There are six Senate committees with jurisdiction over the Kerry/Boxer climate and energy bill, and only one of them – the Environment and Public Works Committee – has passed a version of it (the Natural Resources Committee passed a very narrow bill along the same lines earlier this year). Today both the Finance Committee and the Natural Resources Committee opened hearings on the bill, but the Finance Committee in particular is angling, once again, to be the determinative committee on a major piece of legislation:

In the Finance Committee, (Max) Baucus provides perhaps the best window into the Senate’s chances of passing a climate bill. According to an E&E analysis (pdf) of the Senate, sponsors remain about 15 to 20 votes shy of the 60 needed to break a filibuster. And some of the key senators who sit on the Finance panel are either on the fence or close to it, including Bingaman, Rockefeller, Lincoln, and Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

So we must cue up another round of listening to Max Baucus’ oracular statements on climate change to divine the direction of the bill. And in today’s hearing, Baucus sounded committed to passing legislation quickly that would solve the most challenging environmental and energy problems we face:

I am committed to passing meaningful, balanced climate change legislation. I am committed to legislation that will protect our land and those whose livelihood depends on it. 

I want our children and grandchildren to be able to enjoy the outdoors the way that we can today. So I’m going to work to pass climate change legislation that is both meaningful and that can muster enough votes to become law.

Stirring words. And Baucus did cite his work on a cap and trade system for sulfur dioxide emissions that many credit for eliminating the threat of acid rain.

However, we can look back to some of Baucus’ amendments on the Environment and Public Works Committee, where he was the only Democrat to vote against the legislation, to know where he’s headed in this debate. For example, he wants to exempt all agribusinesses from the carbon caps:

1) Ensure agriculture is not subject to an emissions cap;
2) Ensure USDA promulgates the rules and administers any agricultural offset program;
3) Create clear authority so projects partially-funded with government money are eligible for credits, and ensures stackable environmental credits from projects are recognized;
4) Create clearer mechanisms to recognize producers and systems already in place in voluntary carbon markets;
5) Clarify various technical requirements for carbon sequestration projects;
6) Create a comprehensive and well-funded government carbon conservation program for producers who are ineligible or unable to participate in a carbon offset market; and
7) Provide supplemental funding for various programs to jumpstart renewable energy projects.

This should be expected, because Max Baucus has virtually an entire football team worth of former staffers working as lobbyists on energy and climate legislation.

Baucus will likely have a lot of input coming in from outside his office as twelve of his former staffers, including four former chiefs of staff, work as lobbyists for organizations with an explicit interest in climate legislation.

These twelve lobbyists represent a large cross-section of industries, from airlines to railroads and oil producers to solar energy companies. (You can view them in a relationship map here.) The diversity of organizations also brings a diversity in positions on the underlying climate bill. Many of the organizations represented by former staffers of Baucus are generally supportive of a climate bill, but are seeking certain provisions to be included or not removed during the committee process. Others are engaged in outward opposition.

This split is noticeable when comparing the clients of two former staffers turned lobbyists. Former Baucus chief of staff David Castagnetti represents a large number organizations opposed to the legislation including the American Petroleum Institute, the Business Roundtable, the Air Transport Association of America and Koch Industries. On the other end is former Policy Counsel J. Curtis Rich, who represents a number of biofuel, bioenergy and alternative energy groups that are generally supportive of climate legislation.

Just because the biofuel industry supports the goal of climate change legislation doesn’t mean they don’t have a lot of potential handouts to gain from the bill:

The industry is seeking particular policies from the Senate as they increase their lobbying effort. One such key policy to the industry is how the government counts indirect land use emissions, like deforestation, in the carbon calculation for biofuels and bioenergy. The House bill requires a five-year wait period to allow for scientific studies to determine whether indirect land use emissions lead biofuel production to have a higher carbon emission level. The Kerry-Boxer bill currently has no language on indirect land use and the industry is determined to include a provision similar to the House bill in the final bill language.

This is the Senator who holds in his hands the most fundamental legislation impacting the planet and its resources in generations.

Obama might want to cancel that trip to Copenhagen.