Kerry-Lieberman climate bill: The details

[ProSense]

Kerry-Lieberman climate bill: The details

by Eric de Place

Editor's Note: Please bear in mind that this is a "first read" of a very large piece of legislation. It was researched and written within 24 hours of the bill's publication.

The Kerry-Lieberman climate bill emerged yesterday mid-morning, weighing in at 987 pages. (Hey, changing the entire energy economy ain't easy.) Like the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the U.S. House of Representatives last summer, the American Power Act is a comprehensive energy and climate bill. That means it touches a wide range of issues, from nuclear energy development to electric vehicles to offshore oil drilling. To find the full text of the bill, as well as several summaries, go to Senator Kerry’s website.

As I examine the nuts and bolts of the bill, I’ll post updates for readers. I am not, however, going to weigh in on every element in the bill. Instead, I’m going to focus mainly on the bill’s climate centerpiece: its cap-and-trade program. And I’m not going to focus on the politics – you can find armchair pundits all over the blogosphere – but rather on the policy itself.

<...>

Kerry-Lieberman in its current draft form gives us plenty of causes for heartburn, from the minor (international aviation exemption) to the major (the abundance of offsets). But it’s actually better than I had allowed myself to hope for. Remember, we’re talking about the U.S. Senate here, an institution that gives disproportionate influence to small-population states and then requires a supermajority. I had expected a bill that was substantially weaker and more compromised than the House’s Waxman-Markey. Kerry-Lieberman is not. Aside from the massive handouts it pays to the nuclear power industry, my initial read tells me that it’s mostly better than Waxman-Markey: better market regulation, better consumer protection, and better offsets rules.

A comprehensive energy and climate bill like this one is a game-changer. It marks a fundamental, and I think irrevocable shift, in our way of doing business. It puts a bounty on carbon, and it marks out a clear path to a world where carbon emissions are a curiosity.

[LakeSamish706]

1. Just having Lieberman's name on this bill gives one cause for alert IMHO. n/t

[Jennicut]

3. Lieberman is terrible at economic issues and foreign policy.

But he does not have a bad record on environmental issues. Of course, it is political calculation to get us to like him again in CT but it is simply too late for Jomentum.

[ProSense]

5. It shouldn't be considered because Lieberman's name is on it.

That logic doesn't bode well for Cantwell-McCain's bill to reinstate Glass-Steagall, does it?

[phleshdef]

6. I view Lieberman as generally liberal on most things. But he has a hawkish streak and a petty ego.

He puts himself before principle and allows the fear card to be played against his own judgement. A guy like that shouldn't be a lawmaker.

[AlinPA]

20. I don't trust him working on a climate bill. Maybe Kerry is working with him to appear bipartisan

because Lieberman represents the republicans.

[karynnj]

25. Leiberman is good on the environment

In 2006, you were for Edwards, likely trusting him on this issue - yet he had a 60 something lifetime LCV score to Leiberman's score in the mid 90s. The fact is that when Leiberman was picked, his excellent positions on environment and his strong civil rights stand - he was one of the Northern college students who went to the South to register voters, were the main things known - other than him condemning Clinton's behavior.

No one in the Senate is perfect. In general, the bills where you would really like both sponsors tend to be bills that have no real hope - and are sponsored by two liberal Democrats (Kerry/Feingold ? or Kerry/Wellstone (campaign finance) ) A better sign is that it is a bipartisan bil. Here, Graham leaving hurts, but supposedly he still agrees with the bill.

[karynnj]

7. Leiberman is actually a lot better on the environment than many of your likely favorites

For example, you were a big Edwards supporter - I think. In 2004, Leiberman was second only to Kerry on the environment - having a mid 90s lifetime score from the LCV - Edwards was in the 60s.

You wanted Feingold for Majority Leader -Feingold was one the coal Senators and he voted for the amendment that makes it impossible to pass this via reconciliation.

Leiberman has actually been working hard to create this bill.

[blm]

10. Kerry-Boxer was better but, 13 Dems, including Feingold and Franken objected saying it was TOO tough

on their states.

I find it strange that so many Dems are still unaware of that block of Dem senators who FORCED the greater compromise in this current bill.

[ProSense]

18. Kerry-Boxer was a

fine bill.

[joeybee12]

2. Nice ..."focus" on cap and trade, ignore "drill baby drill"

what a joke this legislation is...oh, I can hear you know, but SOMETHING is better than NOTHING. Phuck that.

[ProSense]

4. "Thankfully, the bill does not expand offshore drilling, and does not call for leasing..."

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.

[karynnj]

8. Who has a bill out that can pass the Senate that is better?

This is an issue both Kerry and Leiberman - with Gore have fought for for decades. (Gore is backing this.) Who have you trusted on this issue?

[politicasista]

12. Good question

Me thinks people in addition to Lieberman and Graham's names attached to this bill, people are shocked that Gore is backing this (more power to him!). It is not a perfect bill but here is hoping that the Gore and Kerry can spread the word because there is not much interest right now with the SC, immigration, etc taking up energy right now.

[karynnj]

9. Here's a video of Senator Kerry explaining the bill

http://www.youtube.com/v/2NMb4zV4BWE

[ProSense]

11. Excellent. Thanks. n/t

[politicasista]

13. Hope he can/will be heard more

Because looking at the urban blogs (beyond DU, Kos, etc.) there is not much interest in this issue right now. The informative threads that have good questions go unanswered, sink, or are filled with people hoping that the bill gets derailed.

Maybe it is the hatred of Lieberman and dislike of Kerry. As said before, it is unfortunate that Kerry/Boxer did not have a chance. Hopefully, Obama (using his cool pulpit) can help out. Maybe? :shrug:

[karynnj]

14. I hope he does - the big problem is whether people will watch

Even on DU and Daily Kos there is very little interest. Kerry has many major environmental groups behind this - 22 had statements on Prosense's post - but the environment's importance as an issue has always been negatively correlated to the state of the economy. That is why it has not been surprising that when Democrats dissented on it, many here backed them - not Kerry. What is really hard is seeing some, who never cared a fig about the environment, attacking Kerry, a committed environmentalist for decades, because they think his plan is not "pure enough"

[politicasista]

15. But it is strange that they are still are dodging that question

1. What bill would have been better?

2. What other Democrats are just as strong on the environment as Kerry?

3. Why have the Democrats that forced a compromise given free passes here?

4. Will people watch or even listen remains to be seen.

So far, not one person has answered your question and IMO that is troubling. The message sent is that "my favorite Democrat/Liberal/Progressive has a good reason for voting against this, then it is all good."

Or are people are just going after the Senator for their own personal amusement?

[Cha]

16. It's a start like the HCR law.. Don't want

to wait around on purity to get something started on the Environment..it's getting less pure.

[politicasista]

17. Not to be picky, but hope that more

voices of female, and minority environmentalists be heard.

It was sort of discouraging to see all white men standing up there with both Senators when the bill was introduced. There are some informative ones like Van Jones, Majora Carter, and/or Obama's EPA Secretary Lisa Jackson.

[karynnj]

22. Lisa Jackson has been working with Kerry

She spoke at Teresa's Pittsburgh conference. Glad you mentioned her, because I just checked back and they have the videos up, including Lisa Jackson's.

One thing to think of was - who was Kerry trying to influence with that introduction? Mostly white, male, Senators. Van Jones is wonderful, but he is poison to the right.

[politicasista]

23. That's right. She sure did

She stood up for Kerry on TDS and spoke at Momma T's conference. Yep. That maybe who it he and Lieberman were trying to influence (sigh). They just look like greedy big oil crooks and their not the ones K and L need to sell this bill. It is unfortunate what happened with Van because he is really good, but the GOP brought him down in the end. He sounds like he is more behind the scenes now.

We know how many feel about Lieberman, but still. Was not trying to come across as racist or anti-white, but hopefully, they can sell this bill (Or Obama can sell it?) to a broader audience.

[AlinPA]

19. Lieberman working on a climate bill ? At the last minute he will filibuster it with his

"friends on the other side of the aisle".

[SoxFan]

21. Bullshit

Lieberman has one of the best environmental records in the Senate. He and Kerry have been out in front on climate change legislation for a decade.

[politicasista]

27. Weird how so few "Democrats" know that n/t

[SoxFan]

A lot of people fall for groupthink

Kos, etc said "Lieberman bad", so that means he's always been bad on everything, right? Never mind the fact that the guy has a great environmental record, is solid on labor issues, and was a leader on GLBT rights long before such supposed progressive stalwarts as Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich.

It also explains the Political Pet Rock phenomenon. The netroots opinion leaders latch on to someone, then proceed to wash over everything in their past that interferes with the meme (I'm looking at you, Bill Halter).

[politicasista]

29. That makes sense

Heard that Kos himself put up nasty diary attacking the First Lady for going to a rally supporting B. Lincoln (AR) over the primary candidate (Halter?). I did not see but the Jack & Jill Politics bloggers were talking about. It sounded disgusting.

The Political Pet Rock phenomenon. Good metaphor. :)

[SoxFan]

31. Kos=figjam

"Fuck I'm Great, Just Ask Me"

Little prick never worked for a Democratic candidate, ran for office, volunteered for a progressive cause. Just started a web site and appointed himself gatekeeper.

[politicasista]

34. LOL! Bingo.

:rofl:

[martymar64]

36. Except when he wants to irradiate the people and land of Iran with US and Israeli nuclear wepons.

Dropping nukes on Iran will not be good for the environment. That is Holy Joe's pet cause, Bomb bomb bomb Iran.

What little good Lieberman may do has been vastly outweighed by all the evil and treachery that he has done.


Lieberman can go suck a bag of dicks.

[Mass]

24. No. He has been working on these issues for years. This is a topic where he is

reasonably good (likes too much the nuclear IMHO, but nuclear energy, though it has other problems, is not carbon-based).

[feslen]

26. this smells of something dubious

not just because Lieberman has his name attached to it. Congress for the people, really? Really? I don't think so. if it physically happens, I'd believe it. until then, color me skeptical. this is just pretty words on a bill/

[karynnj]

28. I think Lieberman had a 95 LCV lifetime ranking to Kerry's 96 in 2004

You need to look at actual positions on issues - on this Lieberman has a better record than nearly everyone - either Clinton, Obama, Edwards and all of the 2004 candidates except Kerry. It is possible to make the case that he is better than Gore was on environmental issues.

Kerry himself has made it clear that this is not the bill he would have written if only his vote were needed. It is a compromise and a genuine attempt to deal with what is likely the most complex problem facing the country.

[Radical Activist]

30. We need to keep the EPAs ability to regulate CO2 under the clean air act.

The public option became the rallying point for progressives during the health care debate. EPA authority to regulate CO2 needs to be the "public option" of the climate change bill. There's no guarantee of real progress without meaningful EPA authority to regulate major new sources of global warming pollutants. The fossil fuel industry wants to take that authority away from EPA because they know it's the most effective method to make them clean up their act, even if the cap and trade system fails.

[ProSense]

32. Kerry on the issue

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.

[Radical Activist]

33. That could mean a lot of things.

I'll be interested to see the specifics and whether it takes away New Source Review and other powers that the coal industry wants to scrap.

[DatManFromNawlins]

35. I'm against cap and trade in all circumstances

There is absolutely no reason to create an industry that trades the opportunity to pollute other than to line the pockets of the rich and powerful.