Climate Politics

High brow

I'm pretty sure Barbara Boxer just told a fart joke.

More amendments

Inhofe amendment No. 13 would require the Commerce Secretary to report annually whether L-W would cost 10,000 automotive jobs in the year to come. It failed.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) amendment No. 1 would cap and ratchet down noncarbon pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. Amendment is withdrawn for now.

Passage inevitable?

It sure seemed to me that passage was inevitable, going in. And after I heard Sen. Sanders' new tone, it seemed even more likely that L-W would be passed by the Environment and Public Works committee today.

Over at Politico, Ryan Grim points to the first amendment -- the "offramp" amendment -- which failed 11-8:

The full Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works appears poised to pass the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill. The first of more than 180 amendments that have been filed dealt with one of the most contentious issues -- whether U.S. legislation would sunset if China and India didn't follow suit.

It was seen by both sides as a bellwether of the final vote. It passed 11-8, with Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) joining all nine Democrats -- including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) by proxy -- as well as independent Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

The committee chairwoman, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) warned early that the mark-up, starting today, could go for as long as three days, but passage of this major and controversial legislation through committee now seems inevitable.

First amendments

Larry Craig amendment No. 24 (out of over 40!) to kill offramp the bill without China's support failed: 8 yeas, 11 nays.

Bernard Sanders' amendment No. 2 to create incentives for domestic green-tech industries and manufacturing passed: 12 yeas, 7 nays. (Sen. George Voinovich [R-Ohio], who opposes the bill, voted for the amendment.)

Boxer’s opening statement

Senators' opening statements are almost always fairly predictable, and, save for Sanders' there were no surprises today. But chair Boxer's opening statement is reprinted below the fold.

Winning over the environmentalists?

To get this thing through today, Lieberman can't afford to lose the support of more than one Democrat. At the end of the subcommittee process, after watching almost all of his amendments killed, Bernie Sanders voted against the bill. His no vote was offset, though, by an affirmative vote by Sen. John Warner (R-Va.).

Today, that may change. During his opening statements, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who has a strong environmental record, gushed over ACSA, and Sanders himself called the legislation a "major step forward."

"I want to thank Senators Boxer, Lieberman, and Warner for revising the bill," Sanders said, for changing the language in the bill to make sure that $300 billion in auction revenue is dedicated to sustainable energy.

Sanders has brought more amendments with him today, and I can't say for sure that I know how he'll vote. But he is a bellwether. And if his opening statement is any indication, Lieberman-Warner has a really good shot of making it to the Senate floor.

The mark-up zoo

David is correct here. The Republicans desperately want to turn this markup session into a long, boring circus. They've come armed with about 150 amendments, dozens of which will come to a vote, almost all of which will be defeated. Here, via Hill Heat, are just a few doozies:

Vitter proposed 14 amendments:

Amendments 1 and 5 allow offshore and on-land natural gas drilling, respectively Amendments 2 and 3 require studies on industry displacement Amendment 4 allows renewable fuel program credits to qualify as emissions credits Amendments 6 and 9 removes various sources from coverage Amendment 7 removes injury liability from CCS activities Amendment 8 prevents implementation if other environmental regulations are found to be adversely impacted Amendment 10 restricts permit banking to 18 months on non-covered entities (a change requested by the AFL-CIO) Amendment 11 modifies transportation fuel coverage Amendments 12-14 make "technical" corrections ...

Isakson proposed four amendments, three of which support nuclear energy. Amendment 3 prohibits the enactment of a cap without sufficient known technology, an amendment which failed in subcommittee ...

Inhofe proposed approximately 45 amendments, some of which are joke amendments (#12 "directs 20% of all auction proceeds be used to build homeless shelters for families without shelter as a result of job displacement due to this Act"). Amendments #23-#28 are pro-nuclear. Amendment #32 increases the auction percentage to 100% by 2029. Amendment #38 overrides the Massachusetts vs. EPA decision.

The Democrats, by contrast, will propose about 30 amendments, many of which would drastically improve America's Climate Security Act. Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) proposed similar versions of some of these way back when the legislation was marked up in subcommittee. Back then, Sen. Lieberman (I-Conn.) reflexively killed all of them. I sort of doubt that's changed, but we'll see ...

Conservatives still don’t seem to get global warming

Many political observers — those, at least, not wholly gutted by cynicism after eight years of criminally negligent Republican leadership — wonder when public concern over global warming will prompt a serious, thoughtful conservative response. Those hoping for real solutions from the GOP political leadership may have a long time to wait, but some conservative […]

Bali conference keeps on keepin’ on

The news from Bali: Teeny-tiny island nations pleaded with delegates for protection and compensation for the impacts of rising seas and other climatic consequences. United Nations climate chief Yvo de Boer expressed hope that delegates would make operational the Adaptation Fund, a woefully underfunded um, fund for helping developing countries adapt to climate change. Delegates […]

We are not yet the ‘people we have been waiting for’ to solve ‘global weirding’

In general, I am a big fan of New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, one of the few national columnists who writes regularly and intelligently on energy and climate matters. But his recent column, "The People We Have Been Waiting For," goes off track -- twice. First, he writes:

... sweet-sounding "global warming" doesn't really capture what's likely to happen. I prefer the term "global weirding," coined by Hunter Lovins, co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, because the rise in average global temperature is going to lead to all sorts of crazy things -- from hotter heat spells and droughts in some places, to colder cold spells and more violent storms, more intense flooding, forest fires and species loss in other places.

Well, he deserves half credit. Yes, "global warming" is inadequate to describe the coming nightmare -- but "global weirding" simply isn't a serious-enough term -- it could just as easily be used to describe the world's growing fascination with reality TV (or videos of piano-playing cats and skateboarding dogs).

Also, the word "weird" strongly implies something either supernatural or bizarrely unexpected. What's happening to the planet is pure science and has been predicted for decades -- nothing weird about that except maybe it's happening faster than most scientists projected. Readers know I prefer the term "Hell and High Water" -- since at least it accurately describes what is coming. [Note to self: It didn't catch on. Let it go.] My guess is we're stuck with "global warming."