| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Signs, Portents, and the Weather- |
| Healthcare Passage Smooths the Way for Climate Change Bill |
| 2010-03-23 |
| The successful House vote on the legislation following over a year of intense and fraught negotiations will clear a path for the administration to turn to its next large piece of administrative business: climate change. Some senior Democrat Senators have suggested that following such a long battle to pass healthcare legislation the Senate will have "no appetite" to deal with a climate change bill that is likely to prove equally contentious. However, both the administration and Democrat leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives remain adamant that they want to pursue a vote this year and with the party still behind in the polls ahead of November's mid-term elections the race is now on to move the legislation forward as quickly as possible. They think this is gonna improve their ratings? I can hardly wait! The key healthcare vote comes just days after the compromise version of the climate change bill being prepared by the bi-partisan trio of Senators Democrat John Kerry, Republican Lindsey Graham, and independent Joe Lieberman, received a further boost when both environmental and industrial groups signaled their support for the proposed legislation. Maybe they've got a real compromise? In a surprise move, Bruce Josten, the top lobbyist at the US Chamber of Commerce, told reporters last week that the work being done by the three senators was "largely in synch" with the business group's views. Josten stopped short of fully endorsing the bill, but following a meeting with the Senator's last Wednesday he struck a markedly different tone to the outright opposition to previous versions of the bill that the Chamber adopted last year. Significantly, a coalition of 20 environmental groups released a statement on Friday signaling that they were "encouraged" by the progress being made towards a final version of the bill. The statement warned that "legislative details are important, and are not settled yet," but suggested that the group - which included influential organisations such as the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Union of Concerned Scientists – is largely happy with the direction of the bill. And the Chamber of Commerce, too? Somebody pinch me! As a result fresh details of the structure of the bill have emerged, including confirmation that the proposed carbon cap-and-trade scheme for energy firms will emulate the early phase of the EU emissions trading scheme by awarding free emission allowances to participating firms. The compromise version of the scheme is also reportedly expected to allow energy companies to purchase carbon offset credits from the developing world to help them comply with their emission caps. Critics of free allocation argue that it limits the financial incentive for firms to curb carbon emissions and can result in sizable windfall profits. However, the approach would reduce inflationary pressure on energy bills and still ensure firms pay a penalty if they exceed their imposed emission caps. The Senators have also signaled that the scheme will incorporate a price floor and a price ceiling, thought to stand at $10 and $30 a tonne respectively and designed to provide investors with certainty over future prices. And they said the scheme would become more demanding over time, with the bill proposing that industrial plants will be brought into the cap-and-trade regime from 2016. Additional details of the draft bill emerged last week, including controversial proposals for a tax on oil designed to drive up fuel prices and incentivise motorists to switch to more efficient vehicles; a $10bn fund to drive investment in low carbon technologies, including clean coal; up to $54bn in loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants; and proposals for a carbon tariff on imports from countries without carbon regulations in place. New nukes? In whose backyard? There were also reports that a proposed renewable energy standard designed to ensure a set amount of energy is generated from renewable sources could be expanded to cover all low carbon energy sources, including nuclear. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #6 --If you go to the article, this publication has another article stating that at least 15 states have filed suits challenging the EPA's right to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. BOHICA !! |
| Posted by: Tom--Pa 2010-03-23 20:32 |
| #5 Thus the purpose of the bill is nothing to do with climate change (already covered, if real, by EPA), but how to make money on it - either for the government or for their favored contributors. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2010-03-23 19:30 |
| #4 They don't even need this bill, since they have classified CO2 as a pollutant regulatable however the EPA chooses. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2010-03-23 19:28 |
| #3 yeah, I'm feeling all "bipartisan and compromisey". I'll take their subjugation standing or on their knees. That's my compromise |
| Posted by: Frank G 2010-03-23 19:15 |
| #2 Because, you know, we haven't flushed enough money down the commode. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2010-03-23 18:40 |
| #1 Lindsey Graham? Someone please beat him senseless. Oops looks like they already have |
| Posted by: Beldar Threreling9726 2010-03-23 17:31 |