Did Lieberman really say, “Accidents will happen” about oil spill? Lines harden on climate bill over offshore drilling

(Photo of Deepwater Horizon explosion that lead to massive oil leak from Flickr and SkyTruth)

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) was explaining Tuesday why expanded offshore drilling would not be taken out of the climate bill, despite some Dem Senators’ calls for its removal in light of the horrendous ongoing spill fouling the Gulf of Mexico.

Sen. Lieberman (I-Conn.) told reporters, “This terrible accident is very rare in drilling. Accidents will happen. You learn from them and you try to make sure they don’t happen again.”

So, let’s see. Of the three sponsors of the Senate climate bill, who have worked long and hard to craft something palatable to all parties, the Republican, Lindsey Graham (S.C.) dropped out about a week ago in a snit because immigration reform might come up before climate. Now Lieberman is insisting on keeping offshore oil in the bill despite the Gulf disaster.

And many likely supporters of the bill (all of whom are Dems because they’re the only ones supporting it) are now saying “no” to the offshore drilling section.

Sens. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) spoke out a news conference, backed up by the heads of some major environmental groups.

Nelson said if he had to filibuster to stop the bill, he would.

And a group of Dems, in a meeting Tuesday with chief sponsor John Kerry (D-Mass.) found themselves sharply split on the issue, according to Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who was there.

Doesn’t look too good. The Kerry-noGraham-Lieberman alliance and their efforts to pass a climate bill seem to be falling apart. The only thing that could have been worse is if they’d had that press conference with heads of big oil companies in support last week as planned.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said, “Personally I will have a very hard time ever voting for offshore drilling again.” Of course, he was already having some trouble voting for a bill that targeted coal.

Nonetheless, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was upbeat Tuesday, saying that perhaps the bill would get a boost from the oil spill. Calling the Gulf spill “just staggering,” he said maybe it could get Senators interested in doing something about energy.

I dunno. Doesn’t look to good to me.

(Sources: E&E Daily, E&E News PM, Associated Press, CllimateWire, the Hill)

Carbon tax more acceptable than cap-and-trade?

(Photo of coal-burning plant near Kenosha, Wisc., from Flickr and photographer James Jordan )


Who'da thunk it? Cap-and-trade was the way to go the past few years because a carbon tax was politically impossible. Now, suddenly, that's turned on its head. A carbon tax -- or at least "a price on carbon" -- seems to have the best chance.

Climate legislation may not be dead after all, but cap-and-trade is. The odd triad – Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) – are preparing to release the main points of their “compromise” legislation to the Senate sometime this week or next -- and it doesn't include cap-and-trade.

They don’t have the 60 votes yet, haven’t even drafted the language yet, but are ready to work the crowd of uncertain senators and interested lobbyists to see if they can reach consensus.

President Obama says he’s willing to be flexible as long as the plan puts a price on greenhouse gas emissions and cuts them about 17% (below 2005 levels) by 2020, as he promised the rest of the world.

The three say their plan can do that.

Other important points:
• Three different mechanisms will be used for three different sectors.
• Power plants will go first and their emissions will be priced and capped and made more stringent over time.
• Industries, such as chemicals, cement and paper, will be able to wait several years, but will eventually be included.
• Motor fuel will have a price attached to carbon (that's right, a carbon tax) with at least some of the revenue going to transportation projects and helping auto companies becom more fuel-efficient.
• Nuclear power will be supported – Obama already took a step in that direction, announcing $8.3 billion in loan guarantees for two reactors in Georgia.
• R & D for carbon capture and sequestration will get support too.
• With emphasis on reducing dependence on foreign oil, plans for offshore drilling for oil and gas here are included.

Cap-and-trade a non-starter
The GOP has tagged cap-and-trade as “cap-and-tax” and has scared people into thinking energy costs will rise. The term is now political poison. Not to mention distrust of Wall Street and any trading mechanism.

What seems to be taking its place is “cap-and-dividend,” in which proceeds from a “price” on carbon (whatever form it takes) would go back to consumers to help them pay higher utility costs. The advantages are two:
• Voters won’t blame their Senators for sticking them with higher costs in a bum economy,
• Utilities will be able to raise prices to pay for the changes they have to make.

Can it pass?
It’s impossible to satisfy every politician, voter and interest group, but the triad is sure trying. Graham said even climate change skeptics can support this bill, which will provide jobs and reduce dependence on oil from unstable parts of the world. It's also a way for the GOP to appeal to young voters, he told Tom Friedman of the New York Times.

The three are running up against a serious time crunch in a Senate still preoccupied with health reform and jobs -- and an election that has incumbents very nervous. (Note that John McCain is very much absent from this effort by his two amigos.) And Graham suggested if the Dems pass health reform by reconciliation, all bets are off.

Once the bill's details are worked out, the EPA would need about a month to do its analysis, and other departments would have to weigh in. If it is in fact possible to get 60 votes, we still have a problem – similar to the one in health care.

The House has already passed a bill, HR 2454 (last June – did you forget about that?) and it is based on cap-and-trade. So, will the two chambers be able to reconcile their differences before election season heats up?

It seems like a tall order.

(Sources: Reuters, E&E Daily, PlanetArk , New York Times)

Opposition to Obama = poor chance of passing Senate climate bill in 2010

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer wallyg/Wally Gomez)


Prospects for passing a climate bill in the Senate next year are looking grim when Senators return to Washington to pick up where they left off -- squabbling about health care. A bicameral conference group will try to reconcile the House and Senate versions in a way that can pass both houses, likely with no GOP votes. Tops on the agenda after that are financial regulatory reform and a jobs bill. So where will something as controversial as climate change fit in? Or will it?

Some Democratic Senators and the White House are pushing for a cap-and-trade bill this spring, before the heat of the 2010 election campaign picks up. But others are pushing back, suggesting postponement or even dropping the idea altogether.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who got big money in exchange for her vote for health reform, is the underdog in a re-election fight next fall. She’s pushing for an energy bill separate from cap-and-trade. Other Dems down on cap-and-trade include those from Louisiana (an oil state), North Dakota (the leading coal state, which also has oil reserves), Nebraska (concerned about the impact of high energy costs on farming) and Indiana. A vote for cap-and-trade to restrict fossil fuels is not something they want to campaign on next summer and fall.

If any bill materializes that can get 60 Senate votes it will be the compromise being forged by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). Such a bill is not guaranteed to contain cap-and-trade and will inevitably have big giveaways to offshore drilling, nuclear power and “low-emissions” coal.

But that assumes they’ll get around to it, when the nation is much more focused on jobs and the economy. Time may run out, thanks to Republican refusal to cooperate on health care and their pretty uniform opposition to climate legislation.

Which brings me to something I’ve been stewing about for months: Why there is such solidarity among Republicans against Obama’s main initiatives. They’ve made it clear, they want him to fail.

The Harold Washington syndrome
It takes me back to the election of Harold Washington, Chicago’s first black mayor, in the '80s. Most white aldermen (the Vrdolyak 29) banded together to oppose everything he wanted to do. Racism was more blatant, as one of their number showed up the day after the election with an all-white button on his jacket. They wanted him to fail and believed opposing him would play well politically with their white constituents.

Sound familiar? I’ve no doubt race is an issue here, as well as fear of something different (a foreigner from Kenya??) who was swept into office in large part by young people who hadn’t voted before and therefore were considered by many to be illegitimate. Don't think so?

What if Joe Biden where president, with the same agenda? Would there still be the tea parties, the vitriol stirred up by talk show hosts and by politicians like Sarah Palin? Would Joe Wilson have yelled, “You lie” during the President's health care address to Congress?

In Chicago’s case, Washington’s popularity with the people led to his re-election and a change of tune by his opposition who in many cases saw better opportunities for re-election by emphasizing they were now with him, not against him. That could happen with Obama.

But meanwhile, the country -- and the planet -- suffer while the Republicans just say “no.”

(Sources: The Hill, The Times of London, MSNBC)

Wins and losses in this Congress in fight against global warming

Washington Report: Congress has left Washington for the election campaign, and a lame duck session in November is unlikely to bring much action on the global warming front. So we can probably go ahead and assess what this Congress has done for us in the fight to curb greenhouse gases. There was a flurry of activity, with multiple committee hearings and dozens of proposed bills, so the topic was high profile. But what was really accomplished? Not much.
• The biggest victory was passage for the first time in 2 decades of a corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard for cars and light trucks. They will have to average 35 mpg by the year 2020. That bill also had a renewable fuel standard, which encouraged a controversial increase in the use of corn ethanol, which does nothing to curb greenhouse gases and drove up food prices.
• Left on the drawing board, passed by the House but not the Senate, was a renewable electricity standard of 15% by 2020 to force power plants to use less fossil fuel and more renewables.
• Failed to summon the 60 votes needed to debate a compromise and watered-down global warming bill by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (Va.)
• Permitted the 26-year-old off-shore drilling ban to expire, as well as a ban on oil shale extraction in Western states. (Though Democrats are hoping to reinstate the offshore ban, at least partially.)
• Extended renewable tax credits for wind, solar and other renewable sources, adding incentives for plug-in cars and wave energy, but also for fossil fuels in the form of refining oil shale and tar sands, producing coal-to-liquid, and sequestering carbon. The tax credits were on their way to oblivion when the Senate leadership attached them to the $700 billion bailout bill at the 11th hour.
So, the fossil fuel interests basically won every round except auto fuel efficiency, if you see extension of renewable credits as maintaining the status quo. There’s been a lot of activity, but not much progress. We need to get those 60 votes in the Senate.

10 reasons why Obama is best on global warming

(Photo of Barack Obama by Peter Holderness/Medill News Service)

Weekly Angst: Saving the planet is taking a back seat to the financial crisis right now. But to many of us, climate change remains the top concern for the next president of the United States, because we’re running out of time to stop the catastrophic results of a warming planet. It’s getting so bad that Al Gore, a former vice president, is suggesting civil disobedience.

Unfortunately, when climate change does come up these days, it has morphed into talk about offshore drilling and achieving independence from foreign oil, which is the way John McCain has framed it. The maverick who championed climate change legislation with his buddy Joe Lieberman in 2003 and 2005 has, in this campaign, shifted from concern about greenhouse gases to concern about high gas prices and getting off foreign oil. That means American oil is just fine with him. In fact, the more the better.

The League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club and Environment America, the three major environmental organizations that endorse candidates, all jumped on the Barack Obama bandwagon early on, because he so clearly will lead the nation to a better place on global warming. As Environment America said, McCain is not the right president to reverse 8 years of the anti-environment Bush Administration.

Talking points
Here are 10 top reasons why Obama is the better candidate on global warming:

1. Obama favors cutting greenhouse gases as much as scientists say we should. His goal is an 80% reduction (from 1990 levels) by 2050. He doesn’t try to second-guess science. McCain’s goal is 60%.
2. Obama has a much better voting record. On the League of Conservation Voters scorecard, Obama’s lifetime record is 86%. McCain’s is 24. During the last 2 years, McCain has missed every important environmental vote, including 2 on renewable energy where a yea vote from him could have made the difference. He deliberately missed all 8 tries to extend the renewable energy tax credits.
3. Obama favors an RES and subsidies for renewable energy. He has called for a renewable electricity standard of 25% by 2025 and for investing $150 billion in renewable energy. McCain opposes RES, as well as subsidies to alternative energies like solar and wind, preferring to let the market work unfettered. Though he seems to favor incentives for nuclear power.
4. Obama is much more cautious about nuclear power. He says it may need to be part of the mix, but safety and waste storage problems must be resolved first. McCain, on the other hand, makes nuclear power a major part of his energy portfolio, calling for 45 new nuclear plants by 2030, and 100 eventually.
5. Obama wants all credits in a cap-and-trade system to be auctioned. In other words, polluters must pay for their allowances. McCain says permits would eventually be auctioned, but should mostly be given free at first, and he favors polluters being able to bank or borrow credits based on the economy.
6. Obama wants to double the fuel efficiency of autos in 18 years. McCain, who missed the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) vote of 2007, says he would enforce the new standard of 35 mpg by 2020 but isn’t looking to increase it. Obama voted for the CAFE bill.
7. Obama says offshore drilling will do little to help gasoline prices and was for the ban. He’s since softened his stance, saying he might accept some offshore drilling if it would help get other things he wants, like RES. McCain strongly favors drilling offshore, saying it will help solve the problems of high gas prices and dependence on foreign oil. After McCain announced this new position favoring offshore drilling, and became a cheerleader for the cause, campaign donations from oil and gas went up more than double, or by more than a million dollars.
8. Obama took a stand against a summer repeal of the gas tax, when McCain and Hillary Clinton called for one. Obama called it a gimmick that would not help lower prices.
9. Obama favors a windfall profits tax on big oil companies. He would like to see that money go to people who are struggling to pay for gas. McCain is against a windfall profits tax.
10. Obama picked Sen. Joe Biden as is running mate. Biden has an 83% lifetime score with LCV and proposed a bill in 1986 to deal with global warming. McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has expressed doubt about the human role in causing climate change, filed suit to de-list the polar bear as endangered, and favors drilling in ANWR.
For more on the candidates' environmental views, go to News21 Politics and the Environment, and click on Charging Up the Elections. News 21 is a summer project of Carnegie-Knight fellows at Northwestern University. (In the interest of full disclosure, I was one of the faculty members on the project.)

(Sources: League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, Environment America, barackobama.com, johnmccain.com, news21project.org, New York Times, salon.com)

House Dems back down on offshore drilling

(Photo of drilling platform off Santa Barbara that caused big spill in 1969 from Flickr and photographer Doc Searls)

Washington Report: Facing the threat that the ban on offshore drilling will be allowed to expire Sept. 30, House Democrats are expanding the drilling provision in their new energy package to include drilling 100 miles offshore and as close as 50 miles off the east and west coasts if states want it. Their ace in the hole is that they haven’t included royalties for the states, which makes it less likely states will opt in. The plan maintains a ban within 125 miles of Florida’s gulf coast until 2022. Also, in an effort to bring coal-state reps onboard, the plan now would spend $10 billion over 10 years on carbon capture and storage technology. A third new item is more vehicles using natural gas as fuel. The package also includes:
• A renewable electricity standard (RES) of 15% by 2020, one-fourth of which can be met with efficiency
• Extension of tax credits for renewable energy and efficiency
• Pressure on oil companies to drill where they have existing leases, such as Alaska
• Repeal of Big Oil tax breaks and royalty subsidies
• Release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
• More money for public transit

The package is expected to go to the Rules Committee Monday and be voted on as early as Tuesday. The GOP has its own bill – The American Energy Bill – which calls for much wider offshore drilling, drilling in ANWR, and more use of oil shale and nuclear plants, as well as expanded renewables and efficiency.

In the Senate, the “Gang of 10” bill picked up 4 more sponsors this week: Susan Collins (R-Me.), Amy Kobluchar (D-Minn.), Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), doubling the original 10. That bill is also expected to come up next week, along with two alternatives. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he'd like to vote first on the tax credit extensions before bringing up broader bills. For more on the “Gang of 10” and background on the House bill, see EarthlingAngst’s Sept. 5 post. There is an urgency to pass something before the end of the month, when the offshore moratorium expires, allowing drilling within 3 miles of shore. With elections at hand and public sentiment buying the argument that drilling is the answer, it’s clear that science is not winning out this time. (Source: E&E Daily)


•

Dems’ Drill Bill in House comes up dry as parties spar over lifting offshore drilling ban

(Photo of Texas oil rig from Flickr and photographer Lizzie Vengeance/Lizzie Phillips )

Washington Report: House Democrats tried Thursday to pass a bill that urges oil companies to speed up exploration where they have current leases. Despite support from 26 Republicans, the bill failed to get the two-thirds vote it needed under expedited rules – 11 oil patch Dems voted against it. This bill was the Dem response to GOP efforts in both chambers to relax the ban on offshore drilling and paint Democrats as blocking oil exploration here, hence keeping gas prices high. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has introduced a bill, supported by several dozens fellow Republicans, to let states decide whether to lease in federal waters and then get a cut of the take. But it looks like they won’t be able to muster the votes in either house to end the ban on offshore drilling. A vote of the Congress is needed to end the ban, despite President Bush’s announcement. (Source: E&E News PM)