 |
Will Any Candidates Show for Lieberman-Warner? |
 |
As some of you may know, this is a big week for global warming activists looking to the US for leadership on climate change.
Yesterday the Senate opened discussion on S. 3036, the latest rendition of “America’s Climate Security Act”, also known as the Lieberman-Warner bill, (or rather the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill, now that Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has co-sponsored the substitute.) This is the most significant piece of climate legislation to make it this far in the Senate, and though many believe the bill will fail (either in the Senate, or via presidential veto) it represents the closest thing policy-makers have found to “consensus” on how to address global warming.
Here is a run-down of the situation in the Senate (courtesy of Grist) and here is an excellent, detailed account of the provisions of the current bill (courtesy of Environmental Law Prof).
Yesterday’s session ended with Senators invoking cloture, which will allow 30 hours of debate on this bill over the next few days. None of the three main presidential candidates were present for the vote, and so far it looks like none will be present for this week’s debate and the final vote.
John McCain has already he said he won’t show, stating he doesn’t support the bill because it doesn’t give enough support to the nuclear industry. (Note, this is very shady. A central aspect of McCain’s campaign is that he will introduce a mandatory cap-and-trade scheme, and back when he was cool in 2003 he led the charge against climate change in the Senate. The current bill provides plenty of support for the nuclear industry, but for some highly suspect reason McCain thinks its not enough. As I’ve noted before, McCain has made quite the departure from sound environmental policy in throwing his weight so loyally behind nuclear.)
Representatives for Senators Clinton and Obama have said that these candidates likely won’t show either, which is ridiculous considering that the primary will be over after today and both claim to be staunch supporters of a rigorous cap-and-trade scheme. I get that Obama will busy this week whooping the competition, but I’d feel better if he’d weigh in, if not fly in, for this particular issue.
It is worth noting that environmentalists are viciously divided over this bill. Most agree the bill falls significantly short of what the IPCC says is the bare minimum necessary to reduce the threat of climate change, though environmental organizations are divided between the “it’s a start” and the “it’s a dangerous cop-out” camps. Friends of Earth has led the latter with its “Fix it or Ditch It” campaign, while the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense, Al Gore, and many environmental leaders in the Senate (namely Boxer and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)) have given the bill their support, though all acknowledge its shortcomings.
Pro-environment opponents of the bill legitimately worry it won’t do anywhere near enough to seriously combat climate change and gives way too many handouts to the fossil fuel industry. They have argued a better bill could be passed after the election; one that more closely resembles the bill Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) just introduced in the House.
The fate of the bill depends largely on Boxer and her political will. The somewhat-reassuring news is that she says she’ll pull the bill if it gets any further weakened (or gives any more support to nuclear), offering hope that if it passes it will be in its semi-acceptable state.
The Seminal is keeping an eye on the Senate this week…
Yeah - It seems like something much more effective could be passed after the election, when things aren’t quite as politicized. Also, should the presidential election turn out well, the threat of veto might not exist anymore.