Union Makes Last-Minute Pitch For Climate Change Bill's Passage

With Congress expected to vote on a 1,201-page climate change bill on Friday, one of the country's largest unions is sending word to Democrats from conservative or blue-collar districts: They'll back them up for their vote.

The AFL-CIO sent a letter to the House of Representatives on Capitol Hill on Thursday urging passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, otherwise known as Waxman-Markey. It is, an aide says, "the most comprehensive climate change - and jobs - bill that the AFL-CIO has supported." And with the outcome of the legislation still in doubt -- even as the hour of the vote approaches -- the hope is that it can provide a modicum of coverage for lawmakers on the fence.

"The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, though not perfect, represents an important first step toward achieving these goals, and we urge a yes vote," reads the letter from Bill Samuel, director of government affairs at the AFL-CIO. "The American Clean Energy and Security Act maintains a diverse energy portfolio that includes renewable energy, fossil fuels, and nuclear and hydro power, while spurring economic investment in new energy technologies that will create jobs for American workers. At the same time, the bill imposes an economy-wide carbon reduction program and seeks to minimize the burden on anyone sector."

aflclimate -

The 11th-hour effort by the ALF-CIO and others illustrates just how close the debate and vote over the Waxman-Markey bill has become. On Thursday, the president made a direct appeal to lawmakers to support the legislation, which contains a controversial cap-and-trade component. It was about as far as Obama has gone in support of a bill since entering the White House.

That the labor community would support the bill was not entirely expected, though it's not entirely surprising either. The AFL-CIO's argument is that Waxman-Markey is a jobs bill, likely to put tens of thousands of people to work in green industries. The union even notes, in its letter to lawmakers, that it is hoping to improve the legislation by strengthening "its international competitiveness provisions."

In the process, however, ALF-CIO officials are hoping to recruit enough votes for the bill's passage. And their targets, an aide says, are Democrats from hard hit-industrial states who stand to benefit from a new, environmentally conscious economic focus.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[realpolitic]

Wow, if unions support the climate change bill conservatives will really, really hate it. The environment, international agreements, and unions are some of the things conservatives hate the most!

[Jim Welke]

Pass H.R. 2454

Not passing it will cost a lot more than the much exaggerated claims for the effects of cap & trade.

We should get smart and join the people that would grow our economy for everyone for the long term rather than sucking it dry for stockholders in the short term.

Progressives who oppose HR 2454 should remember the other provisions of this bill besides cap & trade, such as efficiency and the renewable energy standard. Big steps for Congress, which has invariably caved to suicidal status quo Big Energy interests in the past.

more info: http://cyclopsvue.blogspot.com/2009/05/what-if-the-american-clean-energy-and.html
more more info: http://cyclopsvue.blogspot.com/search/label/Energy

[wdw505]

i am fine with a lot of those provisions ......however the corrections need to be in place before a tax and cap is put in play

[DrPneumann]

Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) said on the House floor that the bill remained too favorable to the coal industry, by providing legal room for new coal-burning plants to continue to be built.

MEANWHILE, LAST WEEK....

As a senator, Barack Obama denounced the Bush administration for holding "secret energy meetings" with oil executives at the White House. But last week public-interest groups were dismayed when his own administration rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama's "clean coal" policies. One reason: the disclosure of such records might impinge on privileged "presidential communications." The refusal, approved by White House counsel Greg Craig's office, is the latest in a series of cases in which Obama officials have opted against public disclosure. Since Obama pledged on his first day in office to usher in a "new era" of openness, "nothing has changed," says David -Sobel, a lawyer who litigates FOIA cases. "For a president who said he was going to bring unprecedented transparency to government, you would certainly expect more than the recycling of old Bush secrecy policies."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/202875

[ClarcKing]

This proposed legislation is a covert offensive against the population making human activity for survival and /or production illegal because " it is heating up the environment." Congress and Unions have lost their minds: are under the control of World Order authorities. The Congress ought to be doing something on the order of creating jobs that have the features of elevating labor and the society it serves.

[Artamentous]

I'm pretty certain will we will see a whole new green tech industry raise from this legislature.

[research]

Cap and trade rewards polluters for lying about how much the pollute and then get windfall profits by selling carbon stuff.

a 1$ per ton carbon tax simply tiles the cost advantage toward green energy.

Why will a coal plant that cuts is carbon output with a new more efficient turbines, whereas even existing solar panel company gets NOTHING. Shouldn't they get carbon credit for not producing co2 in the first place?

[gobeavs]

On the up side.
My family is going to score big on this, my husband works for the company that owns the comapany that makes the air cleaners.
We a long with Gore have already bought stock.
Ah life is good. :o)

[mollyjackson]

As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens doubt the science of human-caused global warming.
Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S

[upton]

The whole thing is crazy! No-one, including those voting for it, has read it. That in itself should be enough to say no. But if it were to work as advertised it would:

1. Be a boon for jobs. But overseas, as 'polluters' move manufacturing away from here.
2. Increase C02 emissions, as the pollution controls are more lax overseas
3. Create a trade war
4. Do nothing, or (see 3 above) have a negative impact on global warming
5. Increase the cost of everything
6. Increase unemployment
7. Impact the poor disproportionately.
8. Benefit the rich establishement - as they sell their alloted credits

I understand republicans voting for it as their fat friends and wall st get rich selling credits. But why should we support it?

[wdw505]

we should not support it

[Artamentous]

Are you serious? Move manufacturing overseas?

Where have you been for the last 25 years?

[gobeavs]

Well let us look at the up side to this.
Solar panels made in China, windmill parts made in India, China and Spain.
No nuclear.
China, India Brazil and Most of South America not signing on the the climarte change agenda.
Hey this is a win win.
Wait a minute the win win is not us.
Who knew.

[anothervoice]

I know you're prepared to cite your sources for these assertions...

[gobeavs]

Yup,
Let me get them off my computer and post the links, I save all my research.

[gobeavs]

Windmills.
http://itssdenergysecurity.blogspot.com/2008_11_01_archive.html

[gobeavs]

I gotta figure out a way to sell and buy carbon credits.
I see a real money maker for me here. :o0

[dlet]

Cap and trade systems are just another way for the big guys to continue to pollute at normal levels. Every business gets the pollution credits dependant on their type of business. If a lot of small businesses don't hit their allotted amount for the year they can trade them away to the highest bidder. In comes the big polluter and buys up all the little business credits he can. So then you have the small business polluting as usual and the big business polluting as usual. Logic loses once again.

[research]

Cap and Trade is just another playground for the rich investment gamblers. They are already scheming the system.

Dump this bill, and do a simple 1$ per ton carbon tax.

[anothervoice]

Easy to make a quick off-the-cuff statement and book, right? Do you have any idea how much work goes into a bill like this? How many quid-pro-quos? There is a lot of honest negotiation between parties, interests, environmentalists, etc., involving hundreds of people to create a bill - such as it is - attempting to prevent a disaster that makes Katrina and the Economic Meltdown combined look like a walk in the park by comparison.

Notice how difficult is it to turn a down economy around, even when we have some reasonable understandings of the mechanics? Now imagine a simultaneous problem on all fronts, economic, environmental, political, climatological and throw in collapsing ecosystems just to name a few of the problems. Then, imagine trying to solve all of those problems at once with migrations of populations trying to find a stable place to live. That is just a fraction of the potential problem of climate change. Not pretty at all.

If you have an informed opinion, then add to the solution - not just some hit and run comment that would reinforce the positions of those who don't care to understand the problem.

[research]

It is BECAUSE a simple tax will WORK, whereas Cap and trade will be GAMED for bankster profit, While not reducing pollution. It creates a new Derivatives market, haven't we had enough of this bs?

http://www.pewclimate.org/press_room/opinion_editorials/oped_miamih07122007

"the European Union learned that its emissions data were flawed and that companies could reap windfall profits by reducing emissions much more cheaply than had been expected."

[BabblingBrooks]

So goes the real-life experience of progressive governance, with heavy tax burdens financing huge welfare states, and state capitals dominated by public-employee unions. Formerly rich states, they are now known for job losses, booming deficits and debt, wage stagnation, out-migration and laughing-stock legislatures. At least Americans have the ability to flee these ill-governed states for places that still welcome wealth creators. The debate in Washington now is whether to spread this antigrowth model across the entire country.
--ibid

[gobeavs]

This is acurate, people are voting with their feet, and simply leaving those states. The popultation that is left pay fewer taxes and use more state resorces. Thus the state becomes lop sided toward the bottom.
On the other hand Texas is growing and has a balnced budget. HHMM.....
Wonder what is going on here?

[Grunty1]

I see you are living up to your name, Babbler.

[BabblingBrooks]

So, the question then is, will Democrats vote for the good of the country or for the good of unions and themselves? On one hand, destroy the economy, on the other hand, get union endorsements...gee, what a hard choice...

[BabblingBrooks]

"New York, New Jersey and California are among the leading states in government spending on and intervention into the medical market. A 2008 study by the Pacific Research Institute ranked the states on the basis of government regulation of health care and found that New York is most regulated, while New Jersey ranks sixth and California seventh. "New York," the report declares, "suffers from government health programs that are out of control, a grossly overregulated private insurance market and almost completely uncompetitive provider markets."

Have government controls and Medicaid expansions ("the public option") lowered costs? Here is what the American Health Insurance Plans found. For family coverage annual premiums in 2006-07, the national median cost was roughly $5,300; in California it was $5,884, in New Jersey $10,398, and in New York $12,254. New York's coverage mandates cause families to pay more than twice what they do in other states for insurance.

As a result, California and New York have more than one-third of their residents uninsured or in Medicaid -- much higher than the national average of 25%. More government involvement in health care in California, New Jersey and New York has raised costs and often reduced private coverage. That's hardly a model for the nation."
--WSJ article linked in prior post