WSJ: Senators Warm Up to Emissions Curbs

[question everything]

Senators Warm Up to Emissions Curbs

Key Republicans Ease Opposition As Suspected Climate Change Causes Damage in Alaska

By JOHN J. FIALKA
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
February 22, 2005; Page A4

(snip)

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), in an interview this week, said he is now willing to discuss ways to reduce man-made emissions if they can be shown to be contributing to the damage. He didn't rule out the possibility of switching his position to favor the bill -- reintroduced last week by Sens. John McCain, the Arizona Republican, and Joseph Lieberman, the Connecticut Democrat -- that would require industry to reduce emissions to 2000 levels by the year 2010... Alaska's junior senator, Lisa Murkowski, expressed similar sentiments in a separate interview. "I need to be sensitive that there are changes going on right now," she said. "If that change is due in part to what man is contributing to the atmosphere, I think it would be prudent to look at."

Even if the two senators switch sides, the bill's prospects remain uncertain. Many politicians aren't sure to what extent man-made carbon dioxide is contributing to climate change, and some scientists dispute the link between industrial activity and global warming. Experts, executives and policy makers also argue that the economic costs of regulating carbon-dioxide emissions could well exceed the environmental benefits.

(snip)

One influential Republican working to reposition himself is Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel. In 1997 he helped lay the political groundwork for U.S. rejection of the Kyoto Protocol when he co-wrote a Senate resolution that said the U.S. should join only if China and other large developing nations took part. The Senate approved the resolution 95-0. This week, Mr. Hagel -- widely seen as a 2008 presidential candidate -- introduced three bills that would provide tax benefits and government-backed loans to U.S. companies that export or invest in equipment to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions.

(snip)

The situation in Alaska has brought climate change home in a dramatic way. According to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office, melting sea and glacier ice has resulted in severe erosion and flooding problems in 86% of the state's native villages, most of which are located along the coast or on rivers and streams. Most villages aren't eligible for aid from federal programs because of various exclusions, including the lack of a tax base that can be used for matching grants. Deep-frozen ground, called permafrost, is beginning to melt, leaving coastal communities much more vulnerable to storms. Damage from those storms was once blocked by year-round sea ice. About 186 native villages have been affected and at least five will soon have to be moved away from their coastal locations before they crumble into the sea. Because some villages aren't served by roads and because construction and building materials are expensive in the Arctic, the cost of moving one endangered village -- Kivalina -- could run as high as $400 million, according to the GAO.

(snip)

Write to John J. Fialka at [e-mail]

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110903131860860376,00.html

[Deep13]

1. Better than nothing...

... but may be a case of too little too late. Hopefully these modest goals will be the beginning of much larger changes.

[EC]

2. Even Lieberman's bill isn't good enough

we mananaged to get the emmissions down until Bushy took over in 2000 and now Lieberman is giving the industries 5 more years to get it back to the level it was when Bushy took over and with TAX BREAKS at that? Shit put back the old environmental requirements and stick to them, without breaks, let them use some of their record profits instead of our tax money...we pay them for their product and then have to pay them to produce it cleanly? THAT'S BULLSHIT.....SKREW US, Please, we like being used....


Edit to add sarcasm....