(Sen. Lindsey Graham gives John McCain's mother a punch in the cheek (not really) on Election Night 2008. Photo from Flickr and photographer Dr. Akomodi
Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) released a framework last week for a Senate climate bill that supposedly could get bipartisan support. Kerry was chief sponsor (with Barbara Boxer) on the original, stronger Senate bill, which presumably can’t get the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster.
Lieberman has been working several years, first with John McCain (R-Ariz.) and then with now retired John Warner (R-Va.) to pass some kind of climate bill in the Senate, so it’s not too surprising he offered to help massage Kerry’s bill.
Graham? He’s great buddies with Lieberman and McCain (the three amigos were a frequent photo op during McCain’s presidential campaign), so I have to wonder if he’s a stand-in here for McCain, who’s publicly gone more conservative with a Senate election coming up.
Anyway, the framework was released last week in an effort to show that, yes, there’s a chance to cut greenhouse gases in the U.S. 17% by 2020, despite the foot-dragging in the Senate. That is what the House passed and Obama has more or less promised to the rest of the world. Do you know how piddling 17% based on 2005 levels is? Most industrialized countries that made pledges based them on 1990 figures and are up in the 20-30% range.
The four-page framework doesn’t have a lot of other details but it does outline priorities: jobs and lowering dependence on foreign oil.
There are whole sections, though, on nuclear, domestic oil and coal. A little of that would be expected, if they’re trying to get bipartisan support. But let’s not let those industries write the bill!
A comment Graham made to E&E News last week is particularly alarming:
"I need the nuclear power industry to say that this bill gets us to where we want to go," Graham said. "I need the coal companies to say that clean coal provisions will not only not put us out of business, but actually increase the value of coal in America. And I'm going to need the oil and gas industry to say that the oil and gas drilling provisions are meaningful, will add to our inventory and make us more energy independent, and it's good business."
He actually said that.
Wait a minute here. Wait just a minute. Are we doing this to ensure the continuation of fossil fuels and the resurrection of a defunct nuclear industry? Or are we doing it to clean up the environment and make the planet safe for humans?
We need to watch very carefully as this bill is developed. There are some nice thoughts in it: Like long-term 80% reduction in GHG (they don’t commit to any year though, and it may be hard to get from here to there by 2050, which is when we should be at 80%).
They do note that putting a price on carbon will push development of low-carbon energy, but incentives for nuclear and “clean” coal get more attention.
There are actually sections entitled “Ensuring a Future for Coal” and “Encouraging Nuclear.” Um, excuse me, what about wind and solar? And geothermal and biomass? And efficiency….
Clearly this is written to appeal to the coal states (of which there are many) and the oil states, but will they lose the environmentalists -- and any sane person who realizes what fossil fuels are doing to this planet? A big part of the motivation is they want Congressional action instead of EPA regulation or a patchwork of restrictions in individual states. They actually say all that.
There is too much mention of “outside stakeholders.” Guess who that is? Not us.
The rest of the world is not happy with our puny 17% pledge at Copenhagen and I can’t see that they’re going to like the rest of what’s in the Senate “framework.” Let’s hope they put huge pressure on the U.S. to get real on climate and not just shill for existing industries as this framework seems to do.
It’s embarrassing the U.S. is so far behind Europe and being chided by China and other developing countries for not doing enough. Are we really going to let the “outside stakeholders” in the U.S. determine the future of the planet?
(Source: E&E News PM)
No comments:
Post a Comment