Kerry-Lieberman Bill Continues Dangerous Direction for U.S.

[G_j]

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/05/17-18

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 17, 2010
4:56 PM

CONTACT: Climate Reality Check

Kerry-Lieberman Bill Continues Dangerous Direction for U.S.

15 Groups Call on Congress to Choose Clean Energy, not Gulf-Style Disasters and Big Polluters

WASHINGTON - May 17 - The Climate Reality Check coalition (CRC)-consisting of faith, social justice, environmental, and other public interest organizations-announced today that the American Power Act introduced by Sens. John Kerry (MA) and Joe Lieberman (CT) is the wrong direction for U.S. climate and energy policy. The bill prioritizes reliance on offshore drilling and other dirty and dangerous technologies over effective pollution controls, clean energy, consumer protections, and creating real and just international climate solutions.

The coalition issued the following statement:

"The policies in the Kerry-Lieberman bill were wrong for the U.S. before the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and the Senate must recognize that they are wrong now. The well-being of our nation and the world are being sacrificed for the interests of big polluters, which continue to rake in record profits at the expense of the environment and the public. Our recent mining and drilling tragedies make clear that it's time to choose clean and safe renewable energy for our future. We need legislation that prioritizes clean industries and energy efficiency, and which protects the Clean Air Act, not the dirty industries causing these crises. We need legislation that is sufficiently ambitious in curbing greenhouse gas emissions and in meeting our responsibilities to developing nations which are bearing the disproportionate brunt of the effects of climate change."

The Climate Reality Check coalition is calling on senators to reject the American Power Act unless aggressive improvements are made. Members of the coalition agree that federal climate and energy legislation must:

RAPIDLY REDUCE POLLUTION Set an economy-wide cap on greenhouse emissions that is consistent with the best available science and that can be ratcheted down as necessary.

PRESERVE EXISTING TOOLS Preserve the Clean Air Act's requirement that harmful global warming pollution be reduced, and preserve states' authority to implement innovative solutions on their own.

REJECT LOOPHOLES Reject offsets and other loopholes that prevent pollution reductions from taking place in the U.S.

PROTECT FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIESProtect low- and middle- income families and vulnerable communities through stable, predictable, and transparent carbon pricing, and through low-income consumer protections and dividends.

INVEST IN CLEAN ENERGY Invest in the development and deployment of abundant clean energy and energy efficiency.

REJECT POLLUTER GIVEAWAYS Big polluters should pay when they pollute, not be handed giveaways.

LIVE UP TO OUR INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS The United States must be a leader in supporting and funding effective and just international climate solutions.

###
Climate Reality Check (www.climaterealitycheck.org) is a coalition of faith, social justice, environmental, and other public interest organizations calling for U.S. climate and energy policies that protect environmental, community, and economic health in the U.S. and around the world, and that hold big polluters accountable.



Climate Reality Check includes:

350.org Contact: May Boeve: 707-815-0054

Center for Biological Diversity Contact: Bill Snape: 202-536-9351

Climate Collaboration Network of Corporate Ethics International Contact: Anne Pernick: 503-459-6673

CREDO Action Contact: Adam Quinn: 415-369-2065

Friends Committee on National Legislation Contact: Devin Helfrich: 202.903.2520

Friends of the Earth Contact: Nick Berning: 202-222-0748

Global Exchange Contact: Reede Stockton: 415-613-4277

Greenpeace Contact: Kyle Ash: 202-441-1314

International Forum on Globalization Contact: Victor Menotti: 415-351-8065

International Rivers

NC WARN (North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network) Contact: Pete MacDowell: 919-259-3140

Public Citizen Contact: Allison Fisher: 704-604-3750

Rainforest Action Network Contact: Nell Greenberg: 510-847-9777 / Brianna Cayo Cotter: 415-305-1943

Sustainable Energy & Economy Network, Institute for Policy Studies Contact: Daphne Wysham: 202-510-3541

United Methodist Women

[joeybee12]

1. KNR...why do they think doing anything is better than nothing...

...Obama, everyone in Congress all seem to think if they pass something it's a good thing...yeah, the media only focuses on the process, but those of us--even though we are not Harvard-educated, mind you, know shit when they see it and will hold these turkeys accountable.

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. Silly Rabbits

Until these groups can buy a few Senators of their own, they will get nothing and like it!
That is the way American politics is played these days. Corporate interests have rigged the game by making the level of entry so high that only those candidates that come on their knees for a blessing get the cash.

Joe Lieberman now nakedly represents nobody but Joe Lieberman. You can bet that his role as "spoiler" for meaningful health care will be rewarded quite handsomely.

[Lost4words]

3. I hope so, It would be good therapy for me to never see or hear Joe Joe

the dog faced boy again.

[blm]

4. Unfortunately, it was 14 Dem senators who forced the ditching of the tougher Kerry-Boxer bill

submitted earlier. The 14 (inc Franken and Feingold) claimed the regulations would be too tough for their states.

This bill reflects compromises forced by other Dems.

Maybe common dreams wasn't paying attention then.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/61053-kerry-and-boxer-launch-climate-debate-
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-11-12-fourteen-democratic-senators-stick-up-for-coal/

[ProSense]

6. Yup,

Progressives 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

This was pointed out last year, and I bet that very few people called these Senators.

The current climate bill will have a tough time passing, but it will not pass without the support of the above Senators.

Of course, urgency aside, Democrats could put off the climate bill for another decade or two.

[ProSense]

5. This is simply not true

Friends of the Earth did a Q&A at Daily Kos recently, and it's clear, they are simply playing obstructionists.

Live Q&A: Erich Pica, President Friends of the Earth

Q: Even though Senator Graham has already walked away from the bill, this appears to be legislation that's at best moderate and incorporates much of the changes Republicans have suggested over the
years. Do you see anything here to excite progressives?

EP: Senator Kerry is urging progressives and environmentalists to support the bill because he doesn’t think a stronger bill can’t overcome a Senate filibuster. His argument is that the next Congress will not have as large a Democratic majority and so now’s the time to move. (You can read his pitch to progressives here.)

That argument would make sense to us if the bill made at least incremental progress. But our reading is that on balance, the bill is actually a backward step. There’s a reason polluting corporations like Shell Oil and Duke Energy are supporting it. The bill rolls back key parts of the Clean Air Act, puts limits on the ways states can innovate, gives multibillion-dollar handouts to polluting industries, and expands offshore drilling. This bill sacrifices too much in exchange for inadequate pollution reduction targets that will likely be achieved anyway.

The theory was that these concessions might be enough to get polluting industries and right-leaning senators on board, but so far we haven’t seen that happen. Not a single Republican senator is supporting the bill, and many Democratic senators (on the left and in the center) don’t seem all that impressed either. So we’ve basically given away a whole bunch of stuff to the other side, and appear to have received nothing in return.

Q: If the bill came to the floor as currently written, would Friends of the Earth view it as a step forward or a step back? Would you
support this bill?

EP: Our view is that this bill is a step backward, and we cannot support it in its current form. That doesn’t mean we wouldn’t support the bill later if it were substantially improved.

To be fair, there are some positive parts of this bill. There are some incentives for plug-in electric cars and for smart urban development, both of which would reduce emissions from the transportation sector. But really, I’m grasping for straws. Are we supposed to be excited over the fact that the bill only rolls back parts of the Clean Air Act, or that it gives states the option to veto drilling up to 75 miles from their shores, or that it will only preempt some state-level initiatives?

And there are alternatives. In particular, one that merits consideration is Senators Cantwell and Collins’ CLEAR Act. It isn’t a perfect bill, either, but it protects the Clean Air Act and doesn’t have all of these giveaways to polluting industries. And unlike the Kerry-Lieberman bill, it’s already got a Republican senator on board and has the interest of consumer groups like AARP, so it seems like it would have a better shot at getting 60 votes. Why hasn’t it received as much attention as Kerry-Lieberman?

In the end, if it’s impossible to pass a strong comprehensive, economy-wide bill in the Senate this year -- one that imposes rigorous limits on greenhouse gas emissions and isn’t chock full of giveaways -- then we shouldn’t be trying to push through a second- or third-rate product. The Clean Air Act and other tools already exist that can start the process of reducing emissions, while we build the support that’s needed to get senators on board with a real climate bill.

Some of the responses were spot on:

I just can't get over this line of reasoning

Our view is that this bill is a step backward, and we cannot support it in its current form.

How is putting a limit on carbon emissions a step backward? I mean, I have reservations with this bill as well, particularly with the domestic exploration provisions, but I simply don't think the permitted levels of international offsets truly makes this bill a "step backward".

A real step backward is not taking action, and I'm disappointed that the environmental movement is once again making the perfect the enemy of the good at a crucial moment in history.

link

Concerns about using Clean Air Act to...regulate carbon:

1. Wasn't written with carbon in mind -- wrong tool for the job.
   
2. EPA action is slow -- look how long it's taken Lisa Jackson to move. She's doing a great job but is hampered by rulemaking process.
   
   
3. EPA rules can be subverted by a Republican President. Look what Bush did to Appalachia simply by redefining "stream."]

Your response?

link

FOE response:

Concerns over the Clean Air Act

Thanks for the question RLMiller, here are a few thoughts. These are complicated questions here are few quick answers.

1. The Clean Air Act was intended to regulate all air pollutants and contemplates carbon dioxide in Section 103(g) which identifies carbon dioxide from stationary sources as a pollutant. So it’s flat out incorrect that the Clean Air Act isn’t intended to deal with CO2.
   
   
2. We are going to have rulemaking processes regardless of the regulatory regime. This bill will have rules on offsets, market construction as well as other areas that are being set-up and need EPA interpretation.
   
   
3. The environmental community has been quite successful in suing the EPA when it changes rules that violate the intent of the law. We will have to be vigilant under any regime or administration.

We shouldn't throw out the Clean Air Act for this bill.

Commentor:

"The environmental community has been quite...successful in suing the EPA <...>"

The environmental community just lost in a suit against the EPA giving Shell permission to drill in the Arctic.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37137262/ns/sports
It's up to Salazar now.

I wouldn't put my faith in the courts protecting The Clean Air Act in the future. All they have to do, is deem that EPA was doing a good job (Brownie).

Also, there are numerous Environmental groups calling on President and 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

Live Q & A: Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune

Q: The bill expands potential areas for offshore drilling and appears to offer states incentives for opening their waters through enhanced profit-sharing. Though there are mechanisms for states to try and block drilling offshore in neighboring states, the mechanism appears to be very favorable to opening areas. Is this at all viable in the face of what we're currently seeing in the Gulf?

MB: We are calling for a reinstatement of the presidential moratorium and are working with the administration to secure protections for our oceans.

This bill does not achieve our goal of protecting our oceans, and the revenue sharing provision increases the risk of drilling. Thankfully, the bill does not expand offshore drilling, and does not call for leasing in areas previously protected by the Congressional drilling moratorium. The bill also provides a temporary moratorium on any new offshore drilling until the cause of the BP Oil Disaster is determined and the Secretary of the Interior certifies it is safe.

The bill outlines key protections, which need to be expanded: Liability Mechanism, Improved Safety Measures and Clean Up Technology. The bill calls for all three, but there are no details in the bill.

Impact Studies. Allows impacted states to veto drilling in nearby states eligible to receive revenue sharing. The bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to study the environmental and economic impact of a potential oil spill on neighboring states eligible for revenues sharing before drilling can occur. For example, if the DOI study documents that an oil spill from Virginia would pollute beaches in New Jersey, its legislature could pass a law vetoing drilling off the coast of Virginia.

Allows states to establish a 75-mile drilling buffer. There is currently no buffer zones in place for the Atlantic or Pacific coasts; the bill gives states the opportunity to petition the Department of the Interior for a 75-mile no leasing, no drilling, buffer zone.

Here in the United States, the House of Representatives has passed a meaningful plan to move America in the same direction and reestablish our capacity to provide leadership in the world community on the most important issue facing the world today. The Senate, however, has struggled for the last 17 months to find enough votes to take up its own version of the same legislative plan. The unpleasant reality now spilling onto the shores of the Gulf Coast is creating public outrage and may also be generating a new opportunity to pass legislation, just as the oil spill 20 years ago from the Exxon Valdez created public momentum sufficient to overcome the anti-environment special interests. There is new hope that by the time the gusher from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico is capped, so will carbon emissions from the burning of oil and coal.

It is understandable that the administration will be focused on the immediate crisis in the Gulf of Mexico. But this is a consciousness-shifting event. It is one of those clarifying moments that brings a rare opportunity to take the longer view. Unless we change our present course soon, the future of human civilization will be in dire jeopardy. Just as we feel a sense of urgency in demanding that this ongoing oil spill be stopped, we should feel an even greater sense of urgency in demanding that the much larger and more dangerous ongoing emissions of global warming pollution must also be stopped to make the world safe from the climate crisis that is building all around us.

Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States, is chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection.

Al Gore

“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

Kerry-Lieberman Climate Proposal Does Well on Consumer Relief

Senators Kerry and Lieberman performed CPR on climate policy yesterday, releasing a discussion draft of the bill they have been crafting with Senator Graham. Admittedly, Congress is still a long way from passing a comprehensive climate and energy bill. But in an area of particular concern to the Center — protecting vulnerable low-income households — the senators have done a good job.

Like the climate bill the House passed last year, the Kerry-Lieberman proposal includes a robust program of direct payments (“energy refunds”) for low-income households. The refunds are large enough to protect the typical household in the poorest 20 percent of the population from incurring a financial loss as a result of the policies necessary to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. (The bottom 20 percent consists of households with incomes below roughly 150 percent of the poverty line, or about $33,000 for a family of four.)

The refund program is very similar to the one in the House bill (which we analyzed here). We’ll have a full analysis soon, but here are the highlights:

• Households with incomes at or below 150 percent of the poverty line will be eligible to receive monthly energy refunds by direct deposit or through states’ electronic benefit transfer (EBT) systems, the debit-card systems states use to deliver food stamps and other federal benefits.
  
  
• Households that receive food stamps, as well as low-income seniors and people with disabilities who participate in the Supplemental Security Income program, will be enrolled for the energy refunds automatically. Other households will have to apply for them.
  
  
• Households with slightly higher incomes — between 150 and 250 percent of the poverty line, or about $33,000 -$55,000 for a family of four — will be eligible for a smaller tax credit. The credit will be refundable, meaning that if the amount of a family’s credit exceeds its income tax liability, it can receive the difference in the form of a refund check.

It’s encouraging that the new proposal, like the House-passed bill, follows the soundest approach to protecting low-and moderate-income consumers in a comprehensive energy and climate bill: providing direct assistance through state EBT systems and refundable tax credits. This approach is effective in reaching these households, efficient (with low administrative costs), and consistent with the goal of encouraging energy conservation.