Schumer: Dems likely to keep energy and climate bills separate

[Mass]

Ain't it great. So, according to Schumer, the crappy energy bill would be the bill, and the climate bill would just be an after-thought.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/101667-schumer-dems-likely-to-keep-energy-and-climate-measures-separate

Schumer: Dems likely to keep energy and climate bills separate
By Michael O'Brien - 06/07/10 08:33 AM ET
A proposed measure to address climate change is likely to be offered as an amendment to an energy bill Democrats have drafted in the Senate, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Monday.

Schumer offered details of an energy and climate change bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said he plans to move in July.

"Leader Reid is preparing a really good, strong bill," Schumer said this morning during an appearance on MSNBC, describing elements of the legislation.

Schumer said the legislation would include a lot to encourage alternative energy consumption, including nuclear energy. The proposal would also include stricter regulation of some utilities like oil companies in the wake of the massive offshore spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

But Schumer hinted that the legislation would be largely based on an underlying energy bill authored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It would be on top of that where Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) would have an opportunity to offer their proposals to rein in climate change, Schumer explained.

The Bingaman proposal would be "the base bill upon which John Kerry will seek to add his bill," Schumer said.

"Kerry has a proposal that has pretty broad support," added the senior Democrat. "He's going, in my opinion, going to get a chance to offer it in the form of an amendment."

And, though OT, an interesting article by David Roberts about the chances of the climate bill

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-07-is-the-climate-bill-going-to-pass-top-five-things-to-watch/
Is the climate bill going to pass? Top five things to watch

[MBS]

1. GRRRRR I just can't stand him n/t

[karynnj]

2. Schumer and Reid likely do not care that this could make passing a bill that does

both harder. Either way Kerry needs 60 votes. Does this mean that the Kerry/Lieberman bill will be an amendment where it is offered as a substitute? I assume that other Senators would be able to offer the same amendments to Kerry's amendment that they could have offered had it been the main bill. (From past bills, I think those amendments would be voted on first and then the revised (if any passed) Kerry bill is voted on. If it passes, it becomes the real bill and it then has to be voted out of committee. (Is this right, Tay Tay?)

It would seem that the biggest negative is it shows that the leadership in the Senate is not really behind Kerry. Or it could be that they are doing it to have a contingency plan if it fails in passing something on energy and this would lead to the following possibilities:

- Kerry's amendment passes with 60 votes and it essentially becomes the bill

- Kerry's amendment fails, climate change legislation is doomed likely for at least 4 years, probably longer, and the energy only bill is passed with substantial

If this is correct, it means that the Kerry amendment's vote is the big vote. If it gets 60 votes, the remaining votes are basically formalities.

_________________________________________________________________________________________-

I purposely wrote that before looking at the Grist link;

His comment on the Lugar bill is interesting. I wonder if that would mean that Reid would join Lugar for the "bipartisan bill". From the articles on the Lugar bill, it claims to have only about half the reduction in carbon that Kerry's does. Not to mention it has no mechanism that actually forces the change. The goal that GHWB committed to after Rio was voluntary change. There have been bills passed giving incentives for conservation and funding to clean energy. the net effect has been very small. There are a lot of good conservation ideas in Lugar's bill (that might be from Kerry's), but if its approximate claim is half of Kerry's 1&% it is really pretty inadequate. I assume that the Grist comment may be that it has fewer giveaways than Bingaman's and it does do more on conservation. (It i too bad that he can't be budged on pricing carbon. He would have been a much better partner than Graham.)

[wisteria]

3. Schumer is one of the reasons I am disgusted with the Democrats.

I don't know who is worse, Reid or Schumer. I can stomach Reid, but Schumer I just can not stand. This is BS, and I really do not understand how Senator Kerry can tolerate these types of maneuvers and pokes in the eye. I guess he doesn't take it personally.

[MBS]

4. "how a bill becomes law" (slightly OT)

chart via the Daily Dish website .



With Schumer's latest muck,I don't have a clue where the climate bill currently sits on this chart, but I found it kind of entertaining chart

[beachmom]

5. Schumer sides with John Cornyn. How nice.

I bet you even with this "single", Cornyn will still vote nay.

[ProSense]

6. Schumer is a sellout

more

What the hell is Kerry's and the WH's position on this?

It's friggin disgraceful.

[beachmom]

7. Not so OT, but David Roberts of Grist has weighed in on what Schumer said:

drgrist Schumer: Dems likely to keep energy and climate measures separate http://bit.ly/cj8cJD (This is tantamount to killing #climatebill.)

[Mass]

9. That's pretty obvious. The reason to fold Bingaman's bill in the climate bill was to gain

votes from those who wanted Bingaman's bill to pass. Making the climate bill an amendment to the energy bill gives an excuse to cold feet Democrats to vote against a climate bill amendment, while claiming they did something for energy and environment.

[Inuca]

13. Exactly!

Very maddening! These last few weeks, with everything and everywhere seeming to go to hell in a handbasket a the same time have been difficult to swallow. I am not the biggest environmentalist out there, but when I saw the first pictures of the black pelicans they litereally brought me to tears.

Why the hell can't politicians, so many of them, understand/accept/deal with a more holistic approach, accept and deal with the interconnectedness. It's much simpler to compartamentalize into small supposedly independent boxes, the problem is that that's NOT how things are.

Apologies if the above does not make much sense, not feeling very well, took the day off, brain fuzzier than usual. I basically just wanted to add my own major GRRRR!! to MBS's above :-(

[ProSense]

8. They make me sick.

I've been thinking about something since this was reported, and if you don't know Murkowski is the ranking Repub on Bingaman's committee. She has been pushing to weaken the EPA. It's good to see that I'm not the only one thinking about this.

The first comment in response to this piece by Ezra Klein:

How much do you want to bet that an amendment preventing the EPA from enforcing its mandate to regulate carbon emissions gets attached to the bill?

Ugh!

[karynnj]

10. What a disaster

So, they take away every possible carrot and the only real stick away. This shows our government is completely bought by the big companies. I wonder what planet they intend to live on in 10 or 20 years.

At this point it looks hopeless. (I don't think even a Kerry speech could make me optimistic about it now.)

[beachmom]

11. Not just that. Democrats who KNOW BETTER are too weak kneed to even try.

Guys, it's not like I was all that optimistic of this thing passing. But if it fails, I want it to be a failure with theater!!! They should TRY and there should be as much drama as there was over health care. Instead, there won't even be a fight. They are just going to give up before they even start.

You know, those companies wouldn't have had as much sway if we actually had leaders who CARED ABOUT and KNEW something about global climate change. But they don't. So the corporate money is just one more little push to kill the legislation. The money alone wouldn't have been enough to kill it. Willing actors had to be involved. And along with Republicans they involve many, many Democrats & not just red state conservative ones.

Come to think of it, a LOT of companies were for this climate legislation. It was simply Big Oil and Big Coal who opposed.

[ProSense]

12. Arrrrgh!

Schumer Walks Back Pessimistic Climate Change Prediction

[beachmom]

14. Okay, the environmental reporters have gotten wise about Schumer (& Reid)

Check out these Twitter conversations between two Grist writers and the environmental writer, Bryan Walsh, for Time:

http://twitter.com/bryanrwalsh/status/15715745102

There it goes RT @jhiskes Reid will move energy bill to Senate floor, won't include carbon cap, staffer tells The Hill http://is.gd/cHo6u


http://twitter.com/drgrist/status/15719063980

@jhiskes @bryanrwalsh The "deputy" in that Hill story is just Schumer, who was popping off out of turn. See: http://bit.ly/dbToHe


http://twitter.com/jhiskes/status/15718824242

Re-reading The Hill, it sounds like Schumer is Reid's "deputy" in question. I thought a Reid staffer was saying the same http://is.gd/cHo6u