Tell your Senators: Oppose Dirty Energy Climate Bill

[Eric J in MN]

Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) have now released their long-stalled "climate" bill. We put "climate" in quotes because addressing the climate crisis seems like an afterthought in this bill, which provides enormous taxpayer bailouts to the dirtiest energy companies in the world.

*$54 billion in new taxpayer loans for new nuclear reactor construction, plus new tax breaks for nuclear utilities.

*Speeding up the nuclear reactor licensing process, even though the independent Bipartisan Policy Center found the industry to blame for the pace of licensing.

*Billions for the oxymoron of "clean" coal.

*Despite the calamitous BP oil spill, continued support for offshore oil drilling.

*Removal of EPA authority to regulate carbon emissions.

*And carbon reduction goals so modest (just 17% reduction from 2005 levels by 2020) that we can easily exceed them without this dirty energy bailout.

http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5502/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=3016

[karynnj]

1. Maybe you should have asked your Senators Franken and Klobichar to unsign the coal letter

The Senate that Kerry et al had to get 60 votes from included the 14 Democratic coal state Senators that demanded concessions for the coal industry. Tell me how we get a bill passed - without the concessions you are against - when none of the activists even thought of going after these Senators to change their minds. (Or those like Webb and Warner who insisted on more drilling.)

All I can say is that the left groups pushing this are siding with Senator Inhofe. The result will not be a better, more environmentally strong bill - but the energy only bill. The fact is Kerry and Lieberman are two of the strongest environmentalists in the Senate - Kerry is the strongest. He is also a good enough legislator that he can count votes.

Maybe your effort should have been to move your Senators to back Kerry/Boxer, which was a stronger bill.

Here is the letter that they signed - http://coloradoindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/14Dems.pdf

[politicasista]

2. No comment?

That sounds gross that the left is siding with Inhofe :puke: on this.

And me likes Al too.

[ProSense]

3. More hyperbole. The largest environmental groups support this bill

Environmental groups call on President, Congress to pass climate bill this year

Environmental groups call on President, Congress to pass climate bill this year

Washington, DC (May 12, 2010) – The following groups today released this statement regarding U.S. Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman unveiling details of their comprehensive clean energy and climate proposal:

"Today's action by Senators John Kerry (Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (Conn.) jumpstarts the Senate debate over America's energy future. Their unwavering leadership has been critical to the progress made thus far. It is time for America's leaders to get serious about a comprehensive clean energy and climate policy that will reduce our oil dependence, enhance our security, revitalize our economy and protect our environment.

"Every day the Senate fails to pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation we put our economy, our national security and our environment at greater risk. Americans overwhelmingly support action on clean energy and climate. Inaction is too costly, and the challenge is too urgent. The Gulf Coast oil catastrophe is yet another reminder that the United States must reduce its dependence on oil to protect our security, economy and environment.

"The millions of Americans we represent demand a Senate vote on comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation. President Obama and leaders of both parties in Congress must provide the leadership necessary to develop a clean energy and climate solution that becomes law this year."

Alliance for Climate Protection
Audubon
Center for American Progress Action Fund
Ceres
Climate Solutions
Defenders of Wildlife
ENE (Environment Northeast)
Environment America
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Law and Policy Center
Fresh Energy
Green For All
League of Conservation Voters
National Tribal Environmental Council
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
The Nature Conservancy
Oxfam America
Sierra Club
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
The Wilderness Society
Union of Concerned Scientists
World Wildlife Fund

"*Billions for the oxymoron of "clean" coal."

Call these Senators: Fourteen Democratic senators stick up for coal

Senator Tom Harkin
Senator Al Franken
Senator Roland Burris
Senator Byron Dorgan
Senator Herb Kohl
Senator Russell Feingold
Senator Kent Conrad
Senator Michael Bennet
Senator Amy Klobuchar
Senator Mark Udall
Senator Robert Byrd
Senator Cark Levin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Sherrod Brown


"*Removal of EPA authority to regulate carbon emissions."

Wrong.


Senator Kerry:

Clean Air Act: This part of the bill has generated a lot of commentary and reporting recently, and some of it has just missed the mark. Here's the deal: This bill does not take the EPA out of the mix on regulating carbon. In fact, it strengthens the Clean Air Act by expanding the authority of the EPA and making that authority permanent. First, the entire pollution-reduction program is under the authority of the EPA. The bill specifically requires the EPA to regulate large sources of carbon pollution, but it does not allow it to issue what in many cases would be duplicative regulation of the same sources. Essentially, what the bill says is that EPA should use the program specifically designed for making the deep reductions in carbon pollution called for in the bill. The bill preserves key Clean Air Act tools for sources not in the program, and it calls on EPA to continue setting tough emission standards to reduce global-warming pollution from cars and trucks. It also continues EPA's ability to set performance standards for old, dirty power plants to make sure they clean up.

[politicasista]

4. Nah, DU gotta leave favorites alone

and blame the Senator. :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Eric J in MN]

6. The bill weakens regulation of nuclear power.

That is enough for me to oppose it.
=======================================

The draft bill led by Senator John Kerry will contain loan guarantees, protections against regulatory delays...

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2010/04/climate_bill_calls_for_12_nuclear_plants.php
=======================================

[karynnj]

17. Regulatory detays are NOT weakening of regulation"

It is perfectly reasonable to ask for doing reviews in an expeditious manner. Kerry has ALWAYS spoken of the need for careful investigation of anything with environmental impact - even when doing so came with a political cost. For at least 6 years, he gave exactly the same response on Cape Wind - he was for (and excited by) wind power, but he could not endorse the project until it passed every environmental test. That answer was never enough for those in favor - and those against it knew that he would be a supporter if it passed the tests. That position was used against him - with some saying he was not in favor - and therefore against it - making him a hypocrite.

It is very reasonable to say that the process should be looked at and streamlined if possible - nothing was said of making the requirements less or the tests less stringent.

Have you considered going after your Senators yet on their coal positions?

[politicasista]

19. Or going after those that may be on the fence? n/t

[Eric J in MN]

21. This is how Public Citizen describes it

"At its core, this legislation is all about promoting nuclear power and handing taxpayers the bill. Consider: - Sections 1101 and 1105 would prioritize the needs of nuclear power corporations over the rights of citizens to have full, public hearings about the risks and dangers of locating nuclear power plants in their communities."

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/05/12-18

[karynnj]

33. That does not mean they are correct

Here, what is more likely is that Public Citizen simply wants there to be no nuclear plants built - as was the case for 3 decades. (Mostly because it is a high cost source of energy - and unless other cheaper sources became more expensive, it would never happen.)

Note that Public Citizen is not primarily an environmental organization. Most of the oldest, strongest, most respected environmental groups have the complete opposite opinion on this bill.

Common dreams has done nothing but cover negative opinions here - I suspect their agenda is that they do want a combined energy/climate bill - but just a climate bill. the fact is that would never pass. My impression of Common Dreams is that they always seem to be more impressed by style and words over solid accomplishment.

[orwell]

5. I take it you are against the bill...

...so you go out of your way to highlight only the parts that you don't like.

There is a lot in this bill that is a major step forward.

[Eric J in MN]

7. Such as? NT

NT

[karynnj]

18. Simplest answer - it sets a price on carbon

That means that every power plant and eventually every company will include the cost of carbon when assessing alternatives. This will mean that they will be willing to pay for technology that reduces carbon enough to pay for itself.

Here is a more complete answer from the Senate's leading environmentalist, who incidentally is married to someone with her own environmentalist credentials.

[politicasista]

8. Bingo.

Some people just want Obama to fail no matter what. Not saying that the OP does, but those with shady agendas.

[amborin]

9. it helps Wall Street:

Climate Bill Is a Misnomer: It’s a Nuclear Energy-Promoting, Oil Drilling-Championing, Coal Mining-Boosting Gift to Polluters

Statement of Tyson Slocum, Director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program

WASHINGTON - May 12 - After half a year of delay, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) are set to release their nuclear energy/cap-and-trade bill today. Until we see legislative text, we can comment only on the broad outline made available yesterday and an additional summary being circulated among legislative staff.

It's not accurate to call this a climate bill. This is nuclear energy-promoting, oil drilling-championing, coal mining-boosting legislation with a weak carbon-pricing mechanism thrown in. What's worse, it guts the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) current authority to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Here's our take on what we know is in the new bill:

Nuclear Power Incentives

At its core, this legislation is all about promoting nuclear power and handing taxpayers the bill. Consider: - Sections 1101 and 1105 would prioritize the needs of nuclear power corporations over the rights of citizens to have full, public hearings about the risks and dangers of locating nuclear power plants in their communities. - Section 1102 increases loan guarantees primarily for nuclear power to a jaw-dropping $54 billion. These loans are a terrible deal for the taxpayer, especially considering the high risk of default that even the government acknowledges. - Section 1103 provides $6 billion in taxpayer-subsidized risk insurance for 12 new nuclear reactors. - Section 1121 allows nuclear power plant owners to write off their depreciation much faster. Section 1121 provides a 10 percent investment tax credit for new reactors. - Section 1123 extends the Advanced Energy Project credit to nuclear reactors. - Section 1124-6 allows municipal power agencies to derive certain tax, bond and grant benefits from investing in nuclear power.

Oil

Apparently oblivious to the ongoing disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, the legislation expands offshore drilling. In fact, all new offshore drilling, leasing and permitting should be halted.

Section 1202 allows states to keep 37.5 percent of oil and gas royalty money. That's like saying because more rich people live in California and New York compared to Mississippi and New Mexico, those higher-income states should be able to keep more federal dollars raised from income taxes. Royalty revenue sharing is patently unfair - especially because the disaster in Gulf shows that an oil spill does not respect state boundaries.

Coal

Section 1412 establishes a carbon tax paid by ratepayers and collected by utilities to fund carbon capture and storage (CCS) - with no money allocated to rooftop solar or energy efficiency investments. Section 1431 will provide valuable emissions allowances for free to coal utilities pursuing CCS - an untested, risky strategy that benefits the coal industry and is gobbling up a lion's share of subsidies that otherwise could go to renewable energy development.

Merchant coal power plants (whose rates are not regulated) will get roughly 5 percent of the free allowances, which will provide opportunities for them to gouge consumers.

And while the nuclear and coal industries will receive a lot of taxpayer money and loan guarantees, Section 1604 states that "voluntary" renewable energy markets are "efficient and effective programs" and states that "the policy of the United States is to continue to support the growth of these markets." This is backward: Renewable energy should be getting the guarantees, rather than the coal and nuclear industries.

Offsets

The legislation allows entities to "reduce" their domestic greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing offsets from projects located in the U.S. and around the world. The recent offset crisis in Europe, where the offset market collapsed due to fraud, underscores the lack of accountability and transparency with offsets.

Consumer Protections Rather than follow President Barack Obama's cap-and-dividend plan, which would have required polluters to pay and would have distributed 80 percent of the money directly to families through the Making Work Pay tax credit, or the Cantwell-Collins CLEAR Act, which calls for distributing monthly checks to households, the Kerry-Lieberman approach relies on distributing valuable free allowances to utilities from 2013-2029, then requiring that utilities use the money "exclusively for the benefit of the ratepayers." But Congress won't be defining "benefit"; rather, 50 different state utility commissions will. Some will do a great job, but most will allow utilities to structure expensive energy efficiency programs that benefit shareholders more than ratepayers.

Wall Street

It appears that Wall Street may not have gotten everything it wanted - yet. The legislation appears to incorporate elements of S.1399, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), which creates an Office of Carbon Market Oversight at the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), giving the agency authority to regulate spot and futures emission markets. It requires all entities seeking to trade emissions derivatives to register and be approved by the CFTC, and all transactions must be cleared through a CFTC-regulated Carbon Clearing Organization. This is a good start to ensure that Wall Street plays no role in gambling on climate policy.

Danger remains, however, in creating carbon trading markets open to non-energy producers. Strong regulations in place today may be easily subverted tomorrow, leaving Wall Street positioned to control our climate future.

Conclusion

The Kerry-Lieberman bill represents a missed opportunity. By meeting behind closed doors, the lawmakers empowered corporate polluters to play an oversized role in influencing the legislation to the detriment of the climate and consumers. President Obama had it right when he successfully campaigned on a theme of making polluters pay and delivering benefits directly to households.

We need a bill that does not incentivize failed and dangerous technologies like nuclear power and does not enrich utilities at the expense of consumers."

[Union Yes]

10. Agree. This bill enables more of the same shit that is poisoning our home.

Did corporate America write this sell-out piece of ... err legislation?

knr

[politicasista]

11. Gore supports this too

More power to him. :)

[Eric J in MN]

12. Did Al Gore say that he supports this bill? NT

NT

[ProSense]

13. Al Gore:

from his site

John Kerry and Joe Lieberman will unveil their climate and green jobs bill on May 12:

“New legislation to limit U.S. greenhouse gases and boost “clean energy” production will be released May 12, Senators John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman, the authors of the measure, said today.”

“Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, and Lieberman, a Connecticut independent, said in an e-mailed statement they believe they can “secure the necessary votes to pass this legislation this year.””

We are on the road to passing the most important environmental legislation in a generation. That's why during the next few weeks I’ll be asking for your help to show the Senate that we demand they pass this vital legislation. This is our best opportunity to put America on the path to solving the climate crisis, and I know you’ll get the job done.

But some of the largest and most influential environmental groups in the country said now is the time to "get serious about a comprehensive clean energy and climate policy that will reduce our oil dependence, enhance our security, revitalize our economy and protect our environment."

These groups said, "Every day the Senate fails to pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation we put our economy, our national security and our environment at greater risk. Americans overwhelmingly support action on clean energy and climate. Inaction is too costly, and the challenge is too urgent. The Gulf Coast oil catastrophe is yet another reminder that the United States must reduce its dependence on oil to protect our security, economy and environment."

This coalition of groups includes Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection, the League of Conservation Voters, and Ceres, which represents investors who handle trillions of dollars and also: Audubon, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Climate Solutions, Defenders of Wildlife, Environment Northeast, Environment America, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Fresh Energy, Green For All, National Tribal Environmental Council, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Nature Conservancy, Oxfam America, Sierra Club, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, The Wilderness Society, Union of Concerned Scientists, and the World Wildlife Fund.

"The millions of Americans we represent demand a Senate vote on comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation," they said today. "President Obama and leaders of both parties in Congress must provide the leadership necessary to develop a clean energy and climate solution that becomes law this year."

link

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Of course Al Gore supports this bill.

Al Gore is (A.) pro-environment, and (B.) not a dumbass.

[politicasista]

15. Yep. See link below

Courtesy of ProSense.

[truedelphi]

16. Which Senators do we tell? Do any of them listen to us? n/t

[politicasista]

20. Call Inhofe, etc.

The OP has yet to answer that question because he is too busy going after one of the main environmentalists in the Senate, instead of calling up those that are against this or on the fence, as imperfect as this bill is. It is better than nothing.

[Eric J in MN]

22. Please contact your two Senators. NT

NT

[politicasista]

23. See you still have

not answered karynnj's question about going after yours and other Senators that support coal.

[Eric J in MN]

25. I'm more concerned about nuclear. NT

NT

[politicasista]

26. So have you called

your sens, what about others that are on the fence on the nuclear issue?
karynnj asked you a question, and you have not answered to her.

[Eric J in MN]

28. I have contacted my Senators with my concerns about nuclear power. NT

NT

[politicasista]

29. Ok. Still something is better than nothing n/t

[Eric J in MN]

31. The problem of nuclear leaks

...makes me prefer no-bill to a bill which promotes nuclear power.

New Jersey

http://www.app.com/article/20100507/NEWS/100507060/DEP-launches-new-probe-into-Oyster-Creek-s-radioactive-water-leak



The state Friday ordered the owner of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant to cooperate with its investigation into the release last year of radioactive tritium that threatens local drinking water supplies.

State Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bob Martin said the agency issued a Spill Act directive to power plant owner Exelon Corp. The directive not only compels the plant's cooperation, but also requires Exelon to install deeper groundwater monitoring wells and to prevent the tritium from ever reaching the region's drinking water.

"There is a problem here," Martin said in a prepared statement. "I am worried about the continuing spread of the tritium into the groundwater and its gradual moving toward wells in the area. The DEP must identify the risk and determine how to deal with the problem. This is not something that can wait."

[politicasista]

32. So scrap it completely?

Yep. That'll show 'em.

It would be better to call our Senators and ask for input in strengthening the bill rather than voting no to destroy it.


Have it your way. Peace.

[karynnj]

34. I will - and I will ask Lautenberg and Menendez to vote for it

and they very likely will.

[Raine1967]

24. So what SHOULD we do?

We cannot keep going on the way we are.

What is the solution, besides opposition? Not being snarky here, I am as opposed to things like clean coal and offshore drilling as the next person -- but what is the solution -- how do we change? How do we get off of oil and coal in a way that is pragmatic and common sensical?

We don't want Oil.
We don't want Coal.
We don't want Nuclear.

How do we transom from those things to wind and solar? AND -- has any country in the world completely done this? Are their any countries that are completely running on renewable energy?

My big issue with this bill is subsidies more than Nuclear power.

So I ask again -- what is the solution?

[Eric J in MN]

27. I want Congress to increase funding for wind and solar

...using budget reconciliation, so that there doesn't have to be any concessions to Republicans tied to the funding.

[Raine1967]

30. So do I. That said --

Do we just stop using all these other sources of energy?

I want to impress that I am not trying to be contrarian or dismissive. We cannot get to wind and Solar with the flick of a switch.
as was mentioned earlier up thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8329851&mesg_id=8329978

And it should be mentioned that budget reconciliation is a tenuous tactic being that it can be overturned if the Dems lose the majority.

I ask again -- what do we do to transition? You cannot just rip the tubes out of a nation that has lived off of fossil fuels, insert wind and solar and expect it to survive. This is a start. I wanted a stronger start, but have you seen how strong the corporate interests are in Washington?

I know you have. I suggest making phone calls asking our representatives to strengthen this bill -- not vote no.

Nothing is far worse than the alternative at this point.

[Eric J in MN]

36. We can't just stop using other sources of energy,

...but we can decide not to build new nuclear power plants.

[karynnj]

35. They have increased fundng for all of this in the bill

They can not use reconciliation for this. You need language in the budget bill to do so - and it is not there. In addition, beyond it not being there an amendment passed prohibiting that. Look at the Democrats who voted for it:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Johanns Amdt. No. 735 )
Vote Number: 126 Vote Date: April 1, 2009, 05:51 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 735 to S.Con.Res. 13 (No short title on file)
Statement of Purpose: To prohibit the use of reconciliation in the Senate for climate change legislation involving a cap and trade system.
Vote Counts: YEAs 67
NAYs 31
Not Voting 1

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---67
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs ---31
Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 1
Kennedy (D-MA)

[Eric J in MN]

37. That amendment is about cap-and-trade,

...not more spending on wind and solar.