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

Chances Of Climate Bill Passing This Year Are Slim, Says Expert

The odds of Congress passing a comprehensive climate control bill in 2010 are not very good, according to Margie Kriz Hobson with the National Journal. Hobson, an energy and environment reporter at the Washington, D.C. based political news organization, told Talk Radio News Service on Friday that simply put, Democrats who want a bill passed do not have the votes.

"I think that the chances of passing climate change legislation are less than 50/50," Hobson told TRNS correspondent Geoff Holtzman. "A dozen Democrats are saying they're not necessarily interested in a bill, and very few Republicans have even hinted that they'd consider voting for a bill, so you just don't have the numbers."

The Washington Post reported on Friday that Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) will unveil a climate proposal on April 26. According to sources, the legislation would include a measure to place carbon emissions caps on businesses and manufacturers. Hobson said most experts believe that many lawmakers just don't have the political will to support a cap-and-trade provision.

"People can definitely describe [cap-and-trade] as a tax," she said. "The House passed a climate bill last year, only the Democrats voted for it. And now, many have discovered that their votes are being used against them in their campaigns for re-election. [Senate Democrats] have to see the pain that it's causing their House colleagues."

Follow Geoff Holtzman on Twitter

Ohio Senator Advocates Climate Bills That Include Border Adjusted Carbon Fees

By Julianne LaJeunesse - University of New Mexico

The Economic Policy Institute held a briefing Thursday with Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), environmentalists, and members of industries that would experience financial and physical changes under proposed climate change bills like the House-passed Waxman-Markey bill and the Kerry-Boxer "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act."

During the briefing, Robert Scott of EPI talked about his recent report "Climate Change Policy—Border Adjustment Key to U.S. Trade and Manufacturing Jobs." He found an audience in Brown and Leo Gerard, President of the United Steelworkers, when he suggested that U.S. jobs and a competitive U.S. industry presence can be recognized through stronger bill language on "border adjustments" as found in the Waxman-Markey bill.

Border adjustments are fees that are charged to countries who use an unregulated amount of carbon to create exported products. That charge is used as a way to level the playing field for countries whose emissions are regulated.

Brown said he appreciated Waxman-Markey's included adjustments, but said the allowed level of presidential discretion in the bill is questionable.

"This needs to be done in a way that is automatic... not allows a president, whoever the president is in the years ahead, to have discretion on this," Brown said. "Because we know how presidents don't move very aggressively on protecting our national interests on manufacturing and trade."

Gerard agreed, saying the amount of presidential authority afforded in the Waxman-Markey needs to be brought back to Congress.

"We've had a terrible experience with presidential discretion for eight years with President Bush," Gerard said. "He exercised his discretion and it cost America tens of thousands of jobs."

In his report, Scott said that if Congress does not support legislation that maintains and improves U.S. competition for energy-intensive and trade-intensive manufacturing, the country could lose as many as 4 million jobs to countries like China and Asia.

Opponents of increasing government control of carbon emissions say that the United States isn't financially ready to divert its money toward greener jobs, particularly in energy-intensive industries such as steel, pulp and paper, glass and clay and nonmetallic mineral products.

According to the Americans for Tax Reform website, their reason for opposing the Waxman-Markey bill in particular, are because the bill "raises taxes on American families, increases the cost of energy, and eliminates American jobs."