All Americans should be aware of what’s happening in Washington in this critically important area that affects every one of us. Earlier this week, 48 Senators, including three Democrats and all but two Senate Republicans voted to defeat a bill that would have ended tax breaks for the five biggest oil companies.

What could cause such outrageous behavior? How about the $39.5 million that the oil and gas companies spent lobbying Congress in the first quarter of this year alone? Or might it be the fact that the industry donated nearly $18 million directly to the political campaigns of Senators who voted against ending these subsidies — five times more than to Senators who supported ending them?

Yet the measure to end these handouts to the oil industry came fairly close to passing (we needed 60 votes, and got 52). The message: if you care about things like this (and I have to think that most readers here do indeed), I urge you to exercise your rights as a citizen and let your elected leaders know where you stand on this.

Related posts:

• Environmental Law Institute Reports on Subsidies for Energy Companies
• Governments Slash Solar Subsidies After Steep Market Growth
• Late-Night Radio Show Caller Throws Tantrum Over Subsidies for Renewables
• Japan to Invest $6.4 billion in Green Technologies
• End the Oil Subsidies, for Common Sense’s Sake!

This week the US Senate has the chance to take a big step forward for the climate, even though it will not be voting on any bill directly related to climate change. If this seems paradoxical, it isn’t really. This Wednesday may be the Senate’s best chance to fix the filibuster—a procedural tool that over the last two years was used by conservatives to prevent climate change legislation ever making it into law.

According to the textbook definition of a filibuster, it’s a procedural maneuver that allows a minority of senators to block a vote on a particular piece of legislation they believe is especially harmful. If one or more senator decides to launch a filibuster, a supermajority of sixty senators (rather than fifty-one) is needed to pass the bill in question. Traditionally a filibuster was maintained by one or more senator standing on the Senate floor and talking continuously, effectively stalling debate on a bill and preventing a vote from taking place. Sixty senators would have to vote to end a filibuster and force the vote—but in order to keep the filibuster going, the minority had to be willing to stay on the floor under the glare of TV cameras, and publicly defend their actions.

Today however the filibuster is used much differently—and with tragic consequences. No longer do senators who decide to block a piece of legislation have to stand on the floor defending their decision. Any senator who doesn’t like a given bill can simply indicate he or she plans to filibuster, bringing debate screeching to a halt and preventing the bill from even being introduced unless sixty senators who support it can be found.

This has made it very difficult to pass major legislation. It’s why health care reform took so long to make it into law last year, and why the Senate still hasn’t passed an oil drilling reform bill in the wake of the BP disaster. Most importantly, it’s why the Senate could not enact climate change legislation in 2010. From a tool allowing a minority of dedicated senators to bravely defend their position on the Senate floor, the filibuster has become a rule routinely abused to prevent a vote on legislation the US public supports. It’s time to change this. While elimination of the filibuster would be a mistake, senators who choose to stall debate should be required to do so in full view on the Senate floor, and to continue defending their actions in public.

Fortunately, on Wednesday the Senate has a chance to re-make the rules for how it operates. According to Senator Tom Udall (D-NM), Article I of the US Constitution indicates the Senate may set its own rules at the beginning of each “new” Senate (when newly-elected senators take office). Yet the Senate hasn’t taken the opportunity to change the rules since 1975, meaning it is still constrained by outdated procedures that no longer make sense in the culture of politics today. Udall also argues the Constitution ensures a vote on changing the rules, if made at the start of the Senate session, only needs a simply majority of fifty-one votes to pass. In other words you can’t filibuster a vote to reform the filibuster. On Wednesday when senators return to Washington, DC they have a historic chance to prevent future filibuster abuses.

In an almost unprecedented show of support for reform, every single Democratic senator returning to DC has signed a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid, in support of changing the way the filibuster is used. Reid is now negotiating with Republican leaders, trying to decide what if any kind of reform should be brought up for a vote. If Reid comes forward with a strong proposal and it passes on Wednesday, the implications for the future of climate change legislation would be huge. It would be foolish to pass up this once-in-a-Senate opportunity.

Article by Nick Engelfried, appearing courtesy Justmeans.

Related posts:

• Here’s A Reason to Care About Climate Change: It Could Ruin Texas Football
• Emerging Economies Among the Most Vulnerable to Climate Change, Report Says
• Europeans View Climate Change as Second-Biggest Threat, Poll Finds
• Experts Highlight Importance of Energy Efficiency
• A Symbolic Solar Road Trip To Reignite a Climate Movement

Ample blame exists for the demise of climate legislation in the U.S. Senate, from President Obama’s lack of political courage, to the environmental community’s overly ambitious strategy, to Republican intransigence. A way forward exists, however, to build on the rubble of the Senate’s failure to cap carbon emissions.

Following the rocky path of climate legislation in the U.S. Congress these past years brought me back to the 1980s, and my time as a crime reporter in New York City. After a shooting in those days, a homicide detective named Marty Davin would go to the hospital and intercept the gunshot victim on a gurney outside the emergency room. If the victim was conscious, Davin would lean over and ask, “Who killed you?”

That usually got the victim’s attention, along with an I’m-not-dead-yet protest. Davin would reply, “You are going to die. You might as well tell me who did it.”

As I interviewed the sponsor of whichever emissions-reduction bill had just been gunned down, I often thought of Davin. The politicians and climate campaigners would assure me that they were still alive — passage of a carbon cap was inevitable, they’d say — and I’d remind myself that they had survived countless near-death experiences.

But what happened last week, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he would not even try to bring a compromise climate bill to the Senate floor, was not just another setback. Sometimes dead really is dead — and for this Congress, barring a miracle, climate action is finished. With an ugly election looming in November, it may be years before we get another chance to debate a bill that prices carbon. And the consensus approach to federal climate action — the idea that cap-and-trade was the most politically viable policy — may well be dead, too.

This is a time to take stock. The first question is whether this was a failure of policy; a failure of politics, message, and messenger; or both? Second, is there a Plan B around which the climate campaign should now unify? And third, what needs to be done to allow a better outcome when the next opportunity finally does appear?

No one who follows climate politics could have been very surprised by Reid’s move. The bigger shock was his decision to remove from the bill a mandate that utilities must generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources. (Proponents hope to offer it as a floor amendment.) It was if the Senate was saying: Anything remotely effective, we’re not going to do.

When Reid pulled the plug, I thought back to a snowy afternoon in Copenhagen last December. Sitting with Al Gore in an empty hotel café, I asked him to contemplate this very moment. “If the United States doesn’t act,” he replied, “if the Senate defeats the legislation or waters it down to a point where it is not even worth having a bill, that is an event horizon beyond which it is difficult to see.”

He parsed the same issues then that climate campaigners are parsing now: “It may mean there is a fundamental flaw in the international political approach, but I’m not sure there is a good alternative. The reality is so dire that a new plan would have to emerge — but just now I can’t imagine what it would be.”

It was as if the Senate was saying: Anything remotely effective, we’re not going to do.

Gore had a point. When the goal is emissions reduction, there aren’t many alternatives: You’ve got to reduce emissions. The Plan B options now being offered by various advocates should be vigorously debated, but all of them seem vulnerable to the same polluted politics that killed the cap. Advocates of the carbon tax are ready to take a run at their goal, and Godspeed — but it is hard to see how politicians who were terrified to support a cap (because opponents labeled it a tax) will suddenly become bold enough to support a carbon tax. Policy groups such as the Breakthrough Institute argue that instead of making dirty fuels more expensive, it’s time for intensive energy research and development to make clean fuels cheaper. That sounds reasonable, but without the revenue stream that a cap or tax would provide — and in an era of budget cutbacks — it is hard to see government supplying the massive, long-term funding their plan requires.

Is the cap so fundamentally flawed that it should be abandoned forever? I don’t think so. I believe it needs to be liberated from legislative bloat and rehabilitated as a modest first step: a tool for regulating power sector emissions, the job it performed so successfully in the 1990s, when America tamed acid rain. It’s worth remembering that while climate politics were bogging down, climate policy mechanisms were being improved. Clever wonks found ways to cushion consumers and high-carbon industries from the price impact of the cap, while preserving a price signal for generators. Trading restrictions were added to keep speculators out of the carbon game. Though the term cap-and-trade has been demonized, the cap itself isn’t broken.

Some will argue that this latest setback is proof that the U.S. will never cap carbon. I reject that view. All we can say for sure is that the U.S. will never cap or price carbon until the politics of the issue change — so the first order of business must be to begin improving the political atmosphere. During the three years I worked on The Climate War, a narrative of the campaign to pass a carbon cap, I came to realize I was writing a political thriller, a whodunit with multiple culprits. Let’s look for lessons by considering some of the culprits, starting with the most obvious.

1. The Professional Deniers. Gore and environmental leaders made a tactical error several years ago when they declared the science “settled” and refused to engage the forces of denial and delay. The basic science was indeed settled, but the resulting message vacuum was the perfect medium for those who sow doubt and confusion about global climate change. It shouldn’t be surprising that so many Americans remain skeptical about global warming. For 20 years, this loose network of PR pros, working for industry associations and anti-tax think tanks, has spread doubt about climate science and fear about climate economics, claiming that any attempt to cap CO2 would wreck the American economy. Their disinformation, amplified via the Internet, helped poison the debate. To counter the deniers’ campaign, President Obama needs to speak out forcefully, and champions of the clean energy economy must point to the new jobs that are already being created by the renewable energy economy and show Americans precisely where they fit into it.

2. Senate Republicans. Most climate campaigners understand the folly of trying to remake the American energy system without bipartisan support. But it’s hard to forge centrist solutions when an entire party is denying there’s a problem and vilifying the solutions. A scaled-back approach, one that can be sold as a modest, incremental step and not a new industrial revolution, might fare better.

It’s hard to forge centrist solutions when an entire party is denying there’s a problem.

There was a time — 2007 and 2008, to be precise — when some Republicans were moving away from deny-and-delay tactics. (In 2007, briefly, Newt Gingrich supported the carbon cap.) More recently, opposition to climate action has become a litmus test in the GOP. Arizona Republican John McCain, who sponsored the Senate’s first serious climate bills but now faces a primary challenge from the right, recently called a successor bill “a farce.” His mantle of Republican climate courage passed to Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who took so much heat from his own party that he withdrew from the climate bill he helped write. Graham’s position has been incoherent since then, but he has signaled support for a cap on the power sector. That could be something to build on.

3. Senate Democrats. After Reid pulled the plug, Democrats were quick to blame Republicans for obstruction. But what about the obstructionists within the Democratic ranks? Harry Reid didn’t have the clout to force action on this issue because a dozen or more centrist Democrats — from states that either mine coal or produce much of their electricity from it — were dug in against it. It is impossible to tell if the senators were truly concerned about what the cap would do to their state economies — nonpartisan studies suggest its impact would be minimal — or just worried about what attack ads would do to them. Again, a more modest first step could change the dynamic. The crucial thing is to get started.

4. The Green Group. At a meeting in February 2007, the Green Group, an unofficial association of the leaders of the big U.S. environmental non-profits, told Harry Reid they supported a single legislative goal: An economy-wide cap. Their strategy was to assemble the broadest possible coalition to push the broadest possible bill. Given the magnitude of the crisis and the need to reduce emissions quickly, this made sense. Politically, though, it proved disastrous, because it led to bills of such cost, scope, and complexity that they scared the pants off timid legislators.

The Green Group wanted too much and ended up with nothing.

The Green Group held out for an economy-wide bill even after it became clear, in late 2009, that it was unachievable in the Senate. Only recently did environmental leaders try to negotiate a compromise cap on electric power plants, which account for 40 percent of U.S. emissions. Passing a utility cap would have been a great first step, but the talks got started too late. The Green Group wanted too much and ended up with nothing.

5. The Power Barons. When the eleventh-hour search for a compromise began, the utilities got too greedy. If they had to go it alone, they argued, they deserved virtually all of the carbon allowances in the program for free. This left too few for other crucial purposes, such as cushioning manufacturers from higher electricity prices. Worse, in exchange for supporting a carbon cap, some utilities demanded relief from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations governing conventional pollutants such as mercury. Like the greens, they asked for too much and got nothing. (The greens, however, were overreaching on behalf of the planet, not their own coffers.) Some utility bosses were relieved to see the bill die. Those feelings may prove short-lived as the battle to reduce emissions moves to the EPA and the courts.

Some advocates, such as Lee Wasserman of the Rockefeller Family Fund, regard the decision to negotiate with the power barons as the height of folly. Washington, they argue, should simply dictate the terms of surrender to the polluters. Such a stance ignores an important fact: It isn’t possible to remake the U.S. energy system without negotiating with the power barons. Punishing generators means punishing households that pay electricity bills. That doesn’t mean, however, that the politicians should give the barons everything they want. But there was only one player with the clout to cut a fair deal with them, and he was missing in action.

6. The President. Barack Obama chose not to lead on this issue. His decision to address health care reform before energy and climate change doomed the latter. With advisors Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod whispering that climate was a losing proposition (a self-fulfilling prophesy, to be sure), Obama never threw himself behind a particular climate bill. He left it to the Senate, the Green Group, and the power bosses — all of whom were sorely in need of adult supervision.

The real grownups in this tale were Rep. Henry Waxman and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who last year surprised the Obama Administration by taking a comprehensive climate bill to the House floor. The White House had no choice but to help whip the vote, and it passed. Then Obama stopped trying, and the Senate refused to take up the legislation. It was a colossal failure of nerve, and a decision that likely destroyed any chance of achieving climate action in Obama’s first term.

Since the president and his political advisers thought an economy-wide cap was too heavy a lift, Obama should have led a tactical retreat to what, in the past several months, became the last-ditch compromise position: the cap on the electric power sector. Had negotiations focused on this months ago instead of weeks ago, and had the president thrown his weight behind it then, we might today be celebrating a step forward instead of mourning another failure. Only Obama had the authority to call this audible early. The environmental NGOs and their allies were too invested in the economy-wide approach; they needed Obama to lead them.

Welcome to the ‘glorious mess’ — the tangle of regulation and litigation that follow when Congress fails to act.

He refused. To the bitter end, the White House pursued what his aides called a “stealth strategy” that deployed the president only sparingly. As a result, he failed to take advantage of the BP oil spill. When its terrible scope became apparent, in June, Obama began talking about the need to cap carbon and accelerate the transition to clean energy. But it was a fleeting moment. Many climate campaigners knew the climate bill was dead on June 15, when Obama gave his long-awaited Oval Office address on the oil spill. Instead of making an explicit connection to the climate bill — and explaining that by capping carbon the U.S. could speed its transition to clean energy and help break its addiction to fossil fuels — Obama whiffed. He had a road map but didn’t try to share it with the people. “We don’t yet know precisely how we’re going to get there,” he said. Today, with that map in shreds, we surely don’t.

As climate campaigners wait however long it takes to get another shot at legislation, there is important work to be done. Greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. have been dropping — and not just because of the recession. The task is to build on this trend during the economic recovery. Changes in our energy infrastructure are making this possible. In Texas, our highest-emitting state and a bastion of climate skepticism, carbon emissions have been declining since 2004 thanks in part to a renewable energy standard — signed into law by then-Gov. George W. Bush — that accelerated the installation of wind power and created thousands of jobs along the way.

The Department of Energy now has 7,000 clean energy projects across the country — projects that save money, create jobs, and reduce emissions. According to an analysis by the World Resources Institute, by leveraging existing authority over the next ten years the U.S. could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent to 12 percent below 2005 levels. This is far short of the 17 percent reduction Obama promised in Copenhagen and nothing close to what needs to be done. But if we continue cutting emissions before asking voters to embrace a cap, we prove that cuts are both technologically feasible and economically sustainable. And we’ll be in a better position when the next legislative opportunity comes.

Until then, the climate war will be waged by cities, states, regional cap-and-trade programs, and, above all, the EPA, which early next year is set to begin regulating stationary sources of CO2 — power plants and large factories.

Welcome to the “glorious mess” — Michigan Rep. John Dingell’s phrase for the tangle of regulation and litigation that will follow when Congress fails to act. We are about to experience precisely the sort of costly, protracted, plant-by-plant trench warfare the cap was intended to avoid. Since the utilities and the manufacturers weren’t willing to cut a deal, this is what they get. The fragile period of compromise and cooperation between environmentalists and big business may now be coming to an end. Green groups that have invested time and money into the legislative process are now putting on their war paint and returning to the courts, with a renewed focus on stopping new coal-fired power plants and shutting down the oldest and dirtiest ones.

Tough new EPA rules for conventional pollutants will help, and so will new EPA carbon regulations. Perhaps these strict new regulations will refresh the power bosses’ appetite for a cap. But they have plenty of lawyers, and the long, ugly battles over implementation of EPA regulations could extend the current period of uncertainty by many years. Republicans (and some Democrats) will try to strip EPA of its authority over carbon, or at least delay implementation of its new rules.

In effect, the Senate will be saying that Congress alone should have the power to act — so that it can then not exercise that power. Obama’s aides say the president will be fully engaged in the battle to save EPA authority over carbon. It is a fight that he can’t possibly duck, because it is our last line of defense. As Gore reminded me in Copenhagen, “The fact that this is extremely hard doesn’t mean we should quit.”

Article by Eric Pooley, appearing courtesy, Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Where is Cap & Trade Legislation Now?
• A Symbolic Solar Road Trip To Reignite a Climate Movement
• Stepping on the Smart Grid
• Copenhagen and Health Care Dim Chances for Passage of U.S. Climate Bill
• What the US Can Learn from Australia Going All-In on Carbon Tax

(Reuters) – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will unveil as early as Monday a slimmed-down energy bill seeking to make offshore drilling safer and convert trucks to run on domestic natural gas.

The full Senate could begin consideration of Reid’s bill on Tuesday and Democrats would like to pass it by the early part of the following week.

With time running short ahead of a month-long recess starting Aug 6, Democrats abandoned efforts last week to put climate-control measures in the bill. Reid said then that he had no Republican votes for items such as carbon caps and mandates requiring utilities to generate some of their power from alternatives sources such as wind and solar.

Reid said Congress could revisit climate legislation in September but lawmakers and analysts doubt there will be much appetite ahead of the mid-term elections in November.

And if Republicans pick up seats, as expected, the effort to put a price on carbon and cut emissions could be stalled for years, which would also hamper the Obama Administration’s efforts to take a lead role at the world climate talks.

The narrowed-down bill would hold BP Plc accountable for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and seek to prevent similar disasters, Reid said last week.

It will very likely include provisions to force companies to dole out more money to cover the costs of oil spills. The liability cap, which is currently $75 million, will likely be raised to $10 billion or more. One Senate committee passed a bill last month to lift all caps on liabilities.

The bill will also contain incentives to convert trucks to run on natural gas and to increase energy efficiency.

Analyst Kevin Book of ClearView Energy Partners LLC, said he expects the energy efficiency measure known as Home Star to include $5 billion in incentives for plugging window leaks and insulating attics.

The natural gas trucks incentives could cost the government $4.1 billion, compared to the $19 billion price tag for an earlier bill that had been endorsed by energy tycoon T. Boone Pickens, Book said.

To pay for these measures, lawmakers may consider raising taxes on the oil and gas industry.

“One possibility would be to raise the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund tax from 8 cents per barrel to 49 cents per barrel, which would raise approximately $18 billion,” said analyst Whitney Stanco of the Washington Research Group.

This fund, created in the aftermath of the Exxon-Valdez accident, helps pay claims for financial or property losses caused by oil spills.

Many expect the bill to pass as lawmakers may be eager to take action on the oil spill ahead of the elections.

Interest groups are lobbying to get measures boosting various energy sources attached to the bill. Environmentalists and clean energy advocates, in particular, are pushing to add a renewable power mandate, saying that without such measures, China would surpass the United States in alternative energy. But it’s unclear whether the groups have the support to accomplish this.

Article by Timothy Gardner and Ayesha Rascoe; edited by Eric Walsh; appearing courtesy Reuters.

photo: David Paul Ohmer

Related posts:

• Obama to Keep Pushing for Climate Bill
• Climate Bill Passage in U.S. Senate Increasingly Unlikely
• Climate Bill In Doubt as Democrats Delay Action
• Four Democratic Senators Want Cap-and-Trade Bill to be Postponed
• Will the U.S. Climate Bill Make it Through the Senate?

After a meeting between President Obama and a bipartisan group of U.S. senators, leading Senate proponents of climate and energy legislation say the only climate bill with a chance of passage this year would be a measure placing a cap on the carbon dioxide emissions of electric power utilities.

At least two Republican senators — Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine — involved in Tuesday’s meeting with Obama said they would support placing a cap and price on the CO2 emissions of utilities, provided that most or all of the proceeds were rebated to taxpayers.

A key sponsor of climate and energy legislation in the Senate, John Kerry (D-Mass), suggested he might be willing to drop his move to place a cap and a price on CO2 emissions throughout the economy in favor of a more limited bill capping the emissions of electric utilities. During the meeting with 23 senators, Obama “was very strong about the need to put a price on carbon pollution and make polluters pay,” said Sen. Joe Leiberman (I-Conn), although senators said Obama did not endorse any specific legislation.

A key to getting a climate and energy bill passed before the Senate recesses in August is the support of electric utilities, and the president of one utility — New Jersey-based PSEG — said his company would support a bill placing a cap and a price on CO2 emission for utilities.

photo: mangpages

Related posts:

• Obama to Keep Pushing for Climate Bill
• Will the U.S. Climate Bill Make it Through the Senate?
• Energy and Climate Bill Includes Offshore Drilling
• How Fixing the Filibuster Will Help Fix Climate Change
• Four Democratic Senators Want Cap-and-Trade Bill to be Postponed

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Senate is close to wrapping up talks ahead of introducing a compromise climate change bill, said a top Democratic lawmaker who discussed ideas with industry groups on Wednesday.

“We’re planning to button up our efforts somewhere I hope next week,” Senator John Kerry told reporters after meeting with a coalition that represents automakers, forestry and paper companies, Big Oil, steel, mining, electricity and others.

Kerry is working with Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and independent Senator Joseph Lieberman on a bill to require U.S. industry to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases associated with global warming.

Indicating there was still work to be done, Kerry said, “We’re trying to build support as we develop (bill) language.”

Bruce Josten, an executive vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, left Wednesday’s meeting with the three senators and told reporters: “They’re being very constructive; they’re trying to figure out how to make this work for the American economy.”

The measure will not take the exact approach of legislation approved by the House of Representatives in June, and by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in November. This would set an economy-wide “cap and trade” direction to reducing carbon pollution.

Kerry said that while “a lot of language is there” to craft legislation, “we don’t have a full outline” yet of a bill.

PRICE COLLAR AND FUEL FEES

The climate bill has been stalled in the Senate and supporters have missed several informal deadlines for producing and passing a bill.

Under cap and trade, companies would face limits on the amount of carbon pollution Washington would let them emit. Those limits would become stricter over the next 40 years, when supporters want an 80 percent reduction from 2005 levels. Also, required pollution permits could be sold on a regulated market.

The three senators also talked about pollution reductions of 17 percent by 2020 below 2005 levels, a goal President Barack Obama has embraced.

The Chamber of Commerce, which says it represents more than 3 million U.S. businesses of all sizes, is staunchly opposed to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of carbon dioxide.

The three senators said on Wednesday the bill would pre-empt the EPA from regulating the gases, said a source with knowledge of the meeting.

The EPA is ready to issue final regulations as early as March 31 for automobile carbon emissions. That would clear the way for expanding regulations to smokestack emissions, although the agency prefers Congress tackles that problem.

Instead of an economy-wide cap and trade, the three senators are aiming to impose the market system initially on power companies, which contribute about 40 percent of carbon emissions.

The senators are “talking about allowances for that sector that are built around pollution-reduction targets and prohibiting price spikes,” Josten said.

Power plants would face emissions limits starting in 2012 while big manufacturers and energy-intensive industry would not face limits until 2016, the source said.

The senators presented an eight-page outline to the industry groups but took it back at the end of the meeting, he added.

The bill would also include a hard price collar that would keep carbon prices between $10 and $30 a ton. Any polluter emitting below 25,000 tons a year would not be regulated, the source said.

As for a possible oil industry tax, the senators discussed a fee on fuels linked to the market price of carbon. The fee would be visible to consumers at petroleum pumps and on airline tickets, the source said.

A tax at the oil refinery level that would not be as visible to consumers has also been discussed by the senators.

Once a bill is put together, the Congressional Budget Office will analyze the potential costs to the federal government and the economy. EPA also is expected to conduct a six- to eight-week analysis of the bill before it could be debated on the Senate floor, possibly in June.

Article by Richard Cowan and Timothy Gardner, editing by Mohammad Zargham; appearing courtesy Reuters

Related posts:

• Obama to Keep Pushing for Climate Bill
• How Fixing the Filibuster Will Help Fix Climate Change
• Will the U.S. Climate Bill Make it Through the Senate?
• U.S. Senate Climate Bill To Focus on CO2 Cap on Utilities
• Senate Set for Energy, Environmental Bill Debate

Speaking with young climate activists on a conference call last Tuesday night, U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) said that even though the timing of his climate bill was tricky, it is doable.

Senator Kerry, co-author of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act along with Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Cali.), told the young leaders that he was confident the Senate would vote on a climate bill before the upcoming Copenhagen COP-15 climate talks in December, but he also tempered his optimism with a note of caution about what would kind of agreement would actually be reached at Copenhagen.

“I don’t expect Copenhagen to come up with a full treaty,” said Kerry, citing the short amount of time the negotiating teams will have to hammer out the technical specifics of a plan. Kerry said the important part would be agreeing to strong political targets and that the technical specifics could be hammered out in upcoming meetings.

Many believe that for the United States to be taken seriously in Copenhagen, negotiators need to come to the table having taken care of their own house first. But while that’s no easy task, Kerry and other Democratic strategists have reframed climate legislation in language more familiar to environmental activists of the 1960s and early 1970s — pollution. “We ought to fight about pollution again in America,” Kerry told the climate activists.

“[We need to] put pollution back in the front seat,” said Kerry, reminding the young activists that it was the pollution frame that was at the heart of landmark U.S. environmental legislation the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

Language in the Kerry-Boxer climate bill avoids the use of the now-loaded “cap and trade” terminology, replacing it with “Pollution Reduction Target”. Republicans have seized upon ‘cap and trade’ consistently calling it a “cap and tax” at every opportunity.

“We don’t call it cap and trade any more because it has a terrible image,” said Kerry.

Article by Timothy B. Hurst appearing courtesy of Celsias

Related posts:

• Kerry Lieberman Needs Renewed Cooperation
• Details of Boxer-Kerry Draft Cap-and-Trade Bill
• Deal on Senate Climate Change Bill Close
• More Optimism About Pre-Copenhagen Climate Progress
• Scientists Say Lugar Bill Impractical

Passage of climate change legislation in the U.S. Senate appears increasingly unlikely in the face of divisions among Democrats and stiff opposition by Republicans, the Washington Post reports.

Top Democrats have been unable to enlist key Republican lawmakers to support the bill, which would create a cap-and-trade system and gradually cut the level of carbon emissions allowed. One of the key Republicans targeted to back the bill, Sen. George V. Voinovich, R-Ohio, has instead led the opposition, organizing a boycott of the bill’s markup at a hearing of the Environment and Public Works Committee last week.

In recent days, Democrats have offered to include amendments to make the bill more palatable to lawmakers on the fence by accelerating the approval of new nuclear power plants. But even that may not be enough. A spokesman for Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, another lawmaker targeted by Democrats, said a “tepid nuclear title isn’t enough to get her to support a bad climate bill.” Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said a compromise remained possible since Americans are not divided on party lines when it comes to climate change. “Is there bipartisanship in the country? I think clearly there is,” Udall said.

Article appearing courtesy of Yale Environment 360

Related posts:

• Cap-and-Trade Bill To Face Tough Fight in U.S. Senate
• U.S. Senate Climate Bill To Focus on CO2 Cap on Utilities
• Copenhagen and Health Care Dim Chances for Passage of U.S. Climate Bill
• More Optimism About Pre-Copenhagen Climate Progress
• Will the U.S. Climate Bill Make it Through the Senate?

The U.S. Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, and a leading senator predicted that Congress will make good progress on climate legislation — and may even pass a bill — before a meeting in Copenhagen in December to forge an international treaty to slow global warming.

The remarks by Chu and Sen. Barbara Boxer of California were markedly more optimistic than those of President Obama’s chief climate and energy adviser, Carol Browner, who said 10 days ago that a U.S. climate bill would not be passed before Copenhagen.

Speaking to reporters in London, Chu said, “Whether there will be a bill on the president’s desk and he’ll sign it, I’m hopeful it will be… It will be tight, but there’s a good shot.” Boxer, one of two co-authors of a carbon cap-and-trade bill in the Senate, said the legislation would be passed by her committee soon, adding, “Certainly before Copenhagen, and we’re hoping maybe to even have it on the floor (of the Senate).”

Prospects for congressional passage of a bill placing a cap and a price on carbon emissions brightened over the weekend when a leading Republican senator, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, co-authored an op-ed article in the New York Times with Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts saying that he could support cap-and-trade legislation as long as it contained provisions encouraging the development of nuclear power and offshore oil.

Article appearing courtesy of Yale Environment 360.

[photo credit: Flickr]

Related posts:

• Kerry Says Cap and Trade Should Take Backseat to Pollution
• Nations Meet on Climate Cash, U.N. Sees Long Haul
• United States: UN Role in Climate Talks Should be Diminished
• Bolivia Assails Rich, Carbon Market at Cancun Talks
• Coal and the Road to Copenhagen: Win $10k for Clean Energy Project

Renewable energy and energy efficiency are key to solving crises in the economy, climate and security, said Al Gore on Friday (videos below).

The former vice president lauded fellow Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Barack Obama for efforts including an economic stimulus package with a significant renewable energy component.

“One way or another the reductions in emissions are about to accelerate,” said Gore at the conference of the Society of Environmental Journalists in Madison, Wis. “What is important, directly or indirectly, is that we put a price on carbon.”

He expressed hope that the U.S. Senate will pass a  bill similar to that of the House, even in advance of the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December. “There is much more bipartisan dialogue behind the scenes than is publicly visible,” he added.

Gore warned that failure to pass a strong international treaty at Copenhagen would be “catastrophic.”

Check out the footage below for more of Gore’s thoughts about how technology and business leaders can innovate and accelerate the adoption of a clean energy economy.

[photo and video credit: Elsa Wenzel]

Related posts:

• Should Al Gore Profit From Global Warming? Should Any of Us?
• Clean Tech Revolution In Need of a Green Gandhi. He May be Emerging.
• China is World Leader In Clean-Tech Investments, Report Says
• The Clean Coal Conundrum
• Top Ten Sustainability Initiatives of Al Gore