"If we can't secure the support of somebody who is a committed progressive, who understands the potential of a clean energy economy and someone who understands the need to protect this country's manufacturing base, then I don't see this bill going anywhere," said Jesse Jenkins, director of energy and climate policy at the Breakthrough Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. "Senator Brown is much more committed to finding a bill that can work than potentially some other senators.
They then contrast on Brown's commitment to the environment and his acceptance of the need for cap and trade, with the fact that he is not on board yet.
"Clean energy legislation is not just about the environment, it's about creating jobs and revitalizing our nation's manufacturing basis," Brown said. "For a clean energy bill to be successful, it must also be a jobs bill that partners with the business community."
<snip>
Indeed, he has bluntly stated that unless the authors agree to a variety of manufacturing and trade provisions, there is little possibility that the legislation will get anywhere near enough support to clear the Senate. "There probably won't be 50 votes," Brown said last week. "There sure won't be 60 without taking care of manufacturing."
The article then addresses his concerns that the bill could put an unfair burden on states like Ohio and cost jobs - and the solution - a border protection provision. The article states that Brown will be instrumental in drafting this. They state that this could pull in as many as 10 votes.
The Kerry-Boxer bill contains only a blank section that indicates the eventual inclusion of border adjustment language but no specifics. Both Kerry and Brown have indicated separately they believe that they can appease the manufacturing senators.
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/10/14/14climatewire-midwestern-senator-puts-manufacturing-issues-33943.htmlThink back to the Kyoto treaty, that was never even brought to the Senate. The reason it wasn't was that 4 months earlier, the Senate had nearly unanimously voted for the Byrd/Hagel resolution that essentially said that a climate control treaty must include the third world nations and avoid harm to our economy. Those arguments still resonate with most Senators, Congressmen and the American people.
The dilemma is that the third world countries generate far less carbon on a per capita basis, but they are currently greatly increasing their production as they develop and China just passed the US as the number one carbon producer. The mathematics are such that there is no feasible way to reduce carbon enough in the rest of the world to not put some constraints on the third world. However, their goals can not be designed like those of the developed nations or they would condemn those countries to never becoming developed nations.
The language out of Bali and Poznan recognizes this and calls for common, but differentiated responsibilities, with goal that are measurable, reportable and verifiable.
In six months, delegates from 192 nations will gather in Copenhagen to create a new global climate treaty. Our core challenge is how to give life to the guiding principle already embraced in the UN framework, of “common but differentiated responsibilities” among nations. In Kyoto people stiff-armed that discussion. But the landscape has shifted: China is now the world's largest emitter, and developing countries will account for three-quarters of increases in global energy use over the next two decades.
We must put aside entrenched positions and establish a constructive framework for action from everyone. That means securing aggressive emissions cuts from developed countries, but also guaranteeing that developing nations take measurable, reportable and verifiable actions to alter their energy use patterns, adopting low-carbon growth pathways so that they can begin reducing emissions within the next 10 to 15 years.
http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=314476In the Kerry/Graham op-ed, they included a border tariff. Obama is not for this and China and other third world countries are against it, but it is important for protecting American manufacturers, who will incur additional cost from the legislation. Given Kerry's past role in negotiations, he likely knows what can be done that can be made to work both within the US and internationally.
Maybe if the tariff is designed in a way that is consistent with the "common, but differentiated" goals language, it might be useful for three reasons. It will prevent an unfair burden on US jobs, it will allow passage of a bill that otherwise would not happen and it would add teeth to the goals for third world countries by eliminating the gain they could have by not living up to their commitments. Senator Kerry is sensitive to the concerns of the developing nations and he has talked to their representatives for decades.
Kerry has been involved in pass international negotiations and was credited as being extremely helpful by Bush negotiators, with one even saying at a SFRC hearing:
"The fact that we had a treaty was significantly due to the fact that Senator Kerry was there. He was a virtual part of our negotiating team, without his day and night support and lobbying of the EU. we would not have gotten a treaty."
http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2008/hrg080422a.html 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
