Ezra Klein: Is Reid's energy bill worse than no bill at all?

[flpoljunkie]

(Emphasis mine.)

Harry Reid has called for an "energy bill" by July. But it's not the energy bill we've been waiting for. It not only lacks a price on carbon, but as Brad Plumer explains, it makes it harder to ever get one:

Earlier today, Chuck Schumer was on MSNBC and said that the legislation Reid was assembling would resemble the (weak) energy-only bill passed by Jeff Bingaman's committee back in June. In other words, there'd be some renewable-power mandates, some incentives for nuclear, some funds to kick-start new transmission lines, and some new regulations on oil companies. If Kerry and Lieberman want to tack on a cap-and-trade scheme on top of all that, Schumer said, they'll "get a chance to add it in the form of an amendment."

If Schumer's right, this would certainly lower the odds that Congress will pass a carbon-pricing scheme this year. The logic behind combining everything into one big bill, as Kerry and Lieberman did, was so that the items that were popular with senators (like oil regulations or financial support for nuclear utilities) were mashed together with the unpopular items (cap-and-trade), and there'd be one big up-or-down vote on the whole enchilada. If energy and climate get separated out, then it's less likely the latter can survive.

In other words, if you give away the popular stuff that would've helped a climate-change bill get through now, you're not likely to be able to get a climate-change bill through later.

By Ezra Klein
June 7, 2010; 2:28 PM ET

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/is_reids_energy_bill_worse_tha.html

[beachmom]

1. Yes it is worse. It means NOTHING will be done on climate change. nt

[flpoljunkie]

2. I don't see how Kerry can get the 60 votes the R's will insist on to pass his 'amendment.'

[ProSense]

3. It needs to be the bill and

the rest voted on as amendments. That is the only way that the Senate will vote on the bill. They all have interests, but too many of them have no interest in comprehensive reform.

[Cant trust em]

4. I like the framing of this question.

A lot of times we talk about bills being not worth much because they’re not as good as they could have been. I’d always rather have weak legislation than no legislation at all. However, if it would actually exacerbate the situation, then it’s not worth the effort.

[ej510]

5. Schumer and Reid are corporate whores.