John Kerry sees an energy 'moment'

[Mass]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35966.html

With the Senate about to begin a long-awaited debate over energy policy, sponsors of the energy bill are borrowing some key tactics from the effort to pass health care reform, which could boost chances for a major bill addressing the issue of climate change but also invite some familiar criticisms.

Industry groups representing energy interests from coal to wind power have been engaged for months in behind-the-scenes discussions and negotiations with key senators about the specific provisions in the bill, much as the drugmakers, hospitals and doctors worked with Senate health care reform authors.

The cap-and-trade system that was the heart of the House energy bill passed last year has been jettisoned, much as the House-passed public option was dropped from the health care bill after it became a prime target of critics.

And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is expected to personally manage the path of energy legislation, much as he shepherded the health care bill through the final weeks. Despite skeptics who are convinced that the Democrats will flinch from taking on another major cause, the Senate could engage in a final debate as early as this summer.

“I’m convinced that this is the moment,” Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said in an interview with POLITICO as part of a weeklong video series, “The Green Divide.”

(more at the link)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35970.html

...
SENATOR KERRY: Well, I'm—I'm convinced that this is the moment. This is the time, and it may be the best time of all for a number of different reasons.

First of all, America needs to pull out of this economic slump. This is primarily a jobs bill. It is primarily a bill that is going to excite new jobs in America. It's a—it's a bill that's going to contribute to America's energy independence and to our national security, and it's a bill that's going to reduce pollution and it's going to help us have cleaner air, cleaner water, and it's going to do it in a way that puts America competitively into the marketplace. China, India, Brazil, other countries are moving very rapidly on many of these technologies that we invented and they're taking the lead. We need to grab that lead back, and I think this is a way for America to become far more competitive. There is no question in my mind that, in energy efficiency, in some of the building provisions, et cetera, in our incentives on natural gas, on clean coal, other kinds of things, this is a job creator. And so, I think that's what's really going to excite people. And I think we're working very, very closely with lots of different businesses to make sure that we're addressing the concerns of America's business, and that—that whatever we do is going to help them to be competitive and to help us strengthen the market.

...
SENATOR KERRY: I do not think so. I do not think that that's specifically going to have an impact on it, I really don't. I think that's a question that stands on its own merits, and whether--I mean, there are many new technologies being explored that a lot of people aren't aware of which could be game-changers for coal. And what we want to do in this bill is accelerate the research and the development of those technologies. I'll give you an example: There's one company out in California that currently takes the gas emissions out of the pipe before it even goes into the air and it turns those emissions into a calcium carbonate substance that's the equivalent of concrete or cement and it can be used in buildings or in roads; that's a game-changer. If that could happen on commercial scale, that's a big deal for coal, and it means that you don't even have to build those pipes that go hide it in the ground. You can use it in a non-geologic, sequestered fashion.

So, I think technology and research, exploration in our laboratories, colleges, universities, and so forth, that's one of the exciting things that will come with this legislation. And I'm convinced, personally--it's in the American DNA that we explore and create and find new ways of doing things, and I'm absolutely convinced we are going to find new ways of providing energy for America, new ways of propelling our automobiles and trucks and our buses and so forth. We're going to find new ways of fueling the engines of our airplanes and so forth. A lot of different things are going to happen because we price carbon in this legislation; that's the key.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35970_Page4.html#ixzz0lYFCrkB8

Jane Cumming is a reasonably good interviewer, but it is irritating to see how thoughtful answers are being cut to half sentences in the article.

[karynnj]

1. I agree with you - I read the transcript first, then the article - Thanks for all the links

The video there is nice.

I think the "coal" comment is an example where the cutting hurt. This issue will likely be a tough one for the Senators who are environmentalists. I thought an interesting comment was:

"SENATOR KERRY: I do not think that's going to happen here. We're not--we're going to be very careful not to push the limits where it's inappropriate, and I do not think we are at this moment. We are going to be very, very careful to respect the balance as carefully as we can. Now, is everybody going to be absolutely happy? The answer is, no, that's impossible. I mean, I'm moving into a zone of discomfort on some issues. Lindsay Graham is moving into a zone of discomfort on some issues. Joe Lieberman is moving into that same zone of discomfort. We all are, but we're finding that--you know, we're not violating some fundamental, basic, diehard principle that is worth letting this get shattered- because the good that's coming with it, the numbers of jobs that we're talking about, the increase of America's energy independence, the increase of our national security, I mean, I think we can have a proposal in here that may wind up cutting our OPEC oil dependency by as much as 50 percent; that's a big deal."

I suspect that ALL of use will have parts that we are uncomfortable with. It has been clear reading comments for months that that will be the case. But, it is clear that Waxman/Markey and Kerry/Boxer and Cantwell/Collins all have no chance of passing the Senate. It would be interesting if an environmental think tank or group looked into what could be done by the EPA alone. That would, of course, have the problem that a different President could curtail it upon entering office. (Witness the regulations that Bush removed and Obama re-instated on the environment.)

[Inuca]

2. Thanks for the info

"This is primarily a jobs bill" Keep saying that. It's going to be an interesting summer...

[Mass]

3. I cant say I am very optimistic that this bill will be useful, stuck between the need

to get some moderate Republicans who have decided to play the unreachable beauties:

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/93237-collins-gop-political-support-for-carbon-caps-depends-on-where-the-money-goes

and some Democrats who dont seem to care about global warming, but want to drill, like Dorgan who wants to drill until 25 miles of the coast (I did not realize ND was a coastal state), and does not want royalties sharing, if a bill is to pass (and it seems less and less likely), there will be some very unpalatable things in it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/93149-energy-debate-grows-divisive

[wisteria]

4. I remain optimistic that it will pass, and although it isn't a perfect bill

it is a start-a much needed beginning. I confess not to understand the nature of introducing a bill, so I don't understand why Kerry and the others would even consider introducing the bill if it had no shot in hell of passing. Why did they even work on it at all?

[wisteria]

5. Someone else who is remaining positive.

Of course, I like this oinion piece and believe this is the type of opinions we need to hear more of.

"Optimism for a clean energy future"

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36031.html

[karynnj]

6. Nice article

It will be interesting to see how the real environmental advocates react when the provisions of the bill are put out on Monday.

There are things that worry me. I did not like Kerry's comment in the long interview Mass posted, when speaking of coal, that even now some coal plants were switching to natural gas. The context was in terms of giving the coal industry the funds needed to research clean coal. But, it would seem that there will be and should be industries left behind - because others are cleaner, thus cheaper when a cost is placed on carbon.

But, I do understand the need to not have the coal states pay most of the cost of what should be a national effort to lower our carbon production. In an odd way, it can be seen like insurance - where the costs need to be equalized while the carbon production is most efficiently lowered. I do get that research to provide a chance is important, but there is a very significant chance that it can't be economically done. One would hope the coal companies would also use the time to diversify into cleaner energy production - as it seems unlikely that coal will be used decades from now. (unless an unexpected solution is found.)

It will be interesting to see how the bill is explained on Monday. It does seem from the small number of leaks that the tradeoffs were with blocks of Senators. I hope this means that instead of "cornhusker deals", there are clear provisions designed to deal with preventing blocks of people from paying a disproportionate amount of the cost - because of where they live. Here, I am not sure that the need to get 60 votes doesn't force the Senators to look at what is fair for some groups that have real problems with the bill.

[karynnj]

7. This is promising and I think new - Obama will back some sort of tariff

on goods from non-complying countries. http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/04/20/20greenwire-obama-open-to-trade-protections-in-senate-clim-18632.html

[wisteria]

8. Yes, this does sound promising. Thanks for finding this.

You know, I am no expert on this issue, but I can see that we need to address our over consumption and climate change needs. I know why some Republicans are against it, but I don't understand those that attack Democrats for wanting to improve our planet.

[karynnj]

9. i think they were not so much against doing what was needed for

the planet, but they wanted to make sure that their states did not bear the lion's share of the burden. (Mass had many good posts when I criticized them). They are acting in their states interest.

This is also one reason why a bill is better than just EPA legislation. EPA legislation would not be able to fund or give incentives to promising research, compensate people, who through no fault of their own, get their power from coal fired powered plants, for the higher energy bills they will pay or to create tariffs like those suggested here. One of the two main points of Byrd/Hagel which spelled out what the Senate would approve back before Kyoto was negotiated was that the treaty not negatively impact America's ability to compete with countries not cutting back. This provision is very important because without it, the Republicans would demonize the entire bill as sending all our manufacturing jobs abroad. Now, they are likely to still claim it - but it is far easier to defend against that attack.

Like you, I feel I don't really understand the full complexity of the issues. In fact, every time I think I understand, I read something that convinces me that there is even more I don't understand. Here, I think getting most or all of the coal state Democrats is good. The things most of them want are fair and their motives - good jobs and having their states pay a fair share are ones I can defend better than the indefensible Health ones. The more of these, the fewer Republicans needed. The bad side is that coal really is the dirtiest fuel and there should come a time where it is clear that with a price that includes the carbon cost, it might be priced out of the market - unless a game changer innovation is found. It might be that in the future, there will be sufficient alternatives to replace it with.

[Mass]

10. More bad news

http://washingtonindependent.com/82885/voinovich-and-lugar-ditch-kgl-to-work-on-competing-energy-bill

Voinovich and Lugar Ditch KGL to Work on Competing Energy Bill
By AARON WIENER 4/21/10 12:59 PM
Given that the prospects for passage of the climate legislation being drafted by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) rest on the shoulders of a few moderate Republican senators, this news from CQ (subs. req’d) isn’t good for environmental advocates:

Now, none of them has ever been an environmentalist, but between Collins and Snowe on one side, Bingaman and Dorgan on the other, it seems that everybody rushes to have their own energy bill, preferably without carbon pricing.

[karynnj]

11. This is not good news

but I wonder if it is an attempt to push Kerry and the environmental groups to further weaken things and they might still be persuaded to join. I hope there are enough people who care about climate change, who would refuse to vote for an energy only bill that opens drilling and gives money to nuclear and coal power. (A bill that Dick Cheney would bless) It would be good if Obama's commitment on these things were dependent on them being part of a comprehensive plan.

[Mass]

12. Seems the battle between the immigration bill and the climate bill is still alive in the Senate.

Otherwise, I dont see why we have this article in the Hill (whether true or not, something you cant know without knowing who is the aide).
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/93691-pelosi-to-reid-immigration-before-climate-is-fine

Pelosi to Reid: Immigration before climate is ‘fine’
By Ben Geman - 04/21/10 07:49 PM ET
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) she is “fine” with the Senate taking up immigration reform before climate change legislation.

Pelosi made the comments in a private meeting on Tuesday, according to a Democratic aide.
...
If Senate leaders bring an immigration bill to the floor, it could squeeze efforts to tackle climate change because Senate lawmakers have several other election-year priorities, such as the debate over a replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Pelosi, said Wednesday that the Speaker has not backed away from her goal of getting climate legislation across the finish line. “The Speaker is fully committed to getting a comprehensive energy and climate bill to the President’s desk this year,” he said.

Now, there is no doubt that the immigration bill is very important, but given that the Senate is not going to get more Democratic Senators, there is little chance the bill will pass in 2011.