“Lieberman- Warner Climate Security Act” breezing through Senate

Following a vote on the “Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act” in the Senate, a news conference with remarks by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) was held in advocacy of the bill and how it will help keep our environment clean. The senators speaking at the press conference expressed their satisfaction with the bipartisan support the bill has received from other members of the Senate.

Concerning the bill, Senator Kerry described the role the next President will play in “getting this done” to solve the problem of global warming. Kerry mentioned that our nation has to set an example to other world powers such as China and India about properly funding initiatives to keep the environment clean.

Boxer talked about how, because Americans are concerned about climate change, this bill will pass more quickly than the Clean Air Act that took roughly a decade to pass. In an emotional moment, she told the story of a “beautiful” letter she received from ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) about his appreciation and support for the bill.

Lieberman comically mentioned that, due to the success the bill had in acquiring Senate support, this morning’s vote was “A small step for mankind, and a giant step for the U.S. Senate.” He said the bill would help move American history in a direction it needs to go toward, with Boxer adding that funding for fuel alternatives could also help make our country less dependent on foreign oil.

Billions from Bush to Bank

A Bush administration proposal aimed at expanding cleaner technology in developing countries was discussed by the Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology Subcommittee. Speakers agreed that developing states are inclined to turn to inexpensive, polluting forms of technology in an effort to increase GDP and improve the national standard of living.

President Bush’s plan calls for a two billion dollar contribution from the United States to the World Bank. An additional eight billion dollars would come from other developed countries. Funding would then be distributed through the World Bank, a decision met with skepticism by Brent Blackwelder of Friends of the Earth. Blackwelder said that the World Bank has a history of allocating funds for damaging projects and that there is “no confidence” that the bank has changes its policies.

Jacob Wersman, , program director of the World Resources Institute's Institutions and Governance Program, said that the United States was at last taking the lead in issues pertaining to global climate control, adding that the Clean Technology Fund has potential to also reform the United States’s energy sector.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) expressed discomfort with the monetary price of instituting the program, a discomfort that Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) pointed out challenges a policy formed by Paul’s own party. In reference to government spending, Paul said that the United States “will have to wake up and be responsible.” Frank said that, though he supports the initiative, the Clean Technology Fund would likely be cut ahead of other government projects.

Reid says Republicans don't even want to talk

At a Senate leadership "Pen and Pad" session, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said too many members of the Republican party will not address what he described as the "most important issue of our time" - global warming. He said that Republicans are afraid of change and are only interested in maintaining the status quo.

Reid said that his main focus in the upcoming weeks will be the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. In addition to benefiting the environment, this bill is estimated to lower foreign oil imports by 50 percent. He said that the problem facing the Senate is the Republican Party's refusal to add any sort of input concerning the bill. Reid added that he is ready and willing to negotiate amendments to the Act, although he noted that Republicans seem unwilling to even do that much.

Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said that 87 percent of Americans believe that global warming is an important issue. Durbin also emphasized the idea that the Republicans are afraid of change and that Republican Senators are not putting the appropriate amount of time into the bill. He said that a bipartisan effort is necessary to moving forward on this bill.

Reid also said that the President must take an active role on this issue and cannot just “lurk in the background.” Reid was also questioned about his views regarding Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and his decision to support Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the 2008 election. Reid responded by saying that Lieberman was an asset to the caucus, regardless of his decision to endorse McCain.

Republicans work towards "clean energy independence"

The Senate Republican Conference met with several witnesses to discuss the solution to gaining “more American energy” and achieving “clean energy independence.” A major focus of the discussion was Sen. Lamar Alexander’s (R-Tenn.) “New Manhattan Project” in which he outlines seven steps or “Grand Challenges” which he considers essential to achieving this goal in the next five years. The Grand Challenges include making plug-in electric vehicles commonplace, making carbon capture a reality for coal-burning power plants, achieving cost-competitive solar power, creating safe storage for nuclear waste, developing cost-competitive biofuels, constructing environmentally-friendly buildings, and providing fusion energy.

Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) highlighted that even if the U.S. were to keep its fossil fuel emissions level without decreasing them, the increase in demand will grow by 30 percent in the next 20 to 30 years. He also emphasized that even if the U.S. met its global warming goals, the impact worldwide would be very low. Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) said the U.S. needs to “get real” about its energy future and that the situation is a basic lesson in “Economics 101.” He said the country needs to increase supply and decrease demand by tapping into U.S. domestic oil reserves and proliferation of more fuel-efficient vehicles. All the senators reiterated that there need not be a choice between energy and the environment, but that both goals can be achieved.

Dr. Rhone Resch, President of the Solar Energy Industries Association, said that solar technology is available but a significant market for it does not exist in the U.S. Dr. Scott W. Tinker, Director of the Bureau of Economic Geology, said that one-third of U.S. oil supply is imported, which makes energy independence difficult to achieve.

U.S. needs fuel-efficient cars, not mass transportation

Randal O’Toole of the Cato Institute, Sam Staley of the Reason Foundation, and Greg Cohen of Highway Foundation gave a presentation at the Cato Institute regarding transportation reauthorization. The panelists discussed the difference between technical tools and behavioral tools to reduce transportations costs and pollution.

O’Toole said public transportation was thought to be the main solution to cost and pollution reduction in transportation. The studies conducted by each speaker gave evidence that a light rail system is expensive and not as environmentally friendly as previously thought. Instead, they said the real way to lower costs and pollution is to lessen congestion in populated areas, and try to convince Americans to drive more fuel-efficient cars.

The panelists concluded that the Highway Trust Fund is going to be empty be 2009 so the budget was discussed as well. Staley proposed that in order to fund highways and relieve congestion, toll roads paid for by the users should be implemented. The revenue generated by these tolls could then be funneled back into the highway system, funding a number of highway-related projects. Staley added that even with gas at $4 per gallon, congestion is not going away and is, in fact, getting worse. He said that Americans value the mobility that comes with having their own automobile too much to rely solely on public transportation. Staley claimed that congestion would limit the job economy because it lengthens commutes, and therefore access to jobs that are further away.