Today, Senator Reid, followed Obama in calling for passing the comprehensive climate change bill

[karynnj]

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), authors of the American Power Act, today released a joint statement applauding Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for calling on key Senate Chairmen to strengthen and pass comprehensive energy independence and climate change legislation this year:



“Today, Majority Leader Reid expressed his unwavering commitment to comprehensive legislation to address the nation’s energy challenges, just a day after President Obama once again called for Senate action on a comprehensive climate and energy bill. The disaster in the Gulf has intensified the feeling of urgency on all sides, and Senator Reid’s letter is crystal clear that he expects the Senate to step up to the challenge this year. The time is ripe for action on the American Power Act. Our approach creates 200,000 jobs a year, all while reducing our oil dependence by 40 percent. We look forward to working with the Leader and the White House to continue to strengthen our legislation and make this the year for Senate action.”

http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=325454

[Mass]

1. Not that clear. This is what Manley answered.

(and each time Reid has said something that seemed positive for the climate bill, Manley has been behind making sure that people did not believe it. It seems a little game between the two). This could very well describe Bingaman's bill, or something else. The fact is I dont trust Reid in this. He has never been a big fan of a comprehensive bill, and has paid too much lip service until now.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-06-03/reid-plans-to-bring-up-clean-energy-bill-next-month-update1-.html

Today’s letter is “largely in response to the situation in the Gulf,” and whether Kerry and Lieberman’s climate-change plan will be part of the legislation is “still to be addressed,” Jim Manley, Reid’s spokesman, said in an e-mail.

A bill should include changes to the law to ensure “swift and fair compensation” for the victims of the Gulf spill and safety proposals “to reduce the risks of such a catastrophe from happening again,” Reid said in the letter.
It should also boost the production of “clean and renewable alternative fuels” so the U.S. can “kick the oil habit as soon as possible,” he said.

More here

Committee leaders Max Baucus, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Chris Dodd, Patrick Leahy, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln and John Rockefeller all received the majority leader's letter and have been asked to contribute their ideas to developing a blue print for a comprehensive bill.
But Reid's call for a new comprehensive energy bill likely will have repercussions on other pending legislation — including a climate bill championed by Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).

...
Kerry and Lieberman were quick to praise Reid for an "unwavering commitment to comprehensive legislation." But by asking other top Democrats to begin work independent of the bill Kerry and Lieberman worked on for more than a year, Reid clearly is exploring other approaches to a sweeping energy plan.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38095.html#ixzz0ppXoZgrl
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38095.html#ixzz0ppXZkMSr

[Mass]

2. Steve Benen gets it the same way I do. Let's throw what we have out and start anew

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_06/024096.php

REID'S PLAN FOR AN ENERGY/CLIMATE BILL.... The Kerry/Lieberman energy/climate bill, known as the American Power Act, should be a no-brainer, especially in light of the BP oil spill disaster in the Gulf and the need for alternative energies growing more obvious. But Republican demands for more coastal drilling put the legislation at risk, especially since the GOP will refuse to give the bill an up-or-down vote.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is now moving forward with a related plan, calling on relevant committee chairs to have their own comprehensive legislation ready by July 4. The estimable David Dayen notes correspondence Reid sent today to the relevant committees:

"As you know, I hope to bring comprehensive clean energy legislation before the full Senate later this summer. As your Committee works to develop that legislation, I think it is extremely important that you each examine what could be included in a comprehensive energy bill that would address the unfolding disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The economic, social and environmental devastation occurring there now due to the oil pollution is unprecedented. I believe it is important that your Committee see what can be done to address both the existing situation and to reduce the risks of such a catastrophe happening again.

"Among the actions I think we need to explore are ensuring that the oil companies' are held accountable for their actions and the damages caused by their operations. This may require adjusting current law to more accurately assess and address the damages caused by failures, to ensure the swift and fair compensation of people and communities for their oil pollution related losses, and to update relevant criminal and civil penalty structures. In addition, we must make sure that effective federal safety standards are in place and effectively enforced and that we are better equipped to avert, detect and adequately respond to disastrous failures in the future."


...

The American Power Act, meanwhile, is "still left to be addressed," which suggests the leadership doesn't see 60 votes materializing for the bill. How a new Senate bill will differ remains to be seen.

[ProSense]

3. This makes no sense

The climate change bill is comprehensive and has been in the works for nearly a year. I can understand having the committees weigh in on how to enhance it taking into consideration the Gulf catastrophe, but what the hell does reid think they're going to do in a month?

[Mass]

4. What bothers me more is that, out of the committee leaders the letters was addressed,

with the exception of Leahy, Boxer, and Lieberman, they are all against a climate change bill and for Bingaman's bill. Adding to that that Reid never used the word "climate" in his letter, and that Manley was so dismissive, I am not sure that it is good sign for a climate change bill.

The only one who seems to think it is about mixing 3 pieces of legislation (Kerry-Lieberman, Bingaman, and a BP bill) is Kate Sheppard

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/06/climate-bill-rebranded-bp-spill-bill

But I cant say I feel comfortable with what was said today. I understand that Kerry tried to push his bill, but the answer by Manley was a little too quick for me.

[karynnj]

5. Manley's response and the committee heads involved don't look good

This is a downer. I hope that President Obama is able to push some of them to support the Kerry bill. If they don't it really does show how against dealing with climate change this Senate really is. On this bill, Kerry has bent over backwards to meet others needs as can be. The fact that the next Senate is likely to be worse is disheartening.

[ProSense]

6. This is good

Brent Budowsky

[MBS]

8. actually, I think this article is GREAT!

I've forwarded it to a bunch of people. Thanks so much for posting it "out there"-- the more people who read it, the better.
FYI, you can make comments at the Hill blog site. First few comments were by right-wing crazies. Would be nice to have some balance. . just saying.:)

[Mass]

7. Reid’s Energy Bill Letter: The Case of the Missing Word

Environmentalists are starting to catch up with the absence of the word "climate" in Reid's letter. About time, because it was obvious as soon as I read Reid's letter.

http://washingtonindependent.com/86353/reids-energy-bill-letter-the-case-of-the-missing-word

Reid’s Energy Bill Letter: The Case of the Missing Word

By ELANA SCHOR 6/4/10 10:30 AM
When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) asked major committee chairmen yesterday to offer “recommendations or report legislation” on clean energy before July 4, with an eye to considering a post-oil spill bill later that month, several news outlets interpreted the letter as boosting momentum for a climate change bill.

But as Center for American Progress blogger Joe Romm quickly pointed out, there was one big word missing from Reid’s letter to the chairmen: “climate.” The Senate letter includes no indication that the energy measure under consideration would include a nationwide cap on greenhouse gas emissions or a price on carbon, which President Obama directly called for in his Pittsburgh speech on Wednesday.

Of course, Reid’s omission of any reference to a full-scale emissions cap could have been inadvertent. What makes the absence of the C-word from the Senate letter a potentially ominous sign for environmental groups?

The fact that several senior Senate Democrats, including Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), have pushed all year for a smaller, “energy-only” bill that would include a renewable electricity standard and other clean-fuel incentives — but not the greenhouse gas limits that were present in the House-passed climate plan.

Reid acknowledged the choice before him in an interview with Univision last month, suggesting that he might be forced to call up a trimmed, energy-specific bill if Republicans did not come to the table. “The big bill that we need to do, they are not helping us on that,” he said.

The Gulf oil disaster has undoubtedly shifted the politics of oil, increasing the prospects for stronger safety standards, regulation of the industry, and new taxes — a prospect of which the industry is well aware. But so far, the devastation along the nation’s southeastern coast has opened few new eyes in the Senate to the benefits of a hard cap on greenhouse gases.

If the spill ends up giving Democrats cover to aim for an energy bill that can overcome a GOP filibuster this summer, leaving strict emissions limits on the cutting-room floor, fierce pushback from environmental groups would likely ensue. But those green advocates might want to start by asking why the word “climate” never made it into yesterday’s letter.

[beachmom]

9. Ah, yes, the dreaded Energy Only bill. All the carrots, none of the sticks.

That is the only thing that might get 60 votes, and it would be disastrous. But Obama needs another "victory" to show he is doing something about the oil spill, since there is nothing that can be done to stop it. Kerry said he would "probably" filibuster an energy only bill, "probably" being the key word.

I have a bad feeling about this. Everyone wants to pass SOMETHING with the word "energy" in it, but they still don't want to deal with climate change. If it is an energy only bill then climate legislation is dead for another 20 years. The only way it had a prayer of passing was to entice Senators to vote for it with the carrots. With the carrots already given away, why bother about something that isn't real anyway?

[ProSense]

10. NYT editorial:

The nation’s political leaders have had a lot to say in recent years about America’s addiction to fossil fuels and the need to find cleaner, more climate-friendly alternatives. In recent weeks, they have had a lot to say about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. On Wednesday, President Obama put them together.

In a speech at Carnegie Mellon University, he invoked the spill to pound on Congress about its duty to pass a comprehensive energy bill that addresses oil dependency and global warming. The House has passed such a bill, but a companion measure in the Senate languishes, hostage to solid Republican opposition, exaggerated fears about its costs and timidity on the part of the Democratic leadership. “I will work with anyone from either party to get this done,” he said.

Mr. Obama’s task is to follow up that vow with action. We are we are not optimistic that his implacable Republican opposition will work with him on anything. But perhaps the spreading nightmare on the waters of the gulf will get a few to break with the party line.

The Senate bill is far from perfect. It coddles the coal companies, and its provisions for off-shore drilling that will now have to be revised or at least tightened up with multiple safeguards. But for the first time, the bill would set a price on carbon-dioxide emissions, which are now dumped without penalty into the atmosphere. This is an essential prerequisite for shifting private and public investment to cleaner energy sources.

more