Kerry-Lieberman Climate Proposal a Disaster for Climate

[IndianaGreen]

Published on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 by Center for Biological Diversity

Kerry-Lieberman Climate Proposal a Disaster for Climate

WASHINGTON - In the midst of what appears to be the worst offshore oil disaster in American history, U.S. Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) will today put forth a draft climate bill that will not solve the problems of global warming and continues pandering to the fossil fuel industry -- including expanded offshore oil drilling -- that created the problems in the first place.

The proposal, leaked one day before its official release, reflects months of back-room negotiations between the senators, major polluters, and other Washington insiders, and would:

• provide only a fraction of the greenhouse gas pollution reductions scientists have said are necessary to avoid catastrophic climate disruption;
• ban successful Clean Air Act programs from reducing greenhouse pollution;
• ban existing state and local efforts to tackle climate change;
• catalyze increased oil and gas drilling -- including offshore drilling; and
• subsidize dangerous and costly nuclear energy.

In response, Center for Biological Diversity Executive Director Kierán Suckling urged rejection of the proposal unless these problems are addressed. He issued the following statement:

"The climate proposal put forth today by Senators Kerry and Lieberman represents a disaster for our climate and planet. This proposal moves us one baby step forward and at least three giant steps back in any rational effort to address the climate crisis.

"The senators' proposal would entrench our addiction to fossil fuels by offering incentives for increased oil and gas drilling just days after what appears to be the worst offshore oil disaster in American history. Large domes, small domes, golf balls, garbage, chemical dispersants, fire -- none have succeeded in stopping the enormous flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Clearly, there are no 'safeguards' Senators Lieberman and Kerry could put into this bill to make offshore oil safe.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/05/12

[ProSense]

1. "This proposal moves us one baby step forward and at least three giant steps back..."

"Kerry-Lieberman Climate Proposal a Disaster for Climate"

These hyperbolic statements are ridiculous. Next, they'll be screaming "kill the bill."

I suppose Suckling believe Waxman-Markey would lead to the end of the world.

We need rational assessments, not over the top outrage.

Senator Kerry

Al Gore

NRDC President

LCV President

Joe Romm

[politicasista]

2. Wow, Gore supports it too

That will not make lots of his fans happy, especially if Lieberman's name is on it and it screams "Drill Baby Drill!." Guess it is better than nothing. Is not this what made Uncle Ted the GSOAT? (doing bipartisan bills) :shrug:

Wish Kerry the best, especially with all the Lieberman hatred and Kerry dislike, but you will not please everyone. Obama knows this also.

[wisteria]

5. LOL, add Specter and the naysayers will be seething. n/t

[politicasista]

16. ...

:wow:

[IndianaGreen]

6. Obama can sell out to the industry all he wants!

The Earth will retaliate!

[ProSense]

9. Al Gore too, a total sell out on the environment

Kerry is going to work hard to get this bill passed. The opposition who will work to kill it in favor of nothing will have their work cut out for them. I feel confident that their attempts will fail.

[karynnj]

30. Gore, Kerry and Lieberman, along with John Heinz and Tim Wirth

were the Senators that started the effort to fight global warming in the Senate. They have fought for decades to put a price to carbon - something this bill does. The full details of this bill were just unveiled yesterday. It seems clear that the lefties attacking it had no intention of even looking at the details.

Many, who never were there to fight for doing anything on global warming, are here attacking to strike a more radical than thou pose. They really should seriously consider that the real choice will be this bill, along with state and EPA programs that are not cap and trade (and are allowed) OR the energy only bill, which is where all the things they hate are from, and a hodgepodge of state efforts augmented by the EPA.

Consider this bit of math - less than half of the country is in areas that have state or regional efforts to lower greenhouse gasses. They are aiming for the same 17 to 20 percent range. As they are less than half the country, a much higher percent - in the neighborhood of 30 to 40 percent or more reduction will be needed there to equal the "inadequate" national plan. In addition, where this bill has a WTO compliant excise tax on things produced in countries to insure our manufacturers are not hurt, states do not have the ability to do this. This will make state or regional efforts increasingly less workable - there already are companies proposing building power plants in Nevada and Mexico with the intent of selling energy to California.

The fact is that Kerry and Lieberman are two of the strongest environmentalist in the Senate. Common dreams needs to consider that they are siding with Inhofe in killing this.

[hfojvt]

13. much of what the NRDC says agrees with the OP

"The bill would be more effective if its overall pollution limits were backed up by minimum performance standards for the largest polluters. We will work to strengthen the bill to preserve more of the Clean Air Act's proven approach to cutting air pollution.

The bill must not create incentives for offshore oil drilling or push forward drilling before we understand the risks involved for specific areas. The current Presidential moratorium does not go far enough, and does not, for example, stop the drilling planned for this summer in Alaska.

The subsidies for nuclear power in the draft bill are excessive and the proposed weakening of safety and environmental licensing reviews is ill-advised. NRDC will oppose these provisions.

The energy efficiency and forest protection provisions should be more robust, and NRDC will work to strengthen these provisions as the process moves forward."

There's a difference between "pass the bill" and "make the bill better"

One huge problem, from a practical standpoint, is that a bill starts in one spot and then makes concessions to the right in order to get it passed. If it already starts out TOO FAR TO THE RIGHT, chances are it will only get worse in the legislative process, rather than better. They need to start in the left field in order to finish in the center right. If they are already starting in the center right then they seem likely to finish in foul territory on the right field side.

[Robeson]

14. You get it.

[ProSense]

15. "Senators Kerry and Lieberman have done a remarkable job of building the foundation ...

...for clean energy and climate action and overall, I believe the bill is a good start. But to realize the promise of the bill, we need leadership from the top."

Nowhere does the NRDC declare the bill a disaster and three steps backward.

The OP is hyperbolic BS.

[politicasista]

17. Bingo

The Senator seems tireless on this issue, but peeps hatred of Lieberman and Graham cracker, will do everything to make sure it doesn't go through to prove the working with GOP is bad. There seemed to be crickets chirping when asked why various favorite pols (not counting the good ones!) were against this bill.

Wish them the best and hope it passes, as imperfect as this bill is.



edit cause comment was out of place.

[hfojvt]

19. that's kinda hard to follow

and who is a 'peep'?

I don't really care about eggs or chest pounding. I'd like a decent climate/energy bill. Perhaps the Senate bill is halfway decent, but that does not seem like a good place to start unless you want to end up with a bill that is 30% decent.

[politicasista]

21. "Peeps" is slang for people

Edit that analogy because it was too in your face and that wasn't appropriate. :)


I am no fan of Lieberman or Graham. The bill was good as Kerry/Boxer, but unfortunately the votes were not there. From those (i.e. ProSense and others) that know more about the bill, it will not pass without GOP votes (as pathetic as that is).

It is not perfect, it is watered down (some will argue just like the Health Care bill), but nothing will ever be perfect. How many more years does the OP want to wait for the perfect CC bill?

So, many do not blame Senator Kerry or President Obama for not giving up on this. It would be nice if liberal/progressives bloggers would go after other Dem senators (some or DU favorites) who are not on board. But since Kerry's name is the only Dem on the bill, he is Public Enemy #1.

Some people are out to make sure that Obama or people that are moving fourth on his agenda fail no matter the cost. Will not agree with everything he does, but he has proven people wrong and will continue to do so.

[pundaint]

24. Couldn't something at least be good? Does Power always have to be enriched just to

stop it from doing something bad? Why does our government exist? The constitution tells me it is about Us, the People, but out elected officials think it is about them and their corporate owners.

[karynnj]

32. Where was the support from these people for Kerry/Boxer?

Or for an even better bill? It was not there - much as Gore and Kerry tried to get people to get engaged on this.

Here on DU, the only passion I've seen on this issue was when it was suggested that there would be a 15 cent a gallon tax on gas. On average that would be less $10 a month per car. (Assuming 15,000 miles a year - the highest average I found and 20 mpg, the lowest average I found ((15 000 * .15) / 12) / 20 = 9.37500 ) People were irate that they would have this tax.

In addition, when I posted a letter by 14 Democratic coal state Senators, including Feingold and Franken - essentially wanting coal to get a free ride, people here sided with them against over Kerry. It ended up <0. Nowhere was the claim that these Senators were owned by corporations - they aren't - nor is Kerry. There are competing things that people say they want.

Here, commondream - never in the forefront working for a better environment - is doing what they always do - making this an issue of big bad corporations versus their own purity. Yet they likely would have agreed with those on DU saying that "the people" can't afford that tax.

If you considered producing less carbon as a "product", one thing the company would do is to estimate "the willingness to pay". In essence, the reaction here shows that the amount that people here are willing to pay is very very low. There is a major disconnect between a high level believe that all of us agree to that we need to address global warming and any willingness to sacrifice anything. Consider Ted Kennedy and RFKjr against Cape Wind.

Back in the 1980s, most of the people I know installed programmable thermostats to allow lowering heat when we were gone or sleeping. I was with a group of people a few years ago who asked how many of us had them and ... how many actually used them. Most of us had reverted to the constant temperature. I admit that that is when I started to use the programming again.

Some times things are more complicated than Trippi like rhetoric on corporations controlling the Senate.

[pundaint]

36. Yes, sometimes there is great complexity. Corporate control is a constant.

Cap and Trade is nothing but license to pollute with a market component. Cap is required, Trade is bullpucky. The corporate influence is so complete that issues are pared down to a short list of corporate-favorable alternatives before making it to the debate phase.

[karynnj]

40. It worked for acid rain

Great care was taken to prevent speculation in this bill.

Given the real world that the Senators work in, what exactly do you suggest? Things are far more complicated than truisms about corporate control.

[pundaint]

45. The "real world" they work in is of their own creation. Fire the lot and hire representatives of

the People, for and by whom the Constitution was written.

Congress runs the way it does because We have allowed it. We need to change it while We, allegedly, still have the vote.

If we can't fire the lot, we should fire as many as we can. This cycle, I only have the option of voting to fire one non-performer, next time two or three depending on how this one goes.

Change requires that we do something different. We voted for change once, we must keep voting for Change until we get it. You get 1 term to make Change, or we will try something else.

[karynnj]

46. "hire" representatives of the people?

These are the people who won election. How are you going to determine who will change things?

You might note that the problem here is not limited to the people here a long time - nor the people DU hates. One of the coal Senators was Franken. Does his working to protect coal mean he should be fired? Or, is it because he thought that if coal were hurt, Minnesota would be hurt - and his constituents would be hurt? Is it helping the big bad coal industry or helping his constiuents?

There is an interesting poll done by Gallup - that asks people their willingness to tradeoff between the environment and the economy. This poll suggests that right now only 38% pick the environment. This would have been easier in the late 1990s when it was in the mid 60s. Scan down to the March 4-7 Gallup poll - http://pollingreport.com/enviro.htm What you see is these Senators WERE doing what the majority of their base wanted - even if it is "caving in to Big Coal" interests.

Things really aren't as black and white as you think.

As to Kerry, he has deservedly been called the strongest environmentalist in the Senate. His wife, Teresa, is every bit as strong on this issue as he is. His motivation here is very obvious and there is no way he could have worked any harder than he did on this. He passionately believes that we absolutely need to cut carbon. He said in one interview that on various things here, he is outside his "comfort zone". He pointed out the same thing was true of the others - they had to agree to things they strongly preferred not to to get a bill that is acceptable enough to 60 Senators that it will pass.

So, back to your idea - these new Senators - what makes you think they will not reach the same conclusion on what their constituents want that the current Senators do. I know that is complex than simply claiming that any one who votes "wrong" is "owned" by corporations.

[pundaint]

47. I have no way of being sure the folks I vote for will do what I want or even what they promised.

I can be sure that if they don't they've had my last vote. If they do not have an opponent I support, then my vote is of no use to me, and I will pass. Those who vote in Franken's state will have to make their own evaluation.

My votes for Democrats who are not Liberal has been misinterpreted by the DLC as support for positions which are not Liberal, or at least freedom to move to the Right. This has been used to justify offering me no acceptable choices, and it has proven to be against my interests.

Neither the Economy nor the Environment can improve while we continue to occupy as much of the world as possible spending half our budget, much of it borrowed. We are sacrificing everything to military misadventures. Without and end to this focus on the military we are surely over. This makes WAR the only issue until it ends. Put the military in it's place, and there are resources to do the rest, until then it doesn't matter.

[hfojvt]

27. of course it is

but I am no one's peep, except my battalian commander (to paraphrase the Dr. Who (or actually the alien who shot the good Dr.))

Probably no side wants to claim me, but I think many DUers are pretty independent and if they seem to belong to a bash-Obama brigade or a defend-Obama brigade it is a function of the way they see things and not because they are anybody's peeps.

Anyway, as far as "not giving up on this" that would sorta be the point. To "not give up" on Kerry/Boxer and to fight for something good rather than to push some moderate Republican crap and then fight harder against the left to pass said serving of crap than he ever fought against the right.

Some people want his (Obama's) agenda to match our progressive agenda rather than being given marching orders to fight for an Obama agenda (or an Obama nominee) that could just as well have come from President Nelson. "We" want President Nelson to fail because we want an FDR or at least an LBJ.

[karynnj]

33. Ok - YOU go lobby Feingold and Franken and the 12 others - tell them that

they need to ignore the coal interests in their states. Did you do that? No, they all got a pass. They were looking out for their states interest. But, that block is why Kerry, who is a solid environmentalist - which neither of them are - is forced to make these deals.

[politicasista]

39. Interesting crickets on that issue n/t

[blm]

42. the problem wasn't Republicans but 13 D senators inc Franken, Feingold against the tougher bill

put up by Kerry-Boxer.

Seems many Dems missed that debate and are eager to blame those charged with crafting a bill that would get the votes of those 13 Dems.

I never saw much in the way of DUers conveying their anger on those threads posted back when the 13 Ds sent their letter of disapproval to original Kerry-Boxer bill.

[Robeson]

20. What's with the "Peeps"? Far be it for me to defend hfojvt....

...he's a pretty intelligent chap who can carry his own water. But that comment seems rather toadish and out of place.

[politicasista]

22. "Peeps" is slang for people

Went back an edit because it was too edgy and wasn't directed at hfojvt. :)

[hfojvt]

18. it may be stated a little strongly

but the NRDC seems to agree that there are some serious flaws in the bill. Like I said, it seems likely that the flaws will be kept and the good parts will be watered down or discarded as it works its way towards passage. Haven't we seen this play before? It would just be nice to start from a position of 95% and negotiate down to 60% rather than start at 55% and probably end up at 38% when all is said and done. It just seems like we always START by giving away half of the farm instead of finishing there.

[ProSense]

23. Calling the bill a disaster and three steps back is hyperbole

Climate change has been put on the back burner for decades. It's time to move forward.

Kerry has been working on environmental issues and legislation for decades, he has more credibility on the issue than most.

I expect the same groups who opposed the House bill (Waxman-Markey) to oppose the Senate bill, which will have a strong coalition of supporters.

There will be the environmental groups that will work to strengthen the bill and those that will oppose it no matter what.

There is a saying: If you don't believe something can be done, get out of the way of the people working to get it done.

[Teaser]

3. nope.

.

[wisteria]

4. No it isn't. I has many wonderful things in it that promote conservation

and make us more engery efficient. True it is a compromise bill that will have things in it that some person or group will not like, but it is a beginning. The bill that progressive liked couldn't get enough votes to pass.

[pundaint]

25. We can't get something good, so here accept this shit...has gotten really old.

[TomCADem]

7. Oddly, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Refuses To Sign On...

[Aramchek]

8. nothing will ever be good enough for you

you want Obama to fail.
and you will oppose any policy he supports.

It's absolutely appalling to see you claim to be principled,
when the only real principle you hold to is antagonism.

[Thrill]

10. I think he just spends his whole day

searching for Negative Obama articles.

[pundaint]

26. I believe that like me, the OP just wants Obama to stop failing; and is there nothing bad enough for

you?

[politicasista]

37. Thank you n/t

[Jennicut]

11. Strangely, Lieberman never did have a bad record on the environment.

Even way back as Attorney General in CT he was good. About the only good thing I can say about him really.

[Robeson]

12. I would like to see the full bill. I agree that many good sources like The Nation...

...and 350.org have come out against it. Of course, their opposition was based on what was being proposed at the time. If what we get is what The Nation reported earlier this month, then I'm in full agreement with you. It's a shame you're getting piled on here.

[karynnj]

34. The Nation is not a good source here

It is a leftist magazine, but it has never concentrated on anything to do with the environment. You would be better looking at the places like Ghrist, which has.

In fact, Nichols, in 2004 had so little background there that in pushing Edwards, after Dean was out, he said he had the better environmental record - ignoring that Kerry had the best environmental record in the Senate of any one who ever was a serious nominee - and yes that includes Gore.

Again the question is where were they over the last year? Did they present a strong case for the need to pass Waxman-Markey or Kerry-Boxer? Not really.

[politicasista]

41. Good question

Wonder if they will be an answer.

[denimgirly]

28. Always remember kids, when BIG MONEY is involved yout vote with NEVER count

Money speaks louder and for politicians it is the special interests and big business that will always get their ear. These politiicans want not only a pay day now but more importantly a pay day when they leave congress -- that is where they will become millionaires: working for these big companies for a job well done when they watered down bills or killed it all together.

This proposal is not a surprise. We've seen this game played all year round for decades.

[ShortnFiery]

44. Yes, and even some of our democratic representatives have abdicated their

authority to the big corporations, i.e., within both the MIC and the Energy Sectors.


http://yorick.infinitejest.org:81/1/img/card-corporate_citizens.jpg http://yorick.infinitejest.org:81/1/img/card-us_democrats.jpg

[karynnj]

29. You really had to look for an organization there

Other than Greenpeace, which also rejected the House bill and Kerry/Boxer - showing that they will reject all bills with any chance of passing, most environmental groups are behind this bill. The Center for Biological Diversity has done good work on endangered species, but has never been active against global warming.

Many comments here are simply not true. It does not ban the clean air act programs. What it ends are state and regional cap and trade like programs - which the federal program will replace.

In addition, the bill adds restrictions on offshore drilling compared to the current situation and the proposed Obama plan.

17% is too low - Kerry has said that. But 17% nationwide is better than 17 - 20 percent limited to the NE and California - and it is all that is passable - if it is passable.

As to the nuclear subsidies and clean coal subsidies, they all come from the referenced Bingaman energy bill. The alternative to passing Kerry/Lieberman is that the energy only bill will pass. Then you get all the negatives - and none of the constraints.

The alternative to Kerry/Lieberman is NOT an environmentally better bill, it is that no global warming bill is likely to even be considered for at least 4 years.

[Jennicut]

31. Thanks for the clarification.

Overall, it is not a bad bill.

[flpoljunkie]

35. Senator Kerry must work with the Senate he has, not the Senate he'd like.

It's a start. And, if we don't start this year, we may not be able to tackle climate change until 2013, or perhaps, not even then.

[politicasista]

38. Yep. It sucks he has to work with these people

But isn't that was made Kennedy GOAT? :shrug:

[TheKentuckian]

43. Sweet more too little, too ineffective, too many side effects legislation

A price on carbon is meaningful to bad it comes with more drilling, more nukes, hobbling state regulations that may have more of a punch, and of course even at optimal performance has far too little impact to actually do anything like what is required.

Industry and capital once again determine how to regulate themselves and we get the option of pretending we are making substantive progress wile making deeper long range sacrifices than compensate for minimal and mostly cosmetic changes to failed systems and policies.