“Key Dem backs Waxman climate bill” is how Politico reported this afternoon’s big breaking news. Boucher is
… a coal-country Democrat whose support signals the backing of industrial state Democrats in the south and Midwest.
“I intend to vote yes and I intend to encourage all other members of the committee to do the same,” Boucher said.
Boucher has acted as a key negotiator for many Democrats on the committee, who feared that the new regulations could hurt hometown industries and consumers.
It is the man who replaced Boucher as Chair of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee who said made the Boyle comparison, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA):
Boucher’s approval rebukes the months of “conventional wisdom” that had described the global warming bill as dead, and it helps lay the groundwork for passage in both the House and Senate, Markey said. “What we have in front of us now and we will next week is the legislative Susan Boyle,” he said, referring to the British amateur singer who shocked audiences with her professional voice last month.
How big a deal is this? Big enough to make Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Joe humans should just ‘get shade’ Barton eat most of his words in one 12-hour news cycle:
E&E News (subs. req’d) reported this morning:
“Cap and trade is dead,” Barton said. “It’s just dead. They’ve got to get the coroner to conduct the autopsy and make it official…. I don’t think they can get it out of committee.”
E&E News PM (subs. req’d) reported this evening:
Barton said. “He has a chance to get the votes. It is not a done deal.”
Barton estimated that there are roughly five to eight Democratic swing votes. “It is going to be a real close call,” he said.
Here are more details from the latter article on the floor schedule:
A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said it would be premature to commit to House floor action this summer. For now, Pelosi’s only stated goal is to ensure passage this year.
Not gonna say “told ya” (see Sen. Reid: “Health care is easier than this global warming stuff.” Las Vegas odds on bill in 2009 now longer shot than Mine That Bird).
That said, a House debate during the hot summer may make more messaging sense.
The aide noted that other committees — including Ways and Means — will write sections of the bill, and the elements would be merged into a “consensus package.”
…. “The piece of legislation that we in the Senate will look at is to see what they can accomplish in the House,” Reid said. “That’s important for us because the House has the same problems we have in the Senate with different special interest senators. I don’t say that in a negative sense — we have some states that are more dependent on coal, other states more dependent on other things. And we’re going to see what the House can do. If they can do it, we can do it.“
It’s looking more and more like the House can do it.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
This is encouraging, but I’m still worried about the Senate. General question:
Republicans, aside from a few dwindling moderates, are almost universally opposed to this legislation, due to fossil fuel interests, ideology, or their fervent science denialism or that of their constituents.
There are also some Democrats representing states that are heavy coal producers / consumers. Now I understand some of their resistance. If we had a full allowance auction, it would disproportionately hurt their states as far as energy prices go in the short-term and benefit already-cleaner states. You could say the clean states should be rewarded for their progressiveness but it won’t be seen that way from their shoes. A lump-sum rebate to consumers offsets increases in energy costs but would not account for these regional differences, so states that already have lower carbon emissions would gain more. It seems giving some allowances away for free appeases the desires of these politicians but it inevitably weakens the legislation. Is there a way to account for these regional differences without weakening the legislation or is that unrealistic?
Second question: I’ve heard the Senate is not planning on dealing with this until next year. What benefit is it to move this bill forward in the House too much before then?
The article states:
“Waxman also lowered his goals for the renewable electricity standard. His original proposal required 25 percent of the country’s energy to come from wind, solar and biomass by 2025, with 5 percent coming from instituting more energy efficiency technology. The compromise target is 20 percent by 2020, with 5 percent from efficiency.”
Is this right? 20% renewables by 2020 is more aggressive than 25% by 2025.
Susan Boyle gave an example of how senseless our paradigms of beauty are. I was so happy to see the faces of those that put you down at the beginning, (those girls). You knocked us all out! God Bless You Susan Boyle, do not let any dirty hands touch you. You are so beautiful! The best of luck for you foerever.
Imhofe in goal! Boucher feeds off to Waxman! Waxman shoots! He scores!
But it ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings.
Oops. “But the opera ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings”.
Sometimes ugly goes straight to the bone. This legislation would be a good example. While there may be some good provisions you can bet the overall effect will be to block effective climate action down the road.
“We passed Waxman-Markey, give it some time to work” will be the rally cry of the deniers.
This won’t get us to 350 ppm or anywhere near. More like 450++++.