change and our national energy policy. In my view, any climate legislation that is enacted must not only reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, but also ensure the protection of consumers and workers, which requires taking into account regional differences that exist in the United States. I will work to ensure that climate legislation does not unfairly impact American manufacturing and jobs, especially with regard to our international competitiveness. It also is vital to include a border provision to make sure other countries do not gain a competitive advantage by failing to address the issue. Because climate change is a global challenge, legislation should establish a single, national standard that precludes states from setting their own standards, particularly for mobile sources.

Finally, the legislation should include targets and timetables that also are technologically achievable. On August 6, 2009, I sent a letter, along with several other Senators, to the President outlining many of these concerns.

As the Senate continues to craft climate change and energy legislation, I will be sure to keep your views in mind. Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,
Carl Levin

Do you know what your own senators think about climate legislation?  Ask them, then tell us what you find out.

Here’s more on Levin and climate, as written by Kate Sheppard on 21 July 2009:

Carl Levin is a Midwest, industrial-state Democrat with concerns about the economic impacts of climate legislation, but he thinks something needs to be done about global warming.

“Global climate change is occurring and swift action is needed to protect our planet for future generations,” he says on his Senate website.

Levin wants climate legislation to include funding for advanced auto technologies like hybrids and hydrogen vehicles and advanced biofuels—no surprise, as he represents Michigan. The House climate and energy bill dedicates $20 billion to electric vehicles and other advanced automotive technologies, thanks to the work of fellow Michigan Democrat John Dingell. It’s unclear whether those concessions will be enough for Levin.

Track the debate and take action >>>

Last year, Levin voted to bring the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act to a floor vote, but also signed a letter from 10 swing-vote Democrats saying he would have opposed final passage of the bill.

Do you know more about this senator’s stance on climate legislation?  Tell us.

Find out about other senators by clicking on their names in the right column.

Related Links:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Arlen Specter

Sen. Arlen Specter is considered a fence sitter on climate legislation, though on Nov. 5 he sided with all but one of the Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee in voting to move forward with the Kerry-Boxer climate bill. 

As Darren Samuelsohn of Greenwire reported:

Specter bemoaned his inability to offer amendments addressing his home state’s steel, coal and refining industries. But he said it was more important to pass the climate bill out of committee now, given the international spotlight on the Obama administration’s role during a major U.N. conference Dec. 7-18 in Copenhagen, Denmark.

“Copenhagen is very important symbolically,” Specter said. “And Copenhagen would have been more impressed had we moved further. But Copenhagen will be impressed at least that we have the resoluteness to move ahead now.”

Here’s more on Specter and climate, as written by Kate Sheppard on 20 July 2009:

Specter’s role as a swing voter on climate legislation didn’t change when he made his surprise switch to the Democratic Party in April. While he has spoken in favor of acting on climate, he has opposed measures he thinks are too strong.

In 2007, he introduced a modest climate bill with New Mexico Democrat Jeff Bingaman.  In 2008, he voted against the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, arguing that it was too stringent.  This year, he was one of 66 senators who rejected the option of using the budget reconciliation process to pass a climate bill.

“I think we ought to have a bill which is as aggressive as possible, subject to two criteria,” Specter told Grist in April. “One is that it has a realistic chance of passage, and second that it establishes goals which are within current technical know-how.”

Track the debate and take action >>>

Speaking at a town hall meeting at Drexel University in April, he said, “I believe that it is more effective to choose something which can be legislated at the present time, which is within the reach of our current technologies ... The standards of the Lieberman-Warner go beyond the current technology.” (Note that the Lieberman-Warner bill was weaker than the Waxman-Markey bill that the House passed in June.)

Do you know more about this senator’s stance on climate legislation?  Tell us.

Find out about other senators by clicking on their names in the right column.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Dianne FeinsteinSen. Dianne Feinstein is expected to vote in favor of the Kerry-Boxer climate bill.  In a November 2009 letter to a Grist reader, she doesn’t explicitly endorse the bill, but she does say it “represents an important step”:

Dear [Constituent]:

Thank you for writing to express your views about the “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.” I share your support for taking strong action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

Climate change has already begun to change the world as we know it. Eight of the Earth’s nine warmest years on record have occurred since 2001, and these rising temperatures are shrinking snow packs and glaciers, changing patterns of drought and flooding, and increasing the frequency and intensity of wildfires. I agree that the United States must take meaningful action to prevent catastrophic climate change and mitigate its impact. The urgency is unmistakable.

On September 30, 2009, Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced the “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act” (S. 1733), which sets a greenhouse gas emission reduction target of 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050, authorizes funding for domestic and international climate adaptation efforts, and invests in the infrastructure and workforce necessary to make a permanent shift toward low-carbon, renewable energy and energy efficient technologies. This comprehensive climate bill represents an important step toward achieving meaningful greenhouse gas reductions, mitigating the public health and environmental impacts of climate change, increasing our energy security, and achieving long-term economic growth.

Please know that I remain committed to working to advance measures that address climate change, create jobs and increase our energy independence. I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind should S. 1733, or similar climate legislation, be considered by the full Senate in the 111th Congress.

Again, thank you for writing. If you have further questions or comments, please contact my office in Washington, D.C. at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.Track the climate debate and take action

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein United States Senator

Do you know what your senators think about climate legislation?  Ask them, then tell us what you find out.

Find out about other senators by clicking on their names in the right column.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Kay HaganKay Hagan, junior senator from North Carolina, is not a shoo-in on the Kerry-Boxer climate bill, but she appears to be leaning toward supporting it.

When asked in mid-October if she would support a climate bill with cap-and-trade, the senator replied, “We’re certainly talking about it. The Kerry-Boxer bill is ... out there but it’s not complete yet. So I’m certainly going to have to wait to look at the bill. I certainly say that climate change is real; I am extremely concerned about it. And I want to do what we need to do to be sure our country and the rest of the world is on the right track to reduce the CO2 emissions.”

The transition from candidate to senator seems to have affected Hagan's environmental agenda: in 2008, her campaign website called for reducing carbon emissions 60 to 80 percent by 2050, but the energy page on her Senate website doesn't mention climate or greenhouse-gas emissions at all, instead making vague calls for energy independence, energy efficiency, and cutting-edge energy technologies. In April, the senator, along with 25 other swing Democrats, voted against using the budget reconciliation process to pass a climate bill.

In a letter to a constitutent in early November, Hagan appears optimistic about climate legislation in general but stresses that she will closely review any bill before making a decision:

Thank you for contacting me regarding global climate change and federal efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions nationally and internationally. I greatly appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue.

On June 26, the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act of 2009 (H.R.2454). Similarly, on September 30, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S.1733) was introduced in the Senate. It has since been referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for further review.

Both pieces of legislation would regulate carbon emissions by establishing a cap on greenhouse gas emissions from large U.S. sources like electric utilities and oil refiners. The goal of both bills is to reduce emissions through a system of tradable permits modeled after the successful Clean Air Act program to prevent acid rain. If emitters are unable to reduce their emissions, they will be able to purchase allowances from other sources that have excess permits. This market-based approach is preferred because it provides economic incentives to reduce carbon emissions at the lowest cost to the economy. The bills would also invest in renewable and clean energy, provide incentives to encourage increased energy efficiency, and create thousands of high-paying jobs that cannot be outsourced.

Like you, I believe that we must work together to address the potentially devastating impacts of climate change. As a state senator, I worked to place North Carolina at the vanguard of energy independence and sustainability by requiring local utilities to utilize renewable resources in the production of electricity. I was also a strong proponent of the North Carolina Biofuels Center, as well as cutting-edge energy research and development throughout the University of North Carolina system. I believe that North Carolina can become a leader in the new energy economy, and I support a commonsense approach to meeting emerging energy challenges while protecting economic competitiveness for our nation's workers and industries.

With this in mind, I anticipate the opportunity to work with my colleagues in the Senate to craft comprehensive energy legislation that will address vital environmental concerns while placing North Carolina and the nation at the forefront of the 21st-century energy economy. I believe strongly that we must work to ensure that the impact of any federal energy initiative does not fall disproportionately on North Carolina or low-income citizens, and will work with my colleagues and affected communities to achieve this goal. While comprehensive energy legislation has not yet been considered by the full Senate during the 111th Congress, I will review any proposal carefully to ensure that federal efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses do not negatively impact the citizens of North Carolina.

Again, thank you for contacting my office. It is truly an honor to represent North Carolina in the United States Senate, and I hope you will not hesitate to contact me in the future should you have any further questions or concerns.

Track the climate debate and take actionSincerely,
  
Kay R. Hagan

A Dear Kay website invites North Carolinians to send Hagan a message in support of clean energy and climate action.

As a state senator, Hagan earned an 85 percent rating [PDF] from the Conservation Council of North Carolina and helped to pass a renewable portfolio standard requiring the state's utilities to meet targets for use of renewable energy.

Do you know what your senators think about climate legislation?  Ask them, then tell us what you find out.

Related Links:

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Bill McKibben says time is running out on climate delays

Jon TesterThe junior senator from Montana, Jon Tester has stayed relatively quiet on climate legislation and thus remains in the “fence-sitter” category.

In late October, Tester expressed interest in Sen. Maria Cantwell’s (D-Wash.) climate bill, which thus far hasn't gotten any traction in the Senate: "I'd like to see what Maria’s got. I'm not real happy with [Kerry-Boxer]. I don't want something real, real complicated."
 
But Tester does believe action on climate change is necessary, as he told the Montana Audubon Society in June: “I think climate change is real, and we need to do something about it. We also have to do it right, and that starts with promoting clean, green renewable energy. Montana is the mother lode for renewable energy. Wind. Solar. Geothermal. Bioenergy from crops that don’t compete with food. We’ve got it all.”
 
As president of the Montana Senate, Tester sponsored a successful bill that established a renewable energy standard for the state. During his campaign for Senate in 2006, he promised to “fight to end America’s addiction to foreign oil, by investing in bio-fuel technology and wind power development, creating a national renewable standard and promoting energy efficiency and conservation.” More recently, in an interview with fiverthirtyeight.org, Tester expressed his support for clean-coal technologies as well as renewable energy. “[Coal] ain’t going away,” Tester argued. “So let’s figure out a way to burn it better.”

Tester sent the following letter to a climate skeptic in March, arguing that climate change is a serious problem and affirming his intent “to be a part of the solution”:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your skepticism regarding global warming. I appreciate your perspective on this important issue facing our nation, but respectfully disagree with your conclusion.

Climate change is causing devastating effects on our environment. In Montana, we are witnessing the disappearance of the glaciers in Glacier National Park, a lengthy drought, and wildly shifting weather patterns.

In north central Montana, we haven't had a "Montana" winter in nearly 30 years. Worldwide, the increasing frequency and intensity of wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, and snow storms threatens our safety and burdens global economics as we witness irregular precipitation patterns.

Because of my concern for our safety, economic well-being, and environment, I am committed to reversing the effects of climate change.

Congress will consider several important pieces of legislation this year on global warming, and I intend to be a part of the solution to global climate change. Promoting conservation efforts, reducing emissions from industrial sources and developing renewable fuels are just a few of our options, and I will look closely at all of them.
Track the climate debate and take action
Your input is an incredibly important part of the process. I hope that you will contact me again in the future if you have any further questions or concerns.

Sincerely,
Jon Tester
United States Senator, Montana

Do you know what your senators think about climate legislation?  Ask them, then tell us what you find out.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Joe Lieberman“I’m trying to work with the group in the middle,” says Sen. Joe Lieberman, describing to National Journal his role in brokering a climate agreement.  He’s pushing particularly hard for more support for nuclear power in a climate bill, saying, “I think it’s one of the key bridges that I can help build to bring people across the bridge to support global warming legislation.”

Lieberman says he believes a climate bill will get 60 votes and pass, if not this year, then in the first quarter of 2010.  And he says the bill doesn’t have to be perfect: “[T]he fact is, this is a problem that we’ll be solving for 50 to 100 years. Future congresses will come back and change this based on experience, over and over. So therefore it seems to me that it’s just important to get it started.”

While the public focus is on health care, Lieberman says senators are working on climate change behind the scenes: “There’s a lot happening in the shadows here and so far I would say it’s very constructive and in most cases it’s bipartisan, which is interesting. Certainly our nuclear group is bipartisan. So far the support and opposition to climate change legislation has been much too partisan. I hope we can overcome that with these focused groups.”

Lieberman was one of the earliest congressional supporters of cap-and-trade, cosponsoring the first two pieces of climate legislation to come to the floor of the Senate in 2003 and 2005. 

Track the debate and take action >>>

Do you know more about this senator’s stance on climate legislation?  Tell us.

Find out about other senators by clicking on their names in the right column.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Berlin wall. Photo courtesy GothPhil via Flickr WASHINGTON -- German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday urged the U.S. Congress to take action on climate change, likening the struggle against global warming to the Berlin Wall.

In a rare address to a joint session of Congress marking the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago, Merkel said next month's high-stakes climate summit in Copenhagen hinged on strong U.S. and European commitments.

"I'm convinced, just as we found the strength in the 20th century to bring about the fall of a wall made of concrete and barbed wire, we shall now show that necessary strength to overcome the walls of the 21st century," Merkel said.  She said those were "walls in our minds, walls of short-sighted self-interest, walls between the present, and the future."

The German leader reiterated Western nations' stance that any new climate treaty needed commitments from fast-growing emerging economies such as China and India.

"But I'm convinced that once we in Europe and America show ourselves ready to adopt binding agreements, we will also be able to persuade China and India to join in," she said.  "Then in Copenhagen we shall be able to overcome this wall separating the present and future in the interest of our children and grandchildren, and in the interest of sustainable development all over the world."

Merkel's remarks drew a standing ovation from lawmakers from Democrats, but some Republicans remained seated.

She spoke hours after a key U.S. Senate committee opened a critical debate on climate change with a boycott by most Republicans.

The House of Representatives in June approved the first-ever U.S. plan to mandate curbs on carbon emissions, but the bill is facing obstacles in the Senate, decreasing chances of passage before the Copenhagen summit.

Obama supports a so-called cap-and-trade system to mandate curbs in carbon emissions, a sharp change from his predecessor Bush, whose stance alienated European leaders.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Ben Nelson

Sen. Ben Nelson doesn’t believe a cap-and-trade climate bill can pass Congress this session, he said on Oct. 30—and he doesn’t intend to do anything to help it.

“I haven’t been able to sell that argument to my farmers, and I don’t think they’re going to buy it from anybody else,” Nelson said in an interview on CNBC.  “I think at the end of the day, the people who turn the switch on at home will be disadvantaged.”

——-

Here’s more on Nelson and climate, as written by Kate Sheppard on July 24, 2009:

Nelson has made it clear that he is willing to buck his party on a climate bill—or any bill, for that matter.

“I am not about to surrender any of my votes on the basis that there are now 60 members of my caucus,” Nelson told The New York Times. “I don’t think we will walk in lockstep. It will be issue by issue.”

Nelson, a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, is concerned about how a climate bill would affect the agriculture sector.  The ag lobby secured major concessions in the House climate bill that passed in June, but it’s not clear if those are enough to get Nelson on board.

“Every farm-state senator is aware of what the cap-and-trade proposals could do to their agriculture base,” said Nelson. “Agriculture is a big user of electricity. There’s a recognition that when electricity costs go up it can add, in some cases, tens of thousands of dollars in costs at a time when commodity prices are not what they were. So we have to be very concerned.”

Earlier this year, Nelson was among the Democrats who voted against using the budget process to approve climate legislation.

In May of last year, he expressed support for a climate bill from Ohio Republican George Voinovich that made enviros queasy.

One month later, in June 2008, he voted to send the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act to a floor vote, but then signed a letter from 10 swing-vote Democrats noting that he would have opposed final passage of the bill.  Here’s what Nelson said in a press release after that vote:

I have concerns about the climate change bill and will not vote for it. Global climate change is an environmental problem that requires energy solutions. I believe we need a comprehensive and coherent energy policy for this nation that will also help address the emissions problems contributing to global climate change. But this bill is not that policy and I do not support it.

Track the debate and take action >>>I voted for cloture on the bill to allow it to move forward because I do not support procedural gimmicks that prevent a bill from getting an up or down vote. I think the Senate should vote this bill down and move forward with establishing a National Commission on Energy Policy and Global Climate Change so that the next Congress and the next Administration can work from a comprehensive legislative blueprint developed by a non-partisan commission.

Do you know more about this senator’s stance on climate legislation?  Tell us.

Find out about other senators by clicking on their names in the right column.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Michael BennetSen. Michael Bennet sent this letter to Grist reader Matthew Ott in October, responding to questions about the senator’s stance on climate legislation. Bennet calls the House climate bill, which passed in June, “a significant step in the right direction,” and he sounds generally positive about the Kerry-Boxer climate bill that’s now being considered in the Senate.

Dear Matthew:

Thank you for contacting me regarding comprehensive energy and climate change legislation in the 111th Congress. I appreciate hearing from you.

The nation has come a long way in pursuing a consensus on energy policy and climate change, and it is clear that this is a pivotal moment if we are to make lasting progress. Now is the time for lawmakers to make the difficult decisions on policies that will tackle the rise in greenhouse gases, stimulate the economy, and help lead America to energy independence. Congress and the Obama Administration are both working to curb harmful emissions, and we are closer than ever to implementing policies to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The House of Representatives’ passage of H.R.2454 is a significant step in the right direction. The bill includes the implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade program that would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by requiring polluters to trade pollution allowances; a renewable electricity standard (RES), which requires electricity providers to produce 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by the year 2020; significant provisions for energy efficiency in the transportation, home, and commercial sectors; and modernization of our outdated electricity grid. H.R.2454 also contains important provisions for intergovernmental cooperation on climate research, promotes renewable energy technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration, and includes a title that protects U.S. consumers and industry and promotes green jobs during the transition to a clean energy economy.

In the Senate, S.1733, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, introduced by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and Senator Barbara Boxer of California, seeks to build upon the progress of the House bill, and includes even greater standards for CO2 reduction. S.1733 has been referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee. For more information on the progress of this bill, I suggest visiting the EPW website at http://epw.senate.gov.

Track the climate debate and take actionI value the input of fellow Coloradans in considering the wide variety of legislation that comes before the Senate each year. Although I am not a member of the Senate EPW Committee, I will keep your concerns in mind as the Senate considers climate change legislation.

For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator, I invite you to visit my website at http://bennet.senate.gov/. Again, thank you for contacting me.

Do you know what your senators think about climate legislation?  Ask them, then tell us what you find out.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Mark UdallSen. Mark Udall is considered a likely “yes” vote for a climate bill in the Senate, though he wants to see more support for nuclear power and natural gas.

In this letter to Grist reader Matthew Ott in Colorado, Udall doesn’t mention climate legislation specifically, but he calls for a strong renewable energy standard.  He also touts his support for development of carbon-capture-and-storage technology for coal-fired power plants.

Dear Matthew,

Thank you for contacting me about renewable energy. I appreciate your taking the time to share your specific thoughts about this subject.

I strongly support reducing our country’s dependence on fossil fuels, and I support steps toward greater use of renewable energy sources. Renewable energy technologies stimulate the private sector, add jobs, reduce our reliance on imported oil, and have a positive impact on air and water quality. Several years ago, in Colorado, I worked with then-Speaker of the House Lola Spradley, a Republican, to support passage of Amendment 37, which established a renewable electricity production standard (RES) requiring that utilities produce a certain amount of renewable energy. That amendment was so popular that Governor Bill Ritter and the Colorado legislature increased the RES to require that 20 percent of the state’s electricity be produced by renewable energy resources by 2020.

In the U.S. House of Representatives, I worked to promote renewable energy technology and investment while serving as co-chair of the 217-member Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus. I have also been a strong supporter of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) and other critical tax incentives that allow Coloradans to benefit from renewable energy advances.  Moreover, I believe that we must work to produce all energy in a more environmentally-friendly way. That is why I support development of carbon capture and storage technology for coal-fired power plants and authored a provision in the 2007 energy bill which promoted research into this technology.

Increasing our renewable energy use will not solve all of our country’s energy problems, but in Colorado with the sun in the San Luis Valley, the wind on the Eastern Plains, and the brain power at our top-notch universities, we are positioned to be the national leader on this important front. I recently co-sponsored a bill on the RES, S. 433, which would require the nation’s utilities to draw 25  percent of their power from renewable sources by 2025. As a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I worked with the bipartisan committee to draft a comprehensive energy bill that the Senate will hopefully vote on later this year. The bill that passed out of the Committee was not as strong as I would have like, especially with regards to the RES, but I believe it is a step in the right direction and will continue to work to strengthen the legislation when it comes to the Senate floor.

This is an important moment for our country. We are poised to reclaim our role as the world leader in addressing the problem of global warming and promoting renewable energy, while working to boost our economy.

Track the climate debate and take actionI will continue to listen closely to what you and other Coloradans have to say about matters before Congress, the concerns of our communities, and the issues facing Colorado and the nation.  My job is not about merely supporting or opposing legislation; it is also about bridging the divide that has paralyzed our nation’s politics.  For more information about my positions and to learn how my office can assist you, please visit my website at www.markudall.senate.gov.

Do you know what your senators think about climate legislation?  Ask them, then tell us what you find out.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring