While Chuck Schumer walked back the comments from yesterday, that liberals would be allowed to add the climate part of the climate bill as an amendment, Harry Reid seemed to confirm it today:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are headed for a clash over energy and climate legislation.
Reid is poised to move an energy bill to the Senate floor that would not include a controversial proposal to cap carbon emissions, according to one of his deputies.
Pelosi says the “climate crisis” is her “flagship issue.”
As I’ve said repeatedly, you can envision a bill that includes a good renewable energy standard and an energy efficiency piece, along with tough standards in reaction to the BP oil tragedy, as a step forward. But the Bingaman bill which passed the Natural Resources Committee last year is not that bill.
Believe it or not, Dick Lugar’s energy bill is probably closer to that vision, though not very close:
This morning, Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) was slated to introduce his own energy package, an alternative to the Kerry-Lieberman bill, at a press conference, but it was delayed due to a flight cancellation. Lugar outlined the measure back in March, which mostly relies on improved fuel economy standards and a massive expansion of nuclear power, with no firm limits on carbon pollution. There was a range of reactions from environmental groups on the Lugar effort, noting basically that his measure doesn’t do enough on climate, but that it should be taken as a positive sign that he wants to engage on the subject. Ever since Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) walked away from the Kerry-Lieberman effort, the bill has been lacking any Republican support.
The energy efficiency plank in the Lugar bill is far better, and the renewable energy standard is decent. It would also retire the oldest and costliest coal-fired plants. Of course it adds this giveaway to the nuclear industry ($36 billion in loan guarantees, actually less than Kerry-Lieberman).
It’s a sad moment when Dick Lugar has the best option for an energy bill in the Senate.
UPDATE: So here’s Reid on this today:
REID: Well, there’s been no decision made, at all, as to what we’re going to do. This Thursday, I’m going to have a meeting with I think there will be six or seven chairs there, maybe seven, to talk about the different energy proposals. The one is Kerry-Lieberman. The other is the Bingaman proposal. There’s a report out of that committee.
And then, a week from Thursday, we’re going to have a full caucus to talk about energy. And until that’s completed, there’s no decisions made.
Any of the press reports that you saw yesterday, there’s not a word that I said. It’s all other people talking.
Looks to me like the climate community has about a week to make a difference in this debate. They can decide to be reasonable or unreasonable. There was a similar moment in the DADT debate where Gates said “I don’t want anything passing until the study is done,” and activists at that moment went to work embarrassing everyone and anyone in power with a variety of strategies to get what they wanted. Will climate activists do the same? Or will they settle and suffer in silence? The political obstacles are larger on the climate, but the dynamic is basically the same.
…David Roberts has the state of play.




31 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
This is what happens when it costs $1 million to win even a minor Congressional seat. No wonder Congresscritters cave on things like this — it’s either do that or watch as their funding’s cut.
We need both election reform (such as IRV) and true campaign finance reform, or this will continue to get worse and worse.
Getting the climate part will be harder on the senate side:
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/101911-rockefeller-may-back-murkowski-plan-to-block-epa-climate-rules
I really wonder why instead of doing this, Jay Rockefeller does not sponsor a good climate related jobs bill to give West Virginians an alternative to dying in coal mines as a way of life.
An energy bill minus cap and trade is still better than no bill. Cap and trade makes sense, but making sense hasn’t caught on yet in the Senate.
Don’t be so silly, cap and trade is a rent seeking scam designed to put your money in the pockets of derivatives traders.
That’s it. I’m done with the Democrats. They are now officially no better than Republicans.
It’s gotten to the point whereby only the obscenely wealthy can afford to run for almost any political office… that or be beholden to the corporations that buy you. Not good, not good at all.
Billions of gallons of CARBON BASED FUEL SOURCE gushing out into the Gulf of Mexico with no clear idea how to stop it, if indeed it can be stopped before pressures equalize and the Democrats in the Senate have sold themselves to the oil and coal lobby. I expect that from Republicans but I have to ask: if this is what we can expect from the Democrats, what possible incentive do I have to vote for them? Sure, they’ve nibbled around policy edges but we are still in two wars, our legislation is still being written exclusively by and for industry lobbies and we are still still making Wall Street mega wealthy by strangling the middle class. How is 2010 materially different from 2008? from 2005? From 2003? the only real difference I see is that the Republicans are now entertaining themselves by forcing Democrats to jump through hoops that will never be enough to appease them until Republicans are (officially) back in charge.
Really? It worked to reduce acid rain emissions.
Don’t these assholes ever get tired of being, ya know, assholes?
The same Democrats praising this bill now would have been calling it a weak, toothless, industry driven POS if it had been passed in a Republican Congress under G.W. Bush. The difference between then and now? One f*cking letter.
Yes, the taxpayers subsidized acid rain pollution. The polluters, K-Street, Goldman Sachs, Exxon, BP are laughing at us stupid taxpayers. Cap and Trade, more polluters get more of our money while they continue to pollute.
When a GOP bill – Senator Lugar’s – writes a smaller corporate welfare check with provisions not that much weaker than the Democrats – the corporate folks have shown they control both parties.
The Lugar bill is weak tea – but I’d pass it over Schumer’s. Below is the highlights of Lugar, such as they are on his site.
After model year 2016, CAFE increases for passenger vehicles will reflect a goal of 4% annual efficiency improvements. Fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles or components required by 2017, and will increase at least every 4 years.Implementing a technology- and revenue-neutral “feebate” system in which purchases of the most
efficient vehicle by class is rewarded with a rebate off-set by fees on the least efficient vehicle in that same class. Include all advanced renewable fuels for eligibility for the currently existing reverse auction,established by Sec. 942 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and expands the authorization to $250 million per year over five years so as to encourages low cost innovation in biofuels produced by diverse process and from diverse feedstocks. Require that all new vehicles using combustion engine technology for propulsion sold in the United States be flex-fuel capable -2013 is a 50% requirement, 2015 and beyond is 90% requirement (all and 90% are not the same?). Energy improvement targets for new buildings and appliances, achieving a 5% retrofit rate in existing homes and a 2% rate in commercial buildings,Establish mandatory targets for improved energy efficiency building performance measures for
new residential and commercial construction. Residential energy savings targets: 30% by 2012 and 50% by 2015 – - Commercial energy savings targets: 30% by 2012 and 50% by 2017. $300 million seed money. All new Federal buildings entering the design phase in 2012 or later are designed to exceed national building performance standards. Such buildings
should pursue cost-effective, innovative technologies and design strategies. The Secretary of Energy gets $2B for loans, loan guarantees, letters of credit, and other financial products to establish a selfsustaining program to incent front-end investments – offer low-interest to rural consumers for energy efficiency retrofits. Federal dollar-for-dollar matching for State-based loan programs to accelerate
deployment of energy saving equipment and processes in the industrial sector. Federal agencies to be early adopters -targeting 95% of procurement contracts utilize the most efficient products. Help diverse
technologies be proven commercially and the retirement of the most publicly costly conventional coal plants, will help establish a future for cleaner coal usage, boosting nuclear power, enhance deployment of
diverse renewable power sources (including renewable power sources, clean coal with carbon sequestration, nuclear, and authority to incorporate additional sources meeting similar standards). Voluntary retirement program for the nation’s most-polluting coal plants, comprising
approximately 16% (49GW) of coal generation capacity. In return for relief from regulations that would require them to make costly investments in scrubbers over the next few years, participating plants would be able to continue operation until 2020. Expanded Additional $36 billion in loan guarantee authority to help deploy first new nuclear power generation facilities. Monitoring of progress toward energy security and greenhouse gas reduction goals.
Really. Taxing emissions would work just as well, and the money would go to the government ostensibly for the benefit of all of us, with cap and trade it goes to Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs for the benefit of them.
Look to see who gains, you’ll find the reason something is done. Don’t tell me you actually believe they’re trying to ‘save the planet’?
I don’t think you understand how cap and trade works.
Regardless, as Sunny0Progressive notes. Cap and trade was hugely successful in addressing the acid rain problem. Far more effective than preexisting elements of the Clean Air Act and the criteria pollutant programs under Title V which used the more traditional command/control structure.
The benefit in cap and trade doesn’t come in the trading; rather it comes in enabling an aggressive target to be set. Yes, it’s possible for some people/traders/polluters to make money under cap and trade. But the aggregate effect is to force investment into reductions and create a price on emissions. (Of course, if you have a weak target or low price cap, then nothing will happen of any benefit to the environment).
Renewable portfolio standards, which are usually lauded, have many more issues in changing incentives; most programs instituted thus far are outright failures.
All of the quasi-market solutions – cap-and-trade and a carbon tax – were sops to the Chicago School folks who think pricing works better than regulation. If conservatives and businesses don’t want them, let them die.
The bottom line item that must not be removed is EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, including CO2.
A second piece will have to do with ending subsidies for fossil fuel extractors and customers and increasing subsidies for alternative energy sources and customers. Yes, we very much want to pick winner and loser energy sources. This can be introduced as separate legislation.
The third piece has to do with forcing technological change in nuclear energy, moving the second generation nuclear plants to third- and fourth-generation technologies that are safer, more efficient (less waste for the same power), and provide safeguards against use for military or terrorist purposes. This is a required transition technology in order to end dependence on coal-generation and some use of oil.
The fourth piece has to do with development of technology that uses biomass instead of oil as feedstock for various materials, fibers, and fabrics. This will require basic research, development, and conversion of chemical plants.
I’m glad that Reid is dropping a program that would essentially create another class of derivatives and giving away the store at its inception.
The problem with the current bill is that the target is not aggressive at all and the possibilities of making it more aggressive are low to nil in the current political climate.
The Clean Air Act has the advantage of already being law. Stopping action to gut it is easier (41 votes) than having to pass something new (60 votes).
Explain it to me please. And explain why BP and Goldman Sachs support cap and trade. Because they care so much for the environment?
Your are spinning. The Acid Rain Problem” is really the “Greedy Polluter Problem”. These people have taken us back to when there were no environmental protections. It is not just Cap and Trade. It is the support for 50 more years of fossil fuels. It is support for an even worse technology, and worse pollution, nuclear.
Obama is a moron, He thinks he will use the profits from Cap and Trade for a Green Energy Program. First of all, the Wall streeters will keep all the profits. Second why should we even believe Obama or the Energy Opinion Makers about anything. They always make the worst decisions, with an energy policy that is based on Oil Wars. Third, Obama, and his environmental team has shown themselves to be as incompetent as any neo-cons. Obama is losing credibility as it becomes obvious he is a puppet for the Corporations.
“Yes, we want to pick winners and losers.”
I agree. I always laugh when I hear conservatives say that progressives want to “pick winners and losers,” we do.
We want clean energy and the environment to win and dirty fuel sources to lose.
I always get a kick out of coming to firedoglake. For some now cap and trade is an evil capitalist plot to make money. LOL
Jeebus, what the hell took you so long?
Just kidding. Glad you finally saw the light.
I get a kick out of reading about how corporate approaches to corporate-generated for-profit problems will succeed. LOL.
As they say in Chicago, what do I get out of this? Besides breathing more pollution. Again, I do not understand why my tax money should go to Goldman Sachs and subsidize polluters. Any “revenues” would go to the rich for their tax breaks and wars. There is no solar energy future as long as the current corporate puppetmasters control Obama and the rest of the government. I hope everyone opposes this fraud of “Cap and Trade”. It also will increase the cost of energy
What’s your answer? Given what we’ve seen from these people, do you really believe they are motivated by a desire to help the environment? Or are they selling us to Goldman Sachs just like they sold us to the health insurance companies?
They are sucking Americans dry, and you need to wake up.
Taibbi’s “The Great Bubble Machine” has a nice section about Goldman wanting a piece of Cap’n Trade.
We’re getting laughed at alot these days by the Masters of the Universe. I just hope one
Hoping Reid gets out of the way too. Only thing is Durbin’s next up and his “bleeding heart liberals” comment really pissed me off.
Gosh! A troll who posted TWICE!!!before running away. Wonders never cease.
“Cap and Trade: A Gigantic Scam
James Hansen – the world’s leading climate scientist fighting against global warming – told Amy Goodman this morning that cap and trade not only won’t reduce emissions, it may actually increase them:
The problem is that the emissions just go someplace else. That’s what happened after Kyoto, and that’s what would happen again, if—as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy, they will be burned someplace. You know, the Europeans thought they actually reduced their emissions after Kyoto, but what happened was the products that had been made in their countries began to be made in other countries, which were burning the cheapest form of fossil fuel, so the total emissions actually increased…
See also this and this.
Environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace are also against cap and trade (and see this and this), as is the head of California’s cap and trade program for the EPA.
Hansen also told Goodman that (notwithstanding Paul Krugman’s assertions) most economists say that cap and trade won’t work:
[...]”
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/cap-and-trade-gigantic-scam
Nuke power puts significant amounts of radiation into the environment – always has done (in many different modes of delivery e.g. like accidents and intentional or unintentional leaks) and always will. Furthermore, nuke power industry and state agency collaborators have (and probably always will) arrange for that information, that inconvenient truth, to be suppressed as far as possible. The nuke power industry cannot survive without secrecy, nor without public subsidy (whether your direct tax-dollars or indirect by way of carbon pricing cap and trade etc … nuke power is, frankly the Goldman-Sachs of the energy sector, sucking up and sequestering vast amounts of financial resources for the benefit of a relatively small number of stakeholders – financial resources which could be almost infinitely better spent on pump-priming an energy transformation of our societies with the prospect of long-term employment and of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of long-term jobs in research, manufacturing, installation and maintenance of genuinely renewable and sustainable forms of energy. Nuke power, however it is tricked out, 2nd or 3rd or whichever generation, is history from an evil chapter in the 20th C – and if it didn’t exist, no-one would dream, in their worst nightmares, of inventing it now ….
Tarheel seems like a regular guy, and I agree with much of what he has to say, but he is entirely misleading when he implies from his posts there is an insufficiency in Solar thermal, Solar PV, hydro-wave, hydro-tidal, hydro-potential energy(dams), geo-thermal or wind as sources of energy – fluctuations and load balancing can be achieved with a will to implement a supergrid, energy storage (various) and energy conversion (eg H2) strategies – an opportunity for a 21st C Apollo style programme to land America on a glorious high plateau of self-sufficiency in genuinelyclean, renewable, distributed and non-centralised energy.
Apologists for nuke power are, btw, just playing into the hands of the French (and Japanese) nuclear power industries – the two countries that stand to gain most from Mr Obamas tragic cave in to the nuke lobby. France has decided to base its economy (and state mandated 35 hr working week) on the manufacture and export of (over-rated) wine, cheese, armaments and nuclear power … it is acting quite explicitly as a bridgehead for this fatally-flawed 20th C technology, with China as its first quarry, Britain second in its sights, and the US next in line. And Westinghouse, dontcha know, is owned by Hitachi. (Luckily, at least, not by Toyota).
This is why a delegation is going to try and persuade Secretary Chu to reverse his nuclear démarche.
Cap and trade was supposed to avoid the word tax, which scares everybody in DC. Didn’t work. It is better than a carbon tax in an international context however; we can oversee pollution from China more easily with it.
The final bill cannot take rights away from states such as California to regulate emissions on their own. That would be a definite step back, as opposed to the treading water with the Lugar bill, which we should support (You’d think Obama would start to pimp that since he loves bipartisanship).
@Frank33 – spot on – I totally agree with you. You might like to check
out http://www.nuclearbanking.org which is very revealing.
As far as my opinion goes I think nuclear power IS the Goldman-Sachs of the energy sector and Ive said as much.
Im @forthespacemen on Twitter and Chelim Yrneh on FB
Regards,
Chel