GOP, Big Oil and Climate Change

An important bill that would create a cap and trade system for greenhouse gases died in the Senate. The Lieberman-Warner bill fell a few vote shorts of what was needed to move it along. Republicans did everything they could to derail the bill, including a parliamentary maneuver that caused the entire 419 page bill to be read out loud. That took 9 hours. Don't these guys know we've got some serious problems we need to be dealing with?

Many environmental groups have considered the Lieberman Warner bill "a good start" but one that needs a little work. This bill would have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 2/3 by 2050 by using a cap and trade system. (I support the more aggressive approach in the Safe Climate Act.)

The Senate bill died because of Republican opposition and substantial lobbying from the powerful oil and coal industries. For example, an industry group made up of companies like DTE Energy and Duke Energy lobbied for a special provision that would substantially weaken the bill by limiting the price that industry would have to pay to pollute. (DTE Energy has given substantial donations to Adam Cote, the conservative candidate in my Democratic Congressional Primary.)

The need to do something about global warming is obvious. And it's also pretty clear that the public understands the need for change and is ready to embrace it. What is missing is political will in Congress to stand up to the powerful energy companies and their well-paid lobbyists. I've done it before when I introduced and fought for the prescription drug pricing program and I hope I get a chance to go to Congress and fight for significant climate change legislation.

(Want to know what the Republicans were up to with this bill? Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope got his hands on a leaked GOP memo that pretty much explains it all. )

Chellie Pingree is the former President of Common Cause and a candidate for Congress in Maine's 1st Congressional District.

Comments

[noneIn2008]

Another interesting note would be to see how the Huff/Obama hour would react to the bill if you knew it was really the McCain-Lieberman bill. They have trotted out the exact same bill every two years forever. This time, they took McCain's name off. Do you think the Huff would be attacking if it still had McCain's name on it?

[noneIn2008]

We know big oil would not pay one cent for WL. The people would. I'm not ready to add $4.00/gallon to my gasoline for unproven hype. Listen to the President of the Czech Republic. Plus, it stopped warming 10 years ago, and is now cooling. The oceans have cooled. I'm more concerned about the lack of cycle 24 sunspots and another Mauder minimum.

[BlackbirdHighway]

Incorrect. The Earth did not stop warming 10 years ago. Stop spouting lies.

I've seen this same statement over and over, everytime global warming is discussed. Yes, 1998 was the warmest year on record IN THE UNITED STATES.

However, the issue is GLOBAL warming, not US warming. Globally, 2005 was hotter than 1998. Using a five year moving average, the Earth's temperature has continued to increase without any cooling or even leveling off. That is not liberal hype. Thermometers do not come in liberal and conservative styles, they just tell the temperature.

Wingers, it's time to turn off Limbaugh, get out of the conservative bubble, and learn about the real world.

[DavidWojick]

The immediate thing that killed the L-W bill was a stunt. On Wed the Dems substituted a 400 page bill that nobody except Boxer had read. L-W was just 150 pages so it was a huge switch. That is why the Reps made them read it. But nobody was really serious this time. Debate was limited to a few days, with no amendments allowed. The 1990 Clean Air Act took 5 weeks of debate and over 100 amendments to craft. That was serious legislation. This was just a show. Nobody killed L-W, it was never alive. David Wojick http://www.climatechangedebate.org

[UnbiasView]

Of course it was a joke, that's why the Dems also rushed it to a vote.

[DocSue]

All of this seems so cumbersome, when it is really pretty simple. We have political figureheads who represent world energy business (Bushes = Saudis, Cheney = KBR, any other congressfolk who don't fight for climate change). They do what they are supposed to do: raise the price of oil and make tons delivering it to US. The rest of the world just slogs along, trying to figure out what went wrong and how to change pieces of the puzzle. The jig is up. Vote 'em ALL out!

[ShamusDaedal]

Tax increases? So what?

In your personal life, can you continue to borrow to infinity? The bills must be paid or the suppliers stop providing! The "borrow and spend" conservatives think we won't notice the huge debt they want to leave to our grand and great grandchildren.

Make all income taxed for Social Security and that plan is saved. Reinstall the progressive income tax and the obscene spread between the "have-nots" and the " have-mores" will narrow. Remember, if that spread gets too big we face chaos eventually. Then EVERYONE loses.

[3Gs]

Irradicate income tax altogether, institute a 5% increase in fed sales tax and a $2 gas tax, create a fair capital gains tax with no loop holes (maybe19%), and I bet it takes care of even more problems. I personally do not enjoy being taxed twice, first from my paycheck, and then from my purchases.

[UnbiasView]

The GW bill failed because it was the largest tax increase in American history and offered mandates but no solutions. The GW bill failed because instead of hammering out a real bill it was quickly thrown forward for a vote after 3 days.

The Dems knew it would fail as the bill stood today so they rushed it to a vote.

There was also nothing in the bill that would have allowed us to build more nuclear plants.

[joebhed]

I am not sure what the GW bill is.

I agree with you and hope that you're right that the filibuster threat worked because this bill IS one of the largest tax increase in history.
It's just that with the Cap-and-trade bone to the financial services industry known as the investment bankers and commodity traders, we don't know how large that tax increase really is.

You are also partly right that it does not MATCh the mandate for both a cap and a a tax, with the solutions that are available. It needs a lot of work there.

I have no idea of the Dem strategy - I say it is playing into the hands of the Repugs becaue it allows them to kill the bill just because of the C&T provisions. They seem to be blind to the fact that, guess what, Dems, cost does matter these days. But the carbon tax will fix that.

And as far as the stupid comment that there was nothing in the bill that would allow us to build more nuclear plants, a couple of things.
First, we're allowed to build nuclear plants.
So......?
Second, the 2005 National Energy Policy Act had more subsidies for nuclear power than any previous Energy Policy Act, and it had more subsidies for nuclear power than it did for any other energy resource.
So, you can't blame the CC bills just because the nuclear industry can't get their shit together and biuild some nuclear plants.

[UnbiasView]

GW = Global Warming.

I think the Dems were going for the gotcha, you don't care about the environment republicans but the Americans that actually saw what this bill is are so very happy. A tax increase like this goes across party lines in real life and I can't see many people saying "Damn, it didn't pass so I won't have 80% higher costs for energy and another $1.50 tax on gasoline."

[joebhed]

I'm an independent progressive who worked as a leader in electric utility energy efficiency,
This is yet another pseudo-liberal slam against the repugs for being able to use the insane cap-and-trade program to thwart the climate change initiatives.
Wake up, Liberals.
Opposition to ANY part of the climate change bill is not traitorous to the future of the planet.
Ms. Pingree, have you read the Congressional Budget Office study that found the C&T system is far inferior to the carbon tax for achieving our climate change goals.
The carbon tax is the means to get to our goals of reducing GG emissions the FASTEST and the CHEAPEST, by far.
Why wouldn't you, as a planetary advocate, want the carbon tax to do exactly that?
You have given the repugs exactly the right tool at the right moment to block any serious progress on CC.
And, don't smugly offer that when Obama gets in, we'll get our CC and our C&T.
Given that C&T will PROLONG the term for reducing GG emissions, yes, the Liberals will win, but the planet will lose.
The greedy billionaire traders are out in there RIGHT NOW, buying up the carbon rights to eligible projects, to sell them back to America at an inflated rate.
Why would anyone think that a free market in financial futures is the way for an orderly and economic path to our public policy goals.?
Carbon Tax Now !

[UnbiasView]

It is a scam, end of story. Liberals pass it off as a tax on big business but every cost they incur is passed along to the consumer.

[personalpolitical]

I'm skeptical of the cap and trade as well...I'll have to learn more about the various plans out there, but it sounds like a pseudo-fix to me, just like biofuels. Sounds good on paper, in reality completely stupid and full of unintended consequences.

All I know is that we have to go after the strongest, fastest, and most invasive approach possible. No sugarcoating our legislation for big business anymore, we need to figure out what needs to be done, and FORCE them to do it. If that is a carbon tax, fine, if it something else, fine, but corporate American has gotten filthy rich off destroying the planet since the industrial revolution, and it is time THEY bear the primary sacrifice.

[joebhed]

Well, let me point you to the CBO study:
"Policy Options for Reducing CO2 Emissions".

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8934/02-12-Carbon.pdf

It finds that when you compare any of the variations on C&T (auction, safety-valve, differing-levels) with the carbon tax, the carbon tax is the way to go. Unlike a lot of other critics I am in favor of reducing carbon emissions as fast as this can be achieved.

But Democratic legislators are afraid of getting called the tax-and-spenders, and will not own up to their responsibility to fund this major public policy need.

Democrats need to get beyond the rhetoric on climate change.
This is not a plan.
This is a "If we build it, they will come" type of political strategy.
My fear, quite frankly, is that the Repugs will come out and say the tax is better.
Because it is.

You should also visit carbontax.org .
I do not agree with everything they have on their site, but they are definitely on the right track.

When it comes to solving the climate change problem - most efficiently - Carbon Tax Now.

[mamacat]

I don't know enough about this bill to say much about it, but, if the Republicans are against it, then that tells me right away that it is probably a good idea. When is the last time that Republicans were in favor of anything except wars of aggression and tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%?

[joebhed]

mama,
me thinks you might be having your blinders on.
This is a bipartisan mistake.
please read my other comment (assuming it is printed).
Thanks.

[jsarets]

(page 2)

This is one of those issues where government has two choices: go big or go home.

We could go big, negotiating a binding international treaty signed by all significant carbon-emitting nations, rich and poor, that establishes mechanisms for setting a global emissions cap, operating a global market for carbon credits, and distributing the revenues among the national governments, which would spend these revenues in accordance with their respective sovereign institutions.

Or we could go home and cede the playing field to the international mega-capitalist elite, who routinely accomplish astonishing feats of large-scale social engineering under the radar and out of the public eye. They can put a global cap on carbon emissions and levy a global carbon tax on everybody without calling it a cap-and-trade system, without calling a vote, and without calling a press conference. They can just do it while everybody else keeps talking about doing it.

Let's be nice to the energy corporations, because they play the role of the appropriations committee in this scenario. They receive the huge windfalls from the international shadow government's cap-and-trade system, and it is they who decide what to do with the money. Our government needs to be lobbying them, convincing them to invest our quasi-tax dollars toward a sustainable future. They're the ones that are swimming in money, and they also happen to be pretty knowledgeable about energy.

(continued...)

[jsarets]

What if that "something" that we're trying to do about global warming isn't the right thing to do?

What if any political solution to climate change that could be described as "a step in the right direction" is invariably a step in the wrong direction, worse than doing nothing at all?

What if its not just the obvious problems in Lieberman-Warner that need work?

What if the very concept of a federal production tax on carbon emissions, regardless of the manner in which the price is established, is fatally flawed, that it would cause most of our manufacturing sector and its jobs to flee the country?

I'm as progressive as just about anybody on the environment, but it's incredibly naive and/or intellectually dishonest to advance the idea that the United States should unilaterally adopt a carbon cap-and-trade system.

(continued...)

[jsarets]

(page 3)

In our quest to create a system of government that's accountable to and representative of the people, we've unwittingly created an official government that is chronically and terminally incapable of doing anything. Outside of national defense and protecting private property, most of what a government has to do to maintain an orderly population is incredibly unpopular among some significant portion of the electorate. This is why we outsource the dirty work to our corporate executors, who receive a public scolding from our elected representatives as necessary to keep us pacified.

If we do succeed in addressing the climate crisis, it will be because obscure power brokers quietly colluded with governments, taking covert actions to cause painful economic upheaval that dragged us kicking and screaming toward a more sustainable way of life. We're not going to do this voluntarily and out in the sunshine. We won't let our own government threaten our luxurious way of life. The unsustainable utopia that is the American Dream will be pried from our grasp not by tax collectors, but by debt collectors.

[KillTheMessenger]

There is a very democratic solution to all of this: remove as many republicans from all parts of government as we can.

[UnbiasView]

So we can pass the largest tax increase in American history?

[SirReal1]

The "political will" is not in the Politicians own best interest.

1. It would undercut the huge PROFITS that their corporate sponsors are making on a massive scale.

2. It would mean telling the electorate that they will have to SUFFER, and do without all the excess that the corporations have spent MILLIONS of $$$ to convince them they deserve.

3. It would mean that they would actually have to come together and make a plan. Too much thinking, it hurts their heads.

The big news for a couple weeks now, is how much money the Republican party has been able to raise in their fundraising efforts. McCain's big claim for legitimacy is that he has been able to bring in significantly larger donations than Obama.

It's the only thing he's done well in for the past several months, but it has kept him "in the running" by virtue of the power of $$$.

I don't see anything changing anytime before January 2009.