Truthout Original

Facebook DIGG

Senate Inaction Kills Climate Change Bill

by: Christopher Kuttruff, t r u t h o u t | Report

photo
Senator Joseph Lieberman, (I-Connecticut), left, and Senator John Warner, (R-Virginia), center, talk with Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California), right, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, prior to the start of a news conference on the environment and climate change.
(Photo: Susan Walsh / AP)

    On Friday, the Senate set aside a bill to combat climate change after failing to gather the 60 votes necessary to move the legislation forward. The bill, S.3036, was proposed by Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) and John Warner (R-Virginia) to fight the country's massive level of carbon emissions. The legislation would instate a cap-and-trade system to gradually decrease US emissions by two percent a year for an ultimate 2050 goal of emissions 66 percent below 2005 levels.

    While certain organizations assert that the legislation is too weak, the overall support for the bill by environmental groups is overwhelming.

    The bill failed on the Senate floor after a variety of partisan maneuvers to stall debate and an eventual vote.

    Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois), the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, said in a statement, "Every credible scientist and expert believes action is necessary. This is critical and long-overdue legislation that represents a good first step in addressing one of the most serious problems facing our generation."

    Stressing that the bill "was not perfect," Senator Obama went on to say that the legislation could have been improved with further discussion, but instead "the Republican leadership in the Senate has chosen to block progress, rather than work in a good faith manner to address this challenge."

    President Bush threatened to veto the Lieberman-Warner bill if it came to his desk, and Republicans in the Senate rallied behind this position to oppose efforts to move toward a vote.

    Republicans argued that the financial implications of the bill were too burdensome for the American public.

    While the EPA estimated a relatively low economic impact (ranging from two to seven percent of US gross domestic product), Republicans repeatedly recalled the image of $4 per gallon of gasoline and dismissed the bill as too expensive.

    "You can't have a more important issue to be dealing with on the floor of the Senate," Senator John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) stated to reporters. Yet, the debate has been "reduced to trickery and gimmicks and parliamentary games."

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) called the legislation a "giant tax on virtually every aspect of industrial and consumer life."

    Senate Democrats, along with environmental groups, responded sharply to this claim, noting that the implications of climate change are too great not to take action. They also argue that a widespread restructuring of environmental policies will generate a new sector of jobs focused on green technology. These individuals and groups assert that oil is quickly reaching peak production and is a dwindling and dirty resource; thus, renewable (and clean) energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and other such technologies are more economically viable in the long term.

    The bill's chances faded quickly this week as Republicans turned to extraordinary tactics to impede debate.

    McConnell ordered a reading of the full 492-page bill - an extremely rare occurrence - to stall debate for over nine hours on the floor. Republican speaker after speaker rose to make emotional appeals to Americans struggling financially, stating that the bill would increase fuel prices and act as a clandestine tax on a wide spectrum of the US economy.

    On Wednesday, after several days of little progress, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) said he would pull it if the bill did not pass a full vote by week's end.

    On Friday, the vote for cloture (to end the filibuster and move toward a vote) failed to reach the 60-vote threshold at 48-36.

    Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) noted her disappointment about the bill's failure, but stated she was hopeful for the next Congress. Speaking about the next administration, Boxer said "[this debate] is a road map for them."

    Senator Obama concluded in his statement responding to the legislation's failure, "I believe that the American people are ready to lead the world on this issue. The time for distractions, divisions, and excuses is over. The time for new coalitions, informed and civil debate, and a sense of shared purpose is long overdue."

    The United States remains one of the only major economic powers not to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol, and the Bush administration, buttressed by Congressional inaction, has refused to cooperate with domestic and international organizations to address climate change by significantly altering US energy policies.

    More than a dozen environmental groups responded to the Senate debate in a joint statement: "The opposition in the Senate must give up its strategy of denial, delay and disinformation," the groups wrote. "Allies of the coal and oil industry are hijacking the Senate floor at a time when an overwhelming majority of Americans want our country to build a clean energy economy."

»


Christopher Kuttruff is an editor and reporter for Truthout.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Good information, but where

Good information, but where is the pointer to the site that tells me which Senators voted against the bill so I can make a campaign contribution to his/her opponent. (Or if someone wanted to support those anti-climate senators, they might also want the info. That means Truthout remains impartial).

this is unspeakable. please

this is unspeakable. please compile a list of those in the senate who have delayed this essential legislation from moving forward so that we bombard them with emails, letters, and phone calls to demand their responsibility as elected officials to show leadership in these grave times. the future depends on us NOW. those who cannot lead should step aside. their inability to place the welfare of the future above their desire for profit for themselves and their lobbyists must be stopped. let's stop them now. kim linden albany,california

Stupid! Stupid! stupid! I

Stupid! Stupid! stupid! I do not understnad why teh Amereican people aren';t out n the streets banging on pots and pans and caling for the end of this stupidity!

Roadblock Republicans --

Roadblock Republicans -- and/or no-shows. Did McCain show his face for this important vote? The only way to get anything done is not vote for a single Republican senator this fall. They are all slavishly following the totally failed and corrupt policies of the Shrub, Cheney and their ilk. Any amount of money for Iraq, but combatting global warming is too expensive. Utter nonsense. Harry Reid needs to grow some cojones and keep the Senate in session until the whole world sees and knows the names of every Roadblock Republican and the fact they continue to support the Bush agenda of bad science and inaction on global warming.

A relief it didn't pass.

A relief it didn't pass. The science behind all this global warming is a best questionable and at worst political. Scientists around the globe can't even agree on the fact that we are actually in Global Warming. NASA has recently been shown to skewer the numbers. many of the temperature sensors being used to show global warming are in locationns thhat cause false readings or are actually not even calibrated. The single most important reason to reject global warming is when politicians get involved. Follow the money. It's all about making the rich, richer and the poor man a slave. That fact is always in every national and world wide major political issue which is exactly what global warming appears to be. Lets get science to agree that there is a problem and then we scientifically and intelligently figure out what really needs done if anything. Until science can agree then how can we fix something that isn't even proven to be a problem, man made or otherwise. Roght now its just a scam being perpetrated upon the world in order to bring about additional political controls over the lives of we the people.

Another case where

Another case where Lieberman, the munificent "Independent" sabotages a legitimate piece of legislation. If any of them were real they would veto Bush.

Here's to all the Dons ("A

Here's to all the Dons ("A relief it didn't pass. The science...is questionable...A scam...") of the world! May they live to hear their children curse their jerky ideological knees; their self induced blindness, and their fear of admitting they got conned by corporate b.s.

The Internet is sprinkled

The Internet is sprinkled with people who work hard to support the old world European Aristocracy in their march toward implementing Neo-feudalism. It is their ancient Midevil aspirations for universal empire. Don't buy into the tax scheme they expect to pay for the machine of our slavery. Most of Europe was destroyed through war. Those countries lost their stature fighting banker provoked war. America is now a giant war machine with the only export being security services. Perhaps people would better recognize the term "protection money" ala La Cosa Nostra. America's interventionist foreign policy is designed to now pitch the U.S.A. into a great war of undoing first with Iran on behalf of the Zionists and then Russia and China as they have resisted the influences of the Globalists. So, they must go down. This dynamic will leave England and Israel the dominant forces in the universe. The Red Coats are coming.

So, we are all supposed to

So, we are all supposed to suffer (and eventually DIE as a result of the unbelievable weather disasters yet to come as a direct result of global warming) because this government is so inept and failed to act while they had the time to do something about it? May our fate be on their heads because that's exactly where the blame belongs. Make no mistake - they ARE responsible. EACH of us has to do our part to combat the climate crisis, but when your own government refuses to do anything really tangible about the issue, it is nothing short of pathetic...it will take both the efforts of individuals and their governments to reverse what is happening.

For those of you who asked

For those of you who asked who voted how for S.3036 The Warner/Lieberman climate change bill: Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Yea Alexander (R-TN), Nay Allard (R-CO), Nay Barrasso (R-WY), Nay Baucus (D-MT), Yea Bayh (D-IN), Yea Bennett (R-UT), Nay Biden (D-DE), Not Voting Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Bond (R-MO), Nay Boxer (D-CA), Yea Brown (D-OH), Nay Brownback (R-KS), Nay Bunning (R-KY), Nay Burr (R-NC), Nay Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Cardin (D-MD), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea Casey (D-PA), Yea Chambliss (R-GA), Nay Clinton (D-NY), Not Voting Coburn (R-OK), Nay Cochran (R-MS), Nay Coleman (R-MN), Not Voting Collins (R-ME), Yea Conrad (D-ND), Not Voting Corker (R-TN), Nay Cornyn (R-TX), Not Voting Craig (R-ID), Not Voting Crapo (R-ID), Nay DeMint (R-SC), Not Voting Dodd (D-CT), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea Domenici (R-NM), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Yea Ensign (R-NV), Nay Enzi (R-WY), Nay Feingold (D-WI), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Graham (R-SC), Not Voting Grassley (R-IA), Nay Gregg (R-NH), Not Voting Hagel (R-NE), Nay Harkin (D-IA), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Nay Hutchison (R-TX), Nay Inhofe (R-OK), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Nay Johnson (D-SD), Nay Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting Kerry (D-MA), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea Kyl (R-AZ), Nay Landrieu (D-LA), Nay Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Yea Levin (D-MI), Yea Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Nay Martinez (R-FL), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting McCaskill (D-MO), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Not Voting Murray (D-WA), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea Obama (D-IL), Not Voting Pryor (D-AR), Yea Reed (D-RI), Yea Reid (D-NV), Yea Roberts (R-KS), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Nay Smith (R-OR), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea Specter (R-PA), Not Voting Stabenow (D-MI), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Not Voting Sununu (R-NH), Yea Tester (D-MT), Yea Thune (R-SD), Nay Vitter (R-LA), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Yea Taken from the US Senate Website votes

Question for deniers of

Question for deniers of global warming: What will it take to convince you? Florida and Venice underwater? Global famine? I'm tired of the argument that "the science is questionable". Agreed, this is an area open to dispute; we're not very good at predicting what will happen in complex systems like global weather patterns. Nevertheless, there's sufficient evidence on hand suggesting that human activities are affecting global climate that the notion has to be given some serious consideration. Let's agree that the science is uncertain; maybe human-generated CO2 emissions are changing the climate, maybe they're not. How to set public policy in the face of uncertainty? Consider a risk/benefit analysis. If, indeed, rising CO2 levels are affecting the climate, and we do nothing to change our current emission levels. . . Florida and Venice could wind up underwater. And that's just the tip of the (rapidly melting) iceberg of troubles we'd face. Economic, political, societal disruption on a global scale. On the other hand, what if the science is wrong, and CO2 has no effect on climate--but we act as if the threat were real? We'd be doing things like developing alternative and renewable energy sources, mandating improved CAFE standards, and so on. Would this be a terrible thing? Considering that the world's supply of fossil fuels is finite, and that the costs of extraction will only continue to rise as the easily-tapped sources are depleted, seems to me that government action aimed at reducing use of oil and coal is a wise long term policy. Maybe the predictions of catastrophe are overstated. But maybe they're not. Either way, assuming that the CO2/climate connection is real directs us toward policies which, while uncomfortable for some in the short term, would be hugely beneficial in the long run.

Why so surprised? There has

Why so surprised? There has been nothing in the past 8 years which has given any hope for anything except an eternal war, lining the pockets of Haliburton, Blackwater, Carlylse etc. Change is a grassroots endeaveor - make it your own priority, and unless Mr. Obama happens to win the election, forget about the government doing anything to protect your future.

Might want to check out the

Might want to check out the Global Warming Petition Project - 31,000 scientists declaring that man made 'climate change' is a political fraud. And the Club of Rome documents stating that: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill".

As I understand it, this

As I understand it, this bill had promotion of nuclear power hidden in its fine print. Global warming is only a thermometer reading, it is an indicator symptom of a deeper planetary sickness. This bill was a slick idea to trade pollution "rights" for money. Back room cigar chompers with pollution rights are not the answer. Garrett

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.