The news on climate change do not look good.

[Mass]

Sadly, it seems the US Senate will not be able to pass a comprehensive bill on climate change anymore than they will be able to do it with healthcare.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/26/AR2010022606084.html?hpid=topnews

By Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Three key senators are engaged in a radical behind-the-scenes overhaul of climate legislation, preparing to jettison the broad "cap-and-trade" approach that has defined the legislative debate for close to a decade.

The sharp change of direction demonstrates the extent to which the cap-and-trade strategy -- allowing facilities to buy and sell pollution credits in order to meet a national limit on greenhouse gas emissions -- has become political poison. In a private meeting with several environmental leaders on Wednesday, according to participants, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), declared, "Cap-and-trade is dead."

Graham and Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) have worked for months to develop an alternative to cap-and-trade, which the House approved eight months ago. They plan to introduce legislation next month that would apply different carbon controls to individual sectors of the economy instead of setting a national target.
...
According to several sources familiar with the process, the lawmakers are looking at cutting the nation's greenhouse gas output by targeting, in separate ways, three major sources of emissions: electric utilities, transportation and industries.
...
Kerry said that although the package the three senators will unveil will not have 60 votes when it becomes public, he is confident that it will win over skeptical lawmakers.

"What people need to understand about this bill is this really is a jobs bill, an economic transformation for America, an energy independence bill and a health/pollution-reduction bill that has enormous benefits for the country," Kerry said.

Now, I have to say I am not surprised. We have been going there since quite a while now, with a Democratic caucus not supportive at all of a comprehensive bill, but it is very sad, and potentially very damaging for the potential in jobs.

[wisteria]

1. Well, if they pass something, it is a beginning. n/t

[Mass]

4. Not necessarily. Some version of this bill may be useless, just a transfer of money toward corporate

interest without an effort to solve the problem. And a firm cap is essential to solve the problem. There can be discussion if the cap is 17 %, 20 % or higher, but the cap is needed, and it is not clear for me reading this article that it will be in the bill.

[karynnj]

2. Here parts of the Democratic caucus have been incredibly short sided

I also think a large portion of the people on DU side with the 14 "coal state" Senators, who really want no constrainst at all on the coal power plants. It is hard to see how Kerry can get 60 (or even 50) Senators when Feingold, Franken, Sherrod Brown and others have the positions they do.

I understand that it is a very tough economy and Feingold, who is up for re-election, could be endangered if he backed anything that increased energy costs. Our political system rewards short term gains and penalizes for short term loses. This works against anyone acting for something that avoids a long term disaster. But, I also wonder if the problem is not deeper. Judging by this action, these Senators must not really believe that the tipping point is as close as scientists say or they are willing to gamble on technology finding a magical seeming solution. Not assuming this means that they are willing to risk the future for a slightly higher standard of living in their state and getting re-elected. It is also clear that there is almost a reluctance on Obama's part to be personally involved aggressively advocating for things like the smart grid or capping carbon.

IT was only the depth of Kerry's commitment and all that he brought to finding a solution that made it seem possible last fall. He seems to be still trying to find ANYTHING that would assign a cost to producing carbon. (The sad thing is if they find something, doing it along with all the energy incentives versus not having a cost is better, but Kerry is likely to be attacked by the environmental community wanting more.) Although the senior Senator from MA is one of the most rational people in the world, this article does make the case that without his "irrational exuberance" there would be no climate change legislation.

[Mass]

3. Al Gore's editorial about climate change, for some perspective

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html?hp%3Cbr%3E

It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.


Of course, we would still need to deal with the national security risks of our growing dependence on a global oil market dominated by dwindling reserves in the most unstable region of the world, and the economic risks of sending hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas in return for that oil. And we would still trail China in the race to develop smart grids, fast trains, solar power, wind, geothermal and other renewable sources of energy — the most important sources of new jobs in the 21st century.

But what a burden would be lifted! We would no longer have to worry that our grandchildren would one day look back on us as a criminal generation that had selfishly and blithely ignored clear warnings that their fate was in our hands. We could instead celebrate the naysayers who had doggedly persisted in proving that every major National Academy of Sciences report on climate change had simply made a huge mistake.
...

Later this week, Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman are expected to present for consideration similar cap-and-trade legislation.

I hope that it will place a true cap on carbon emissions and stimulate the rapid development of low-carbon sources of energy.

We have overcome existential threats before. Winston Churchill is widely quoted as having said, “Sometimes doing your best is not good enough. Sometimes, you must do what is required.” Now is that time. Public officials must rise to this challenge by doing what is required; and the public must demand that they do so — or must replace them.

With all respect due to Senator Kerry and his heroic efforts in the US Senate to get something done without any real support from the leadership and very little from the White House, Vice-President Gore is unfortunately right on this one. If there is no real cap and no real funding for low-carbon sources of energy (and I am not talking about subsidies for clean coal here), if we are only talking about trusting the market with some tax credits and incentives, the bill will be useless (just as a "trust the market" bill like the GOP wants for healthcare is useless).

Which is worse is that the bill that has been leaked is still better than the one which has a better chance to pass the US Senate, an energy only bill which does not regulate emissions.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/84027-enviros-energy-only-plan-doesnt-cut-it

[karynnj]

5. Gore has a different role than Kerry does - and it is far easier

Gore has the ability to state what should be done and it is great that he is doing this now shortly before the three Senators put something out. It would be better if Obama were doing this as well. Even then, pushing the coal Senators might be imposible for the President as well.

It is pretty clear that there is little difference between Kerry and Gore on what should be done. But, it is extremely unlikely that Congress will pass what should be done. In addition, Kerry made more of an issue of alternative energy when he ran than Gore did. Kerry's role here has to be to fight to get the best thing that can pass passed. Kerry has said what he things needs to be done, and in Kerry/Boxer had the strongest thing that had even a remote chance of passing. He could have stopped there - saying that was as far as he could compromise, but the result would be that nothing would get done on climate change.

The default will have to be using EPA.

[beachmom]

6. Not surprised either.

Thanks for the update, Mass.

[Mass]

7. A few more articles on the topic.

First, a dailykos/firedoglake article by RLMiller, who is somebody who follows these issues a lot and knows a lot about them

Now, the reason I post it here is that he presents very well the dilemna I felt when I read the Post article or the article this morning concerning the negotiations. May be they will be able to pass some bill, but to do what.

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/32302

What’s missing? The bill’s twisted emphasis. Notice what’s not being mentioned in the Washington Post story: any discussion whatsoever of renewable energy. The Senators’ half-baked bill appears to sing the same song as Obama’s State of the Union address: lots of noise about the chimera of clean coal and the need to make hard choices regarding offshore drilling, no mention of solar and wind power. A cap on utilities’ emissions may force them to seek out renewable energy…or it may force them to use -free money- federal assistance for carbon sequestration and storage of coal.

The WaPo story reflects an official Beltway trend-speak of "pricing carbon," but doesn’t hint whether the bill would be effective in limiting carbon. The ultimate test of a climate bill is whether it’s effective in reducing emissions. Anything half-baked and twisted simply doesn’t solve our melting world.

Also a lengthy Times article about where the negotiations are. First, because it is the Kerry forum, let's note that senator Kerry seems to have a busy week, particularly given he was in Israel today.
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/03/01/01climatewire-senate-climate-talks-intensify-with-new-carb-17075.html

Kerry this week is scheduled to have at least eight climate-related meetings with senators and other interest groups. Graham and Lieberman have talks lined up with critical voices from both parties in the debate, including Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.).

The second point is that, just like the Post article, it does not talk about renewable energies (or barely), and it is very bothering.

However, contrarily to the Post, it has the support of some environmentalist groups like Sierra Group

Jeremy Symons, vice president for policy at the National Wildlife Federation, urged caution against jumping to any conclusions about the Kerry-led effort until more details start to emerge. "This is the time when those who are determined to kill any idea that looks like it has traction will reveal themselves," Symons said. "For those who see this purely as a political opportunity to pummel any reform plan as government excess, then they will attack more fiercely the closer a bill gets to the political middle where it may actually pass."

John Coequyt of the Sierra Club said the idea of simplifying the emission reduction plans could work by separating the politics of each individual industry. "By separating them, it gives you an opportunity to treat those industries in a way that makes them happier," he said. But without all the details, he questioned whether Kerry, Graham and Lieberman had done enough to ensure the bill actually accomplishes what it needs to in the way of curbing greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, when I read what this is, I am very skeptical a good bill can be written (I certainly hope I am wrong), and concerned that the need to get 60 votes will force them to give too much to some solutions and not enough to others.