By Aaron Wiener
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) tells
The Hill that the landmark climate bill being drafted by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) will likely be given a vote as an amendment to Sen. Jeff Bingaman’s (D-N.M.) energy-only bill. If Schumer’s right — and he’s very close to the Democratic leadership, so there’s every reason to believe he is — this would represent a major step backward for America’s efforts to fight global warming.
Schumer said that the Bingaman proposal would be “the base bill upon which John Kerry will seek to add his bill,” clarifying that “he’s going, in my opinion, going to get a chance to offer it in the form of an amendment.”
Bingaman’s bill, which provides incentives to develop cleaner energy sources but does not address planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions, has been derided by environmentalists for its handouts to the energy industry. Some argue that the renewable energy targets in his bill are lower than would be met by the status quo.
The hope among environmental advocates was that the Bingaman proposal would be folded into Kerry and Lieberman’s comprehensive climate bill, which places a declining cap on carbon emissions among certain polluting sectors of the economy. Some conservative Democrats have called for a separate vote on an energy-only bill, which would be far less controversial (since it would not impose a cost on emissions) but would not directly address climate change.
If the climate proposal is indeed introduced as an amendment, its chances of passage are low, since vulnerable senators will be able to claim environmental credentials by voting for the underlying energy bill while voting down the controversial climate amendment.
Expect strong pushback from environmental groups and liberal Democrats if Schumer’s hunch is confirmed.
Schumer should be ashamed of himself.
Updated to add:
Schumer's comments suggests Senate Dems aren't exactly swinging for the fences -- instead of seizing the opportunity and pushing an ambitious proposal, the new bill will apparently downplay efforts to combat climate change, and not include the cap-and-trade provision that has been at the heart of Democratic plans.
In effect, if Schumer's assessment is correct, Democrats will pursue a bill on energy policy -- new industry regulations, nuclear permits, some alternative energy investments -- not climate policy.
The legislation, then, will be anything but comprehensive. And barring an electoral miracle in November, cap-and-trade won't even be considered in Congress again until 2013, at the very earliest.
The oil spill crisis was enough to capture the nation's attention, but it wasn't enough to generate 60 votes for a modest, common-sense climate bill.
linkGrists'
David Roberts:
Let's be clear here: If there's an energy-only bill on the floor and a cap-and-trade system is offered as an amendment, the amendment will fail. That is as close to a certainty as you get in D.C. The whole reason the energy and climate portions of the bill were packaged together in the first place is to force lawmakers to accept the stick (cap) with the carrots (incentives for nukes, etc.). If they're allowed the opportunity to take all the good stuff with none of the bad stuff, of course they'll take it.
The question here is whether Schumer is speaking for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) or just freelancing. He's never been a fan of the climate bill and said some things to undermine it when it rolled out back in April. Maybe he's just being a jerk again.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
