Kerry, Graham, Lieberman meeting with energy and environmental people

[karynnj]

Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) say they are writing a business-friendly global warming and energy measure, and they are taking their case to the biggest umbrella group of them all: the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth, or AEEG.

<snip - cutting out comments from one environmental leader who fears involving the energy people>

Graham counters that the only way to pass climate legislation that places a first-ever price on greenhouse gas emissions -- something environmentalists want -- is with significant industry support.

<snip>

An industry official said Kerry got attention with a pledge to include a "price collar" that gives certainty about how high compliance prices would go -- something long sought by electric utilities, oil companies and many others. "This is when people's ears picked up," the source said.

<snip>

"I don't trust them, but I trust Senator Kerry," said Anna Aurilio, director of Environment America's Washington, D.C., office.

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/03/17/17climatewire-senate-climate-bill-authors-court-industry-g-66026.html

This is an interesting article and as several people said in the thread on the AP article, when this bill comes out - you can see from this that Kerry will be attacked from both the left and the right. But, the key is what Graham said - that it will place the fist price on gas emissions. Reading this, it sounds like the bill will be seen by the left as the "Baucus Senate healthcare bill" for climate change. But, that ended up as the bulk of the likely (Please God have that bill signed soon!) ground breaking first step of greatly expanded health insurance. Just like on that, the better bill (here, the, Kerry/Boxer bill) is unpassable.

Getting any bill that really prices carbon would, for the first time, make businesses consider the cost of producing carbon in their microeconomics cost functions when they consider various options for their businesses. I think that including that in the cost functions is what likely led to the reasons acid rain was reduced faster and for less cost than originally predicted. (The cap and trade they seem to be abandoning could have been better, but we need to see the set of devices that are proposed.)

[Mass]

1. People who care about content will not be happy. I cant blame them.

I am not happy about this. I have always known it would be a hard sell as most Dems do not care about this issue, but nothing will make me say this is a good bill. It is not.

Like for healthcare, the only question is whether we need to pass something that is very flawed (more drilling? seriously? subsidies for nuclear and clean coal? but not a word concerning new energies -- may be in the bill, but they dont talk about it), or whether we would be better off with nothing.

Without more information on the bill, the jury is out. and Kerry letting the two other guys do the talking does not help.

[karynnj]

2. There are as many Kerry comments as Lieberman and Graham comments

The focus of this article is not a full presentation of the bill. From other Kerry comments in other articles it will have new energies and the electric grid.

Even Kerry/Boxer had subsidies for research on clean coal and solving problems with nuclear. The arguments I have heard for funding coal research range from the "if it could be done, it would be a game changer" to the more cynical view that it goes the final mile in testing it to give it a chance in order to get the votes of those 14 Democratic Senators who are from coal states - while putting a price on the actual carbon production (meaning that coal will become non-economic, if it can't be cleaned up.)

[Mass]

3. This article has virtually no quote, so I was not referring to it, but to the media in general.

I dont have any disagreement with any of these three quotes by respected environmental groups talking about the industry groups. In fact they are fairly positive, and will react according to the bill. Nothing wrong there.

"No, they can't be trusted, but you can't ignore them either," said David Moulton, director of climate policy at the Wilderness Society. "They are powerful, and you have to understand what's motivating them and their members in order to be effective in overcoming that."

"I don't trust them, but I trust Senator Kerry," said Anna Aurilio, director of Environment America's Washington, D.C., office.

League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski said he has his doubts specifically about the senators' negotiations with the oil industry. "Unfortunately while Big Oil claims they want reform, all their resources have been spent trying to block progress," he said. "We'd like to hope that some of the more enlightened oil companies become more aggressive advocates for the changes that we need. That remains to be seen."

The only negative concern from the left is

"The appearance is the senators have kissed so many polluter rings that a residue of soot has been left on the lips," Frank O'Donnell, head of the advocacy group Clean Air Watch, wrote in an e-mail. "The senators appear to want to GET A BILL no matter how many corporate giveaways are involved."

and I don't disagree it is a concern.

As shown by this comment by Graham

outlined concessions they have already made for industry, including Graham's push for an expansion of domestic oil, gas and nuclear power production.

Note the comment is about PRODUCTION, not RESEARCH.

So, I am wary about this bill. As I said, I am ready to wait until the details come out to oppose it, but voicing your concerns is the best way to be sure you are heard, and not only the corporations and mining industries, and this is what these guys do.

Do you think the healthcare bill (as flawed as it is ) would be half as good if the left had not pushed as hard as it is. I dont, and, as infuriating as some may sometimes be, I thank them for their fight.

[karynnj]

4. I had no problem with the environmental comments

I included one - because I think the reason the environmental groups are holding their fire is because Kerry is there. I agree that they will and should comment on the bill.


I agree with you on the healthcare bill. The push from the left was necessary, but here, the left is NOT unified as it was on healthcare. You have Feingold, Franken, Sherrod Brown, Rockefeller and many others more concerned with the economic impact of losing cheap coal than with the environmental impact. These were 14 votes that those fighting for healthcare had as core supporters. Here, it will be a fight to get them - or replace them with Republicans.

[Mass]

5. Left is not the right term. I used it by laziness, but somebody is not left wing or right

wing on everything. Also, by left, I was not talking about more progressive Senators, but grassroot groups like HCAN, MoveOn or DFA in the case of healthcare.

In this case, the relevant term should be "environmental lobby". We need them to pull strongly so that the bill does not become watered down so much it is useless in a rush to get Republicans. These people could be a useful lobby reminding people like Feingold or Sherrod Brown what the good goal is, or reminding Kerry that some of the measures to help those Sherrod Brown can be progressive measures.


So, I certainly hope the environmental lobby will do its job here, and, if this means sometimes they will disagree with Kerry, it is fine with me. They are not our enemy in this fight, far from it.

[karynnj]

8. I certainly don't think the environmental groups are the enemy -

I am with them. Here though you are not holding Brown to the standards you are holding Kerry too. Kerry is far better on this issue than Brown is.

As to getting Brown, I don't understand what the "progressive measures" are. I understand that his issues are that Ohio is a coal state with main "dirty" industries. From your article, it was because of people like Brown, that Kerry gave up on cap and trade and replaced it with the set of caps that they have not yet fully explained. Now, as it likely saves some jobs in dirty industries, it adds to the carbon that continues to be put in the air.

This tradeoff is not necessarily more meritorious than others made to industries we don't like, but like them, they may have been needed to get 60 votes.

[Mass]

6. The Boston Herald has a Tribune article on the bill.

Interestingly, it describes Sherrod Brown as a supporter of the bill.


http://news.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20100317on_climate_bill_democrats_reach_out_to_industry_heavyweights/srvc=home&position=recent

On climate bill, Democrats reach out to industry heavyweights


By Jim Tankersley / Tribune Washington Bureau up!
WASHINGTON — As he toured union halls and factory floors in his 2006 Senate campaign, Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown repeatedly railed against the "prescription bill the drug companies wrote," the "energy bill the oil companies wrote" and all the other policy decisions dominated by special interests.

...
Brown is one of a handful of senators trying to line up support for a climate bill that would put new limits on greenhouse gas emissions and spur production of renewable energy.


And surprising as it may seem, the heart of those senators’ strategy is to woo special interests — major electric utilities, steel and cement producers, farmers and coal and oil companies.

...

Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., "acknowledged that this needs broad industry support, or it ain’t gonna happen," said Bruce Josten, the chamber’s executive vice president of government affairs, who helped organize the meeting.

Kerry said as much in an interview.

"This is a bill with major impact on our economy, and we want the important players at the table," he said. "There is no question in my mind that if a broad cross-section of American business is saying we need this to create jobs and we need this to be competitive and we want this certainty, I can’t imagine senators ignoring the job-creators on that."

The approach has breathed a glimmer of life into a Senate effort many had left for dead, stoking hopes that a half-dozen Republicans could sign onto the bill
...
The bill would slowly phase in emissions limits for factories — the steel, cement, chemical and other companies that Brown wants to ensure won’t be driven offshore by high energy prices — while buffering them from price spikes. The legislation also would create new incentives for renewable-energy manufacturing.

Brown calls those protections critical for the economy and for efforts to combat climate change: If factories move to countries that have more relaxed environmental rules, such as China, global emissions could increase, he argues.

[karynnj]

7. That is great, but as you can see from the context

it may have come by conceding the industry wide cap on emissions - and slowly phasing in any emission limits for factories. Brown makes a good point, that the industries would move to countries with even weaker rules.

Brown is a great person to have as a supporter.

[Mass]

9. Here is the proposal according to the time.

If this paragraph is correct, I cannot support this bill.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/03/17/17greenwire-senators-share-emission-bills-details-with-ind-76627.html

In a bow to industry demands, the senators' proposal would pre-empt U.S. EPA climate regulations under the Clean Air Act and halt dozens of state climate laws and regulations now on the books. Also, only facilities that release 25,000 tons per year of greenhouse gases must participate in the climate program.

[beachmom]

10. Yup. Saw that.

I agree it is a toothless bill that may be worse than the status quo. BUT, maybe other details will come out and it won't be as bad as we think.

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/03/chamber-finally-finds-climate-bill-it-can-back

The signals coming out of this meeting are not very good in terms of climate, though Kerry had already scaled back expectations on that front. (Admittedly, they haven't been high for quite some time.) At this point, though, the senators are still circulating an 8-page outline, not full legislation, so a lot of the details aren't yet clear. The senators aren’t expected to release a real bill for another few weeks. They’re also meeting tomorrow with environmental groups to talk over the draft, so there may be more information coming out of that meeting.

BTW, I may need to take another break soon because, well, David Roberts of Grist predicts what is going to happen:

Man, when Kerry's climate bill hits the airwaves, the circular firing squad on the left is going to be something to see. From under my desk.

The only thing that is going to save us is that less folks in the lib blogosphere care about climate change than they did about hcr.

[Mass]

11. Hopefully, Sheppard is right and there is more.

Otherwise, the firing squad will be strong. With the excerpt concerning EPA regulations, this bill would be worse than the status quo.

[karynnj]

15. Looks like it is already starting

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gillian-caldwell/dirty-polluters-rewriting_b_504996.html

[karynnj]

14. That's not good

[beachmom]

12. Here is an interesting article on Think Progress, that KGL is actually fulfilling Obama's promises:

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/03/18/kerry-graham-lieberman-rumors/

From the details that have been released by the members of the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce working group of top polluter lobbyists who met with the legislators yesterday, it appears that the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman draft is consistent with President Obama’s principles and similar in its policy aims to the Waxman-Markey ACES Act.

Further information will be required to determine if the legislative package will allow the United States to join an international solution to global warming. The chances of passing this legislation in an election year depend on whether enough political pundits will believe, as Kerry and Graham do, that their approach is the right political response to the headline-making shocks of rising gas prices, faltering economic competitiveness, and increasing climate instability.

See the table at the link.

[beachmom]

13. Kerry met with environmental groups today. They are not saying a lot:

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/03/enviros-mum-kerry-meeting

Kerry, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) met with industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute and the Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday, who walked away from the meeting praising what they saw as “in sync” with industry requests. But enviros had little to say about what they think of the bill--and dashed away from the handful of reporters awaiting them outside Kerry's office following the nearly two-hour meeting.

"We had a very encouraging meeting, and we're looking forward to continuing to work together to pass a comprehensive bill this year,” said Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters. He didn’t offer much more than that.

"I’m not going to comment on any specific conversations or alleged leaks about alleged bills," he continued. "We’re very encouraged, very promising, looking forward to moving forward as quickly as possible."

[beachmom]

16. Okay, they are supportive. Admittedly, I trust the enviro groups a heckuva a lot more

than Industry!

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/03/enviros-supportive-kerrys-climate-effort-though-details-still-tbd

Twenty environmental groups on Friday issued a statement praising the headway on a climate and energy package from Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), while noting that there are still many details to be worked out.

"Their stated goal and commitment to a 17% reduction in carbon pollution by 2020 and an 80% reduction by 2050 represents the leadership needed by the US Senate to create jobs, increase energy security, reduce carbon pollution and protect public health," said the groups. "Legislative details are important, and are not settled yet, and we will be working closely with the senators, their staffs and others to make sure these details achieve the goals."

...

Here are the 20 groups issuing today’s statement: The Alliance for Climate Protection, Environment America, Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, Blue Green Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Union of Concerned Scientists, National Tribal Environmental Council, Environment Northeast, National Audubon Society, Interfaith Power and Light, Conservation International, Defenders of Wildlife, Clean Water Action, The Wilderness Society, Climate Solutions, Green for All, and the Environmental Law and Policy Center.

[karynnj]

17. That's a relief!

Thanks for posting this.

[ProSense]

18. Wonderful. n/t