Kerry, Lieberman Unveil Climate Bill Without Graham

Joined by over a dozen stakeholders, but absent the presence of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) put forth their much-anticipated energy bill today, the American Power Act (APA).

After months of delay, the duo decided they could no longer wait for Graham, an original co-author of the bill, to move forward with them. Graham has expressed displeasure over the Obama administration's calls for Congress to take up work on immigration reform. Earlier in the day, however, Kerry told MSNBC that Graham will support the bill, which If enacted, he said, would leave a positive print on just about every aspect of American society.

"The bill that we are introducing today...will restore America's economy and reassert our position as a global leader in clean energy technology," he said. "It will create millions of jobs, move us towards energy independence and strengthen America's security. And it will give us cleaner air."

The Kerry-Lieberman bill is being framed as somewhat of a compromise between the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), passed by the House last year, and the broad energy proposal laid out by President Obama. On a controversial item known as cap and trade, a system by which companies are provided with economic incentives for limiting their emissions, the APA would gradually implement the policy, first on utilities and industries, and then on the broader economy by 2025. The President's plan calls for the imposition of an economy-wide system of cap and trade, while the House bill would mandate cap and trade for utilities, industries and big oil starting in 2012.

Similar to both the White House plan and the House bill, the APA aims to lower emissions by 80% below 2005 levels by the year 2050. Yet unlike them, the APA contains support for nuclear energy and natural gas, items that could win the support of conservative Democrats and Republicans. In addition, its price tag is slightly lower than both its counterpart in the House and the administration's plan. Another key difference is its inclusion of language that would allow states to opt out of offshore drilling within 75 miles of their coast.

But although the bill attempts to usher in a new era of clean energy usage in the U.S., many of its provisions already face legions of criticism. For starters, opponents say it will ration energy use for Americans by increasing the cost of everyday consumption for businesses and individuals.

Ben Lieberman, a senior energy and environment policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, told Talk Radio News Service that the APA amounts to nothing more than a giant energy tax.

"The only way to reduce these greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels is to raise the cost of energy," he said. "They have to raise costs high enough so that people are forced to use less, that's how this works."

In addition, there are concerns about the bill's impact on the nation's coal industry, which has lately been the focus of an intense debate in Washington over energy safety due to the tragic deaths of dozens of miners in West Virginia earlier this year. Though the APA contains weaker financial restrictions on coal production than the House bill, critics believe the administration favors moving completely away from coal. In fact, days before he was elected President in 2008, Mr. Obama said "if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

According to Lieberman, the net effect of smaller investment in coal and natural gas will be increased unemployment.

'Sure, there's a few 'make-work' jobs created in specialized industries that will deal with reducing emissions," he said. "But overall the impact is negative; higher cost of energy and fewer jobs."

Click here for more on the American Power Act

Is Cap-and-Trade the Answer?

Coffee Brown, University of New Mexico, Talk Radio News


At the Washington Post Company Conference on "Planning for a Secure Energy Future," Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) said, "We are the Saudi Arabia of coal." It's harmful, he acknowledged, but we have it in abundance and we’re dependent on it. If we don't use coal, China and India will. We should have committed to alternative energy 30 years ago, "but American attention to these matters goes on and off like the light when you throw the switch," he said.
Clean coal is a relative term. We can substantially reduce emissions, but how and at what cost will involve serious debate, he said.
"The Europeans have had at least two fine messes" applying cap-and-trade, Dingell said, adding that there are many options, all having flaws, and Congress will have a huge fight over them.
Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) said coal is a great energy source, "but it has one bad feature: if we burn the coal reserves that we know exist in this country and in China, the planet will cook." He said the coal industry needs cap-and-trade, because if it does not become clean, it becomes unsustainable. Cap-and-trade revenue could fund the necessary research. "The future of this industry depends on the existence of that research," he said. "These are job-creating opportunities."
We have overestimated the cost and difficulty of such projects, according to Inslee. We had to commit to the Apollo project, and then we succeeded. "We are on the cusp of enormous technological transformation, but it cannot happen at the pace it has to happen unless we have (the pressure that cap-an-trade would exert),” he said. “As long as we can burn coal that is not sequestered, it strangles in the bed all of these new companies that are champing at the bit to start getting going." "This pace of global warming is not Al Gore's schedule,” he said, adding that it is a fact of nature and it is happening much faster than had been predicted even one year ago.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said, "By the year 2020, our country is expected to need 40 percent more electricity generation than we're using today. Coal has to be part of that picture." It's about 53 percent of total national energy generation.
We are not building new coal plants, and China is building many, he said, “and they're not using carbon capture.”
Pointing out that efficient carbon capture is 10-15 years away, but cap-and-trade starts immediately and benchmarks begin in 2012, Upton says that the technology should precede the regulations.

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.) agrees: "This is like (anesthetizing) the patient while the researchers are still trying to figure out how to operate." He characterized cap-and-trade as a redistribution of wealth from businesses to individuals. "Far from being a job creator, I think this could be a huge job killer."
He said that when cap-and-trade decreased sulfur dioxide emissions, circumstances were different.
All of the participants at the conference agreed on the reality and the danger of climate change, but debated whether various alternative energies are practical, and whether cap-and-trade should drive the reduction of carbon emissions or await more cost-effective technology.