Thin Line Between Stupid and Clever

Opining on Whatever

Senate Climate Bill, Yea or Nay?

Senators Kerry and Lieberman released the details of their climate legislation today.  Let’s break down some of the main points:

1.  States may opt out of offshore drilling up to 75 miles from their coast.

This is an improvement over current law which allows drilling 3 miles offshore.  Maybe more important is that neighboring states can veto plans if they will have a negative impact on their state.  This could help keep some of the crazier states (looking at you Texas) in check if they wanted to go offshore crazy.  This isn’t the ban on offshore drilling that would be best case, but at least it allows states that actually care about the environment to do a little more about it.  Vote-Yea (good start)

2.  Cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020

Weak.  Pathetically weak.  This is only 0 to 3% below 1990 levels.  The European Union is considering cutting emissions by 30% below 1990 levels by 2020.  27 percentage points is rather significant.  This is a weak effort from the United States. Vote-Nay (pathetic)

3.  $6 billion annually for highway effectiveness and mass transit systems

Sounds like a lot of money, but it’s not.  Take high speed rail-which nearly everyone agrees would be a huge benefit to our country as a whole and is something that nearly every other modern country has.  It has been estimated that simply installing high speed train service in the northeast corridor (Washington D.C. to Boston) would cost somewhere around $32 billion, and that is just a small portion of what would be a national high speed service.  You quickly see that $6 billion annually, while a good start, is simply not that much. Vote-Yea (but not nearly enough)

4.  $2 billion for researching and developing carbon capture and sequestration (“clean coal”)

There is no such thing as “clean coal.”  Let’s move on. Vote-Nay

5.  Development of nuclear power

This is, of course, a rather decisive issue.  On one hand, nuclear power is clean as long as there is no accident.  On the other hand, there could be an accident.  The Gulf oil spill is just small taste of what a nuclear disaster could be, but that oil rig had no environmental benefit before the accident.  Nuclear power would have economic benefits, but an accident would be bound to happen eventually.  Vote-Undecided (love to hear arguments here)

6.  Charge companies for emissions between $12 and $25 per ton

Expect to hear a lot about this from the Republicans.  This is basically a fee (tax) per ton of emissions released into the environment.  I’m all for that.  The problem is that only companies that produce more than 25,000 tons annually are affected.  This works out to roughly 7,500 companies.  That’s not an insignificant number and I’ve sure they have reasons for the 25,000 tons benchmark, so I can’t really speak to that.  The Republican’s argument against this proposal will be that a tax on companies will simply be passed on to the consumer through energy prices.  To some extent, this will likely happen, which is why the bill also sends 2/3 of these emissions revenues (after paying down national debt) to consumers in the form of energy bill discounts and rebates.  Whether these rebates cover fully the increase in cost remains to be seen, but hopefully the increase will be small enough to be rather insignificant to most families.  Personally, paying a slightly higher energy bill so that the huge polluters will eventually cut their emissions, is more than worth it to me.    VoteYea (seems reasonable)

7.  So, yea or nay?

This is not a perfect bill for a liberal by any means.  “Clean coal” is a joke as are our greenhouse gas emission targets.  However, any funding for improved mass transit is a plus, as is putting a price on carbon emissions and the revisions to offshore drilling law.  Unfortunately, the Democrats may never have a better chance to pass something much stronger than what is currently in this legislation.  The BP oil disaster brought the environment to the forefront of people’s minds and it just seems like the right time to do something progressive.  Much like the health care legislation, I’m far from fully satisfied but in our current political system, these are the kinds of bills we are left with.  In the end it’s a necessary first step toward the larger goal.  Vote-Yea


[bill details via HuffPo]

Single Post Navigation

8 thoughts on “Senate Climate Bill, Yea or Nay?

  1. Michael H on said:

    There are a couple of things of note that come to mind reading this preliminary synopsis. First, I agree that incremental changes are necessary in achieving a broader and more encompassing energy policy. However, what I don’t agree with is that this is where they are beginning. This bill will become watered down as debates begin and votes are waged. What we have here in this bill is likely going to be a best case scenario for what we will eventually see. Kudos to Obama for putting the environment on his agenda but to not take a harder stance seems like pandering to a centrist perspective. Being an extreme leftist I am obviously disheartened by what I see. Dare I say that I miss ol’ George W who at least had the balls to pander to his core conservative constituency? Centrist/consensus approaches do not guarantee results. It does guarantees votes though. Shocking that the politically savvy Obama would take this approach. I guess he assumes Americans have short memories and forget his campaign trail speeches. Anyways, I digress. Second, totally agree with you Nate about the ‘clean coal’ thing. Third, I’m surprised the offshore drilling is ONLY at 75 in lieu of what we have seen in the Gulf. Fourth, The greenhouse emissions reduction is a joke. Fifth, nuclear power is proven to be safe, clean, and relatively cheap, BUT, nuclear waste becomes an issue as well as the potential for an American Chernobyl. Where is renewable energy investment funding? Wasn’t this his platform for getting the economy back in order by creating green jobs? I need to look at the bill but this should have been the cornerstone of any energy bill… Just preliminary thoughts but I’m not going to lie, I am pretty disappointed.

    • I believe there are investments for renewable energy investment funding and green jobs, but the details are so sparse I didn’t mention them. Waiting on the actual bill for that. From an idealogical perspective I agree with everything you say. Offshore drilling should be completely banned, and everything else should start off from a stronger bargaining position (as we saw with health care). I guess I’m looking at things from a more practical perspective which is to say that this is better than we have now (at least in most respects). Dems can’t break filibuster and don’t have the balls to do it anyway. Frankly, I don’t think many Dems have real interest in progressive policy on this. I think there is a slim chance that any climate legislation gets passed this year, but something watered down like this thing is the only real chance there is. I’m most disappointed in the greenhouse gas emission targets which are genuinely pathetic. I know I used the word “pathetic” several times above but damn…27% less than what Europe is considering?!

  2. Leonard on said:

    “Global warming” and “climate change” is a scam built on junk science. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming…-it-stopped-in-1998.html

    This bill will saddle the American middle class with huge costs, all to appease a bunch of people whose “science” isn’t bearing out what is happening in reality.

    I emailed and faxed my U.S. Senators to vote NO!

    • James S. on said:

      Someone should make Leonard aware of peer-reviewed scientific journals. Methinks he’s been getting his science from Limbaugh/Coulter/Beck.

      • Nah, Leonard found the one guy’s opinion he’s willing to listen to. If you look hard enough you can always find someone who will reaffirm your opinion.

  3. Aaron B on said:

    Honestly I’m glad we’re at least having the discussion over the validity of Global Warming. To me it shows that people are beginning to realize that politicized science is a dangerous game.

  4. Aaron B on said:

    yea, climate change is real. how much we’re impacting it and is it irreparable (had to spell check that one)… who knows. Do we need to cut down on waste, decrease CO2 emissions, and find alternate energy… absolutely. will the planet shrivel up and die if we don’t? I don’t know :/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: