You could make a pretty simple argument that the fate of the world rests with the United States Senate Republicans:

1. It takes 60 votes to pass a climate bill in the U.S. Senate (assuming it won’t be done through budget reconciliation). Getting the votes of all 58 Democrats and two Independents will be just plain tough, as they might say in the Blue Dog states.

2. It takes 67 Senate votes to ratify an international climate treaty. That requires Republican votes.

3. The international community isn’t likely to pass a climate treaty without the cooperation of the United States.

4. The world needs the Senate Republicans.

The hope is that enough of the most (relatively) independent-minded ones can be peeled away from the obstructionist line and cajoled into supporting a first-step climate bill. That’s why it’s problematic that John McCain (R-Arizona) is acting like anything but a maverick on the issue.

There’s been some interesting reporting on the McCain front today.

Before his most recent presidential run, McCain had long been a leader on taking climate change seriously and doing something about it. He and Joe Lieberman authored the first major climate bill in the Senate in 2003 and introduced new versions in 2005 and 2007. 

POLITICO summarizes his about-face:

Now the Arizona Republican is more likely to repeat GOP talking points on cap and trade than to help usher the bill through the thorny politics of the Senate.

McCain refers to the bill as “cap and tax,” calls the climate legislation that passed the House in June “a 1,400-page monstrosity” and dismisses a cap-and-trade proposal included in the White House budget as “a government slush fund.”

The shift even has former McCain aids “mystified.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), the only Senate Republican who’s shown real interest this fall in working with Democrats to craft a climate bill, tells POLITICO, “I wouldn’t be here on this issue without him … He’s the guy that introduced me to the climate problem.”

More bad news: McCain is vulnerable to a primary challenge from the right, according to a new Rasmussen poll. Matt Yglesias concludes:

This seems like pretty much terrible news for the world. The most likely path between Point A and Senate passage of a reasonable climate bill is for McCain to rediscover his interest in the issue. But that’s not the sort of thing a Senator worried about a right-wing primary challenge is likely to do.

For more on the way it used to be: Grist’s interview and overview of McCain’s environmental record from last year’s campaign show how he’s changed his position on a climate plan.

And don’t expect the Republican dynamic to change soon, according to Greenwire. Reporter Alex Kaplun takes a look at upcoming primaries and finds candidates courting the Republican base by taking hard-line positions against a climate bill. His sources say “the general trajectory of the Republican Party as whole for the foreseeable future will be toward opposition of the climate bill.”

All this still amounts to reading tea leaves on where McCain will be if the Senate ever gets around to voting on a climate bill. Maybe he’s still working through some post-election blues. Maybe, over time, he’ll be drawn to playing a constructive role again.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

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:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

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:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

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:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

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:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

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:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

It's widely assumed that if Congress fails to pass a clean energy bill, the EPA will step in with regulations on CO2 under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court ruled in 2007's Mass. v EPA that it must do so if it finds CO2 to be a dangerous air pollutant -- and sure enough, the agency sent the White House its final endangerment finding Monday. EPA regulations now appear inevitable and unstoppable. But don't be so sure.

The threat of EPA CO2 regs is a thorn in the side of fossil-fueled legislators and one of the few points of leverage green Dems have. It has hovered over congressional climate negotiations, bringing recalcitrant lawmakers to the table. It's generally agreed by both sides that regulatory emission restrictions would be worse for power companies than legislative restrictions; a recent Wall Street Journal story covered several utilities lobbying for legislation on that basis. EPA regs would be "more arbitrary, more expensive, and more uncertain for investors and the industry than a reasonable, market-based legislative solution like cap and trade," said Exelon head John Rowe. Some enviros have gone so far as to claim that it would be preferable for the weak legislation in Congress to fail so that tougher EPA regs could take its place. (A dangerously wrong notion, IMO.)

Is it true, though, that EPA regulations are inevitable and unstoppable? It might seem so, given the stark clarity of the Supreme Court's ruling. But never underestimate the plasticity of congressional procedure or the willingness of conservatives to use any means necessary to protect their corporate constituents.

I put the question to a senior Senate legislative aide a while back: Is there really nothing Republicans and conservative Dems can do to stop the EPA? He smiled ruefully and told me to look into what happened to CAFE standards in the mid-'90s. This Congressional briefing paper (PDF) tells the story:

In October 1993, less than one year after taking office, the Clinton administration issued its Climate Change Action Plan, and this included a process that was to be co-chaired by the White House National Economic Council, Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Environmental Policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. In April 1994, it published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to develop fuel economy standards for light trucks for model years 1998-2006. Seven months later, Republicans won control of Congress and promptly began to attach "riders" on annual appropriations bills to prevent funding for administration activity to develop or implement new fuel economy rules for light trucks. These riders blocking progress on fuel economy improvements remained in place until President Bush took office.

Could the same thing happen to EPA regs that happened to CAFE regs under Clinton? Well, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has already tried once, back in September. Her amendment was poorly written and she ultimately backed down without forcing a vote on it. But as the aide told me, it would be possible for a more adept legislator to write a more carefully tailored amendment that would block only the stationary-source regulations and leave the (more popular) vehicle regulations untouched. Obviously Republicans don't control Congress now, and unless the most catastrophic predictions play out, won't in 2010 either. But hostility to EPA regulations on power plants cuts across party lines. And remember, what's needed here isn't 60 votes against the EPA regs per se -- just 60 senators who think passing an appropriations bill is more important than standing up for the EPA. The thing about appropriations bills is that they really need to pass or parts of the federal government go unfunded. There's enormous pressure; that's why members of Congress are fond of attaching riders to them.

EPA opponents will have plenty of opportunities to build a coalition, as E&E reports (sub rqd):

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who cosponsored Murkowski's amendment, said there would be "extremely dangerous consequences" if the administration is allowed to "unilaterally" regulate greenhouse gas emissions and that the cost of gasoline, food and manufactured goods would skyrocket. He said the EPA regulations should be delayed until Congress has had a chance for a full and open debate on the issue.

"This issue will be back," Thune vowed. "Senator Murkowski will bring it back; I will bring it back."

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the ranking member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, welcomed the senators' opportunities to air their grievances on the floor.

"I'm glad it was debated and I think Senators Murkowski and Thune were right to bring it up and it got them the chance to make the point," he said, adding that the point "will be made over and over again."

Over and over again, whee! In terms of raw numbers, there are probably more than 60 senators hostile to EPA regs. The question is whether some core number of coal-state Dems can be kept in line in the name of party discipline. You know how Senate Dems love party discipline.

What happens if an appropriations bill with an EPA-blocking rider comes to a vote? The only option for green Dems would be to filibuster. There are certainly legislators who seem willing to do so. In a conversation with National Journal last week, Sen. John Kerry said this:

I'm going to make this as clear as I can: I don't think anybody is going to wind up repealing [EPA CO2 regulations] because there's filibuster-proof capacity to prevent that from happening. ... I'll personally stand on the Senate floor day and night to prevent that from happening, and there are plenty of procedural ways in which to do that. So that's not going to happen. I don't see any scenario in which that does, and there are plenty of people who would stand there with me. This is not a solo effort by any sense of the imagination. As I've said, there is a clear number of votes that would not allow that to happen, assuming we're moving in good faith down the road.

This is tough talk. And there's plenty of precedent for blocking appropriations bills (see this section of Filibuster: obstruction and lawmaking in the U.S. Senate, by Greg Wawro and Eric Schickler). Dems famously filibustered a defense appropriations bill with a rider that would have opened the Arctic Refuge to drilling.

But Kerry's talking about mustering 40 liberal senators to block a much-needed bill on behalf of a policy that both the White House and EPA have spent the last year badmouthing and that most "centrist" senators oppose. That will be tricky political terrain, to say the least.

If there's a sufficiently large bloc of senators motivated to block the EPA, they'll probably find some way to block it. But the point here is not so much to try to predict what might happen. It's just to say that EPA regulations of CO2 are not "inevitable." Nothing in politics is inevitable; nothing's a sure thing; everything's a risk; everything's a fight. Those who would abandon legislation in Congress in favor of EPA regs run at least some risk of consigning the U.S. to years without any restrictions on CO2 emissions.

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

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:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

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:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

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:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

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:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

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:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

So how did Cash for Clunkers work out from an environmental standpoint? You don’t want to know.

The $3 billion federal program was kinda sorta supposed to send inefficient, high-polluting, belchy vehicles to an early grave. Instead it put a lot of new large, inefficient vehicles on the road, according to an AP investigation of new government records.

The most common deals swapped old Ford or Chevrolet pickup trucks for new pickups that got “only marginally better gas mileage,” the analysis found. Old Ford F-150 for new Ford F-150 was the most common exchange. Buyers were 17 times more likely to purchase an F-150 (rated at 16 miles per gallon) than a hybrid Toyota Prius.

At least 15 owners of large pickups cashed them in for new Hummer H3 SUVs that get only 16 mpg. Excuse me, but why did the government even send claims forms to Hummer dealerships? Government officials are "investigating" out how these deals squeaked through, the AP reports.

About 1 in 7 of all deals went for vehicles that got 20 mpg or worse. If you think about it, though, 20 mpg really isn’t such a bad rate ... for 1979.

There were plenty of signals before the one-month summer program began that it was a poor method for cutting pollution (note our roundup of early warnings). There’s also a lively debate on whether it made sense as economic stimulus.

"If we're looking for the environmental story here, we're going to be disappointed," Jeremy Anwyl, of analyst firm Edmunds.com, told the AP. "It might have started out from the perspective of improving the environment, but it got detoured as a way to stimulate the economy."

That pretty much nails it.

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

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:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

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:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

The clean energy bill slogging through the U.S. Congress is far weaker than what's needed. There's every chance it will a) get weaker still and b) fail to pass in the end. These facts are widely acknowledged among progressives. What's less agreed upon is who or what is to blame.

You see a lot of stuff like this post on OpenLeft (from Friends of the Earth) that casts the bill's weakness as a failure of will by progressive senators. What's needed is for some senate "champions" to "stand up for a stronger bill." Similarly, many folks have traced the bill's failures back to Obama, saying he's been distracted by health care and insufficiently engaged. The idea seems to be that the bill would be better if only those damn Democrats would try harder.

But the lack of vocal Democratic champions for a stronger bill is more effect than cause. The root of America's political dysfunction lies elsewhere, and deserves far more attention, not only from leftie activists but from Democrats themselves and the mainstream press.

What's that dysfunction? It's simple: a supermajority requirement coupled with an extreme, unified minority. Everything else -- and I mean pretty much every lamentable feature of American politics -- flows out of that. Rich Yeselson puts it in pungent terms: "We are living through the Californiafication of America--a country in which the combination of a determined minority and a procedural supermajority legislative requirement makes it impossible to rationally address public policy challenges."

Yes, this is a discussion about congressional procedure, which conventional wisdom says will bore everyone. But it's time you got un-bored, and quick, because nothing else you care about is going to improve until this does.

The stupormajority

First, let's talk about the supermajority requirement. In the Senate, any senator can continue debating forever and prevent a bill from going to the floor for a vote -- that's the filibuster. In 1917, a new rule was instituted allowing the filibuster to be overcome by a "cloture vote," which would end debate and move the bill forward. Originally cloture votes required 67 senators, but in the mid-'70s it was changed to 60.

In the popular imagination, filibusters involve legislators camped out on the floor of the Senate, reading the Constitution aloud, struggling to stay awake for days on end. But it's not like that any more. Norm Ornstein describes what happened in his stellar piece, "Our Broken Senate":

... after the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the filibuster began to change as Senate leaders tried to make their colleagues’ lives easier and move the agenda along; no longer would there be days or weeks of round-the-clock sessions, but instead simple votes periodically on cloture motions to get to the number to break the log-jam, while other business carried on as usual.

As so often happens, the unintended consequences of a well-intentioned move took over; instead of expediting business, the change in practice meant an increase in filibusters because it became so much easier to raise the bar to 60 or more, with no 12- or 24-hour marathon speeches required.

Since any senator could raise the threshold required to pass a bill from 51 votes -- the majority requirement envisioned by the Founders -- to 60 with no particular effort, more them started doing it.

But something's changed even more in the last few years. Here's Ornstein's chart:

Graph:

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Inhofe to Boxer: “We Won, You Lost, Now Get a Life!”

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:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

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:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

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:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

What to make of the new climate poll

Robert Byrd

Sen. Robert Byrd hated the climate bill that passed the House in June (more on that below), but he seems a little more open to the Kerry-Boxer bill being considered in the Senate.  As the Bluefield Daily Telegraph reported just after the bill was introduced:

[Byrd] said he was encouraged by the greater focus on clean coal technology, but still concerned about the proposed bill.

“I will continue to work with my colleagues to strike a balance that treats West Virginia’s interests fairly as the legislative process moves forward,” Byrd said. “However, I will actively oppose any bill that would harm the workers, families, industries or our resource-based economy in West Virginia.”

Byrd said he was glad to see that Kerry and Boxer included provisions he and other senators recommended related to carbon capture and storage techniques.

“While this is an encouraging sign, we have a long way to go on this legislation,” Byrd said. “Many issues have yet to be addressed. There is still a tough road ahead.”

In August, Byrd and nine other Democrats wrote a letter to President Obama saying they wouldn’t support a climate bill that puts American businesses on an uneven playing field.  They called for a bill to include a tariff on goods imported into the U.S. from countries that don’t have binding targets for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. 

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

Sen. Robert Byrd has been an adamant supporter of coal throughout his long tenure in the Senate. Coal is his No. 1 interest in climate legislation, and the major concessions made to the industry in the House climate bill weren’t enough to win him over. (Nor were they enough to win over West Virginia’s two Democratic representatives, Nick Rahall and Alan Mollohan, who both voted against the bill.)

Byrd’s staff sent out an official statement from the senator shortly after the House passed the legislation. “I cannot support the House bill in its present form,” Byrd said in the statement. “I continue to believe that clean coal can be a ‘green’ energy. Those of us who understand coal’s great potential in our quest for energy independence must continue to work diligently in shaping a climate bill that will ensure access to affordable energy for West Virginians.”

Last year, Byrd was the only Democrat to vote against even starting debate on the Senate climate bill. He was not present for the main vote on the bill.

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:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success