WASHINGTON
The Senate on Monday opened what likely will be a protracted debate over legislation to combat global warming, with President Bush condemning the complex "cap-and-trade" plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and Virginia's senior senator urging voters to demand its passage.
"There's a great feeling all across America.... We must move and move now," Sen. John Warner, R-Va., told colleagues. "Do something. Doing nothing is not an option. Let us do something."
The massive bill's supporters easily won an early test vote, 74-14, as most opponents abandoned attempts to block a floor debate. But Republican leaders signaled that they're prepared for a long fight; they insisted on 30 hours of general debate time before even beginning to consider what are expected to be dozens of proposed amendments.
Under Senate rules, each amendment could be subject to unlimited debate unless 60 members vote to cut it off.
The cap-and-trade plan co-authored by independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Warner would put increasingly tighter limits on most industrial emissions of greenhouse gases beginning in 2012. Covered firms, including electric utilities and energy companies, would be issued emission allowances that could then be bought and sold on a federally regulated market.
Proponents argue that the market would give companies an incentive to develop anti-pollution technologies, allowing them to recoup their investments by selling their excess emission allocations. Its authors forecast that the Climate Security Act would reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds by 2050.
Critics, including the president, charge that the plan would send already-high energy prices into the stratosphere.
Even before the Senate debate began Monday, Bush declared that the bill "would impose roughly $6 trillion in new costs on the American economy." His press secretary, Dana Perino, said flatly that Bush "hasn't seen a cap-and-trade system designed yet and proposed to this Congress that he could support."
Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said the bill "would raise the price of gas by as much as $1.40 a gallon, home electricity bills by 44 percent, and natural gas prices by 20 percent.... Now is the time to be considering overdue legislation that would send gas prices down, not up."
Off the floor, the bill's opponents were busy distributing gloomy economic forecasts about its effects. The conservative Heritage Foundation, for example, posted congressional district-by-congressional district estimates; in Virginia's 2nd District, including Virginia Beach and much of Norfolk, the bill would drain up to $294 million from the local economy in 2025, Heritage said.
Lieberman, Warner and an assortment of environmental and other groups backing the bill insisted it ultimately will produce economic benefits.
"If we pass the Climate Security Act, it will lower gasoline prices," Lieberman asserted.
"This bill, in dealing with the problem of global warming caused by the emission of carbon dioxide, has to reduce America's dependence on oil, has to stimulate research and development of cleaner, alternative sources of energy," he added.
Lieberman noted that estimates developed by the Bush administration's Energy Information Agency forecast a gasoline price hike of "less than 2 cents a gallon per year" attributable to the bill.
"The American people will be thrilled to have the price of gasoline raised only
2 cents a gallon per year," he said. "And the great news is they'd be particularly thrilled if they felt that 2 cents would be an investment in a whole new set of ways to power their cars and trucks that will actually make the cost of gasoline less."
Lieberman and Democratic California Sen. Barbara Boxer, the bill's other major sponsor, hailed Warner on Monday as the decisive factor in getting the legislation to the Senate floor.
After opposing a similar bill in 2005, Warner had a change of heart following a firsthand look in 2006 at the devastation of forests in the panhandle of Idaho. Warner has said that a ranger who guided him explained that because of warming, beetles once kept in check by Idaho's winter are now able to munch on the pine forests year-round.
Dale Eisman, (703) 913-9872, dale.eisman@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
"GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS"
I remember when the steel mills in PA were still in their heydays, and that's when the environment really was getting trashed. I also remember my first deer season at age 12, year 1975. The first day, that's the first Monday after Thanksgiving, it was 5 degrees F when we left camp at zero dark thirty. T'was no global warming then, despite the "greenhouse gas emissions" those steel mills were putting out (if there is such a thing as a "greenhouse gas"). One time I used the outhouse at the deer camp and it was that cold a ground hog stuck his head up between my legs, looked at me, and said "Thanks for the heat!" Now it's the other way around all around.
Before you get onboard the for/against bandwagon...
...you need to download S2191 and S3036.
Read through the Adobe text, or use keyword searches.
From what I've read, this is is going to have serious unintended consequences.
Serious trade consequences.
Serious numbers of companies moving overseas to areas that are implementing this.
Bash President Bush all you want, but this Climate Security Act is quickly becoming an extremely beefed up/steroided version of the Kyoto Protocol which President Clinton killed.
Seriously folks - do a google search and read the bill for yourselves - don't listen to anyone else.
Man-made global warming is a hoax
John Warner is a doddering old fool who should have retired years ago along with Robert KKK Byrd.
Weather you like it or not!
You could spend every last dollar, ounce of gold, or whatever monetary resource you wanted on preventing global warming and it wouldn't accomplish anything. The earth is going to do what it wants to do whether we like it or not. Can we stop the sun from getting hotter or cooler? Can we change the transitional wobble in the earth's rotational axis? I think not.
We should all be good stewards of our earth and treat it like our own back yard. But to bankrupt our way of life to appease a bunch hysterical over-reactors on science based in self-perpetuating, results based research is absurd. If your job (ie: salary) was based on researching global warming and you didn't find any, then you would be out of a job wouldn't you. Get over the fanaticism and let's deal with "climate change" with reason not emotion.
Carbon Offset
It seems to me, the entire Carbon Offset initiative is a screen to allow rich people like Al Gore and yes, President Bush (he's also rich), to pollute as much as they want. Think it through: The bigger your carbon footprint, the more evil you are. But if you are a rich, energy squandaring person like Mr Gore, you can buy it off by paying people to plant trees. This hasn't been proven scientifically of course, it just FEELS GOOD.
Mr Gore, and any other rich person who is not conservative of energy, can pay money to a corporation and say they have 'Offset' their impact. There is no proof that this works, it's just a theory. And it says that: Rich people can continue their wasteful lifestyles, as long as they pay extra for it. Heck, they can afford it, can you? What does that mean for the middle class? Massive inconvenience and price increases on goods, as you can't afford to pay for YOUR carbon offset. Bottom line: The rich get to FEELGOOD, and you have to suffer America. Yay Al Gore. Nice Job!
Smoke Screen
All the debate over this climate bill is window dressing for the masses. What we the people don't know is that this bill is a response to an international agreement beyond Kyoto that the government has signed on to. Why do I say this? Because the exact same bills nearly word for word have recently passed through the UK's parliament as well as many other countries and states like Calif and Wisconsin. So Bush will make a big song and dance threatening to veto. But if rumors of the Bush family owning 300 thousand acres in Paraguay are true, in the same area that American utility companies have been buying huge tracts of land for carbon sequester trading, this bill will become law. There's trillions of dollars at stake all right, but the average Joe isn't going to share in the jackpot. He will be paying for it.
Eating Their own...
And the Republicans continue to eat their own... Bush's republican party trashed McCain in 2000 in South Carolina and the attacks continue on John Warner. It is so very sad to see...
I know the Dems are not much better but I'm tired of all the negative stuff coming from the White House. Anyone but a Republican in November!!!
Warner is a Leader, Bush is a joke
Bush and other head-in-the-sand Republicans debunk global warming,but the evidence is clear and overwhelming. They used the same sorry excuses in the 1960's and told people that polluted rivers and lakes were just "the price of progress" Guess what? Business had to clean up it's act then, and they still survived and prospered, and we got clean rivers and lakes.
Bush is more concerned with profits than people.
Global warming...HUMBUG!
Global warming...HUMBUG!
He's worried about what?
Bush is sweating $6 Trillion??? How much per day does the war in Iraq cost?
Global Warming & Natural Disasters
The environmentalists are out of control again. The bottom line is that no one really knows what's causing any global warming or natural disasters, but as a Christian I believe it's Biblical. I believe it's God's wrath. If that needs explained what's the point. How is carbon dioxide harming the environment? Plants love it! How are refrigerants depleting the ozone in the atmosphere? They're heavier than air! Thank God President Bush has the brakes on this legislation. It doesn't pass the sanity check. Let Senator Warner pull his family around in a Rickshaw for a few years and see how he likes it before attempting to restructure our economy based on greenhouse gas emissions.
Global Dimming, Anyone?
A scientifically documented condition that goes hand-in-hand with (and masks) global warming is Global Dimming. These are both unquestionably caused by industrialized civilization. Anyone attempting to argue otherwise appears unable to discern the difference between facts supported by evidence and propaganda spouted by politicians.
$6 Trillion? Is that all? When Bush took office (and I use the word took literally) the budget was balanced. Our current national deficit is approaching quadrillions! If Bush wanted $10 trillion to perpetuate his oil war, he would refer to it as a paltry amount. I call $6 trillion a good start.
Natural disasters can only be ignored for so long. Can our country handle another Katrina or monster quake? FEMA is a joke now that it is under the Homeland Security dept.
Please search Global, Solar or Sun Dimming or Katrina Politics and educate yourselves. PBS and NPR have a wealth of information available that has not been "sponsored" or influenced by corporate dollars - unlike the mainstream propaganda misleading millions.
Bush is wrong again
It would cost way more than 6 Trillion. Probably triple.
You have to include the opportunity costs, that is the investments in other technology that won't be made because of the funds soaked up by this useless gesture.
I don't believe a word he says
We have listened to so many lies from the Bush Admin. that I don't believe or trust anything that man has to say.
Sounds like Bush is worried that
his big oil profits might dip. January 20, 2009 can't come soon enough!
President
This president vetoes EVERYTHING that is good in this world, why does it surprise anyone that he would veto this as well?