Senators Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham are working with the White House, environmentalists, and industry to craft comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation, which they plan to unveil on Monday. But Senators Lugar (R-IN) and Voinovich (R-OH), both of whom have admitted the threat of global warming, announced yesterday “a narrower competing bill” that resembles the weak legislation passed out of the Senate energy committee last year. Brad Johnson has the story in this Wonk Room repost:
George V. Voinovich of Ohio and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana are developing an energy-only bill that would mandate new renewable and nuclear power production without imposing cuts on carbon emissions.
This approach, which has also been floated by energy committee members Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), and Sen. Lisa Murkowksi (R-AK), has been described by Graham as “half-assed.” Voinovich believes that subsidy-based legislation that fails to reduce global warming pollution is more “doable” than comprehensive reform that pays its own way by putting a price on carbon pollution:
I’d like to get something done. But I’m not sure it would meet the standards of the environmental groups or what Sen. Kerry would like to get done. I’d like to do the doable “” move it down the field while I can.
More problematically, Voinovich also announced today that climate legislation “must include a comprehensive preemption provision that goes well beyond language included in previous climate bills” to get his support, a poison-pill stance that would derail the progress made by states across the nation to build a green economy.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) have been jockeying for attention with a bill that addresses the other half of energy reform, a climate-only package with weak targets known as the CLEAR Act.
These senators are participating in a complex dance “” if President Obama and the public throw their weight behind real action, then these senators can take credit when elements of their bills appear in the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman legislation. However, if momentum stalls under the weight of polluter lobbying and Beltway indifference to the climate crisis, they can instead say they offered a “pragmatic” alternative.
Unfortunately, such political insurance only covers elected politicians, not people living in the real world.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
What’s mind boggling about this is that it’s LESS market-oriented than cap-and-trade. The government mandating the use of fuels and picking winners? Government regulations telling me what kind of fuel I can use in my car? THIS is socialism.
If Lugar and Voinovich are the point men for Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats, this may represent an interesting tactical shift. The people who pay them, such as Exxon, Peabody, and the Kochs, may have decided that denying the existence of global warming is just too ridiculous, and that continued stubborn obstructionism may be too unpopular.
Throwing money at nuclear and “clean” coal of course accomplishes nothing. I can’t imagine that even these two Senators believe that their colleagues are going to bite on their proposals. Some kind of climate bill is starting to look inevitable, and so right wing senators outside the South are just trying to give themselves a little cover. It’s sickening, really.
I’m disappointed in my senator Lugar. He’s a Republican, but he’s usually pragmatic and not too hesitant to go against the right wing. Probably I’ll send him a message.
The Anti-Science faction have painted themselves into an interesting corner and any efforts to extract themselves without coming out and saying that the LEFT was right will be something to watch and REPORT.
Fortunately there is a big pile of dead and festering CROW that they must consume before they get any credibility in my view. And I want to see a clean plate. So I say to any GOP that might pass by, stock up on that pink stuff and lets see what you are made of.
This sound similar to the Bjorn Lomborg approach to addressing global warming. Avoid the unpopular and messy cap-and-trade method to reduce CO2 emissions, in fact do nothing costly to reduce CO2, and support positive efforts to implement “green” energy generation. At least that is what I heard him say today. He advocated subsidies to implement wind and solar power. I did not hear him mention nuclear but I would think that he would approve of loan guaranties to build nuclear generators.
If the Republicans can embrace Lomborg’s philosophy they, along with Dems who are similarly persuaded, may be able to delay any legislation that would reduce CO2 for many years to come. As Joe has pointed out, Lomborg sounds so reasonable that, I think, many will be persuaded by his arguments. He offers a comfortable approach to addressing the problem even if it will do nothing to avoid a hotter planet.
What commenters 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 said.
DKos linked to another rumor that is floating around
http://washingtonindependent.com/83065/loaded-with-concessions-climate-bill-wins-backing-of-oil-companies
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/4/23/860079/-A-Bill-that-Only-Exxons-Lawyers-Could-Love
and it doesn’t get much better
It would be a mistake to prevent climate action from the states. The Nobel Prize winner Elinor Ostrom makes the case for climate action to be something that occurs at all levels: global, national, state, regional, community and individual. Climate action at one scale makes climate action at other scales more likely, partly because it builds confidence that people won’t free-ride and pollute – a major problem at the global scale.
Ostrom, E. 2009. A Polycentric Approach for Coping with Climate Change. Policy Research Working Paper 5095. World Bank.
[JR: Actually, the red states and many purple states ain't doing much and aren't likely to if the comprehensive bill goes down.]
nice shot..