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

Climate Policy Director Says U.S. Must Commit To Copenhagen

By Julianne LaJeunesse, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service

With only three weeks until the United Nations’ Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, experts say that an unready United States will have to show the international community that it is still committed to long-term solutions.

“On this front, the U.S. is a bit tardy in terms of delivering its commitments but it hasn’t quite got an incomplete yet,” said Jack Schmidt, International Climate Policy Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council, who spoke Monday on a conference call with reporters.

President Barack Obama said that time for negotiations has run out for the U.S. in terms of forging agreements at the Summit. Obama said he favors a Danish proposal, which outlines commitments while postponing deadlines on emission targets, financing and technology transfer. In Singapore yesterday, Obama said he remains committed to reducing U.S. emissions by 80% and endorsed a goal of reducing global emissions by 50% by 2050.

Schmidt said that “prompt-start financing” could reflect U.S. resolve. The financial commitment builds trust between developed and undeveloped countries by providing the means to invest in infrastructure for undeveloped countries that want to use clean energy technology in product and energy creation.

“We need to stay focused on the fact that a number of the key countries across the world, including the major developed countries, over the past year... have brought forward commitments and have signaled that they’re going to take steps,” Schmidt said.

Former Senate Majority Leader Frustrated By Pace Of Climate Policy

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) stated Friday that he is frustrated by the pace at which climate policy is developing in the U.S.

“It’s fairly clear at this point that we’re not going to be in a position to make a significant, new legislative achievement between now and the time of the Copenhagen meeting,” said Daschle during a telephone briefing with reporters, referencing December’s United Nation’s climate change conference.

“Time is wasting, work needs to be done,” he added.

Daschle acknowledged that health care reform has monopolized a great deal of Congress’ time, but expressed hope that after work on the issue is completed, legislators will give greater focus to climate change legislation.

“As we go forward, this will become more and more central,” said Daschle. “The House has acted, and there’s every expectation the Senate will as well.”

The American Clean Energy and Security Act passed through the House in June. The Senate moved the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, sponsored by Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer, through the Environment and Public Works Committee in early November.

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."

Sen. Brown: Climate Bill Will Not Pass Without Manufacturers' Approval

By Leah Valencia
, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said the American Clean Air and Security Act will not make it through the Senate if harmful economic consequences facing the manufacturing industry are not addressed.

"I don't think there's any way we get to even 50 votes if we don't deal with manufacturing in the climate change bill," Brown told reporters in a conference call organized by Campaign for America's Future. "I do know for sure that there are a number of us who understand that manufacturing is so important to this country that if we don't do manufacturing right, our standard of living will continue to decline."

The American Clean Air And Security Act passed through the House of Representatives late June under the stewardship of Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). The bill seeks to put a cap on greenhouse emissions and levy a tax on carbon.

According to Brown, the concern facing lawmakers is that new climate control legislation would constrict existing environmental regulations, and thus persuade manufacturers to advance overseas production as a means to lower labor and energy costs.

Brown said it is imperative to have at least a temporary "border equalization" step to prevent American manufacturing jobs from relocating to India and China

"We need some sort of border equalization ... temporary not permanent...until the Chinese and others move in the direction they need to on this issue," Brown said.

The Ohio senator said the President needs to take a more aggressive approach to regain trust from the American public during this week's G-20 summit in Pittsburgh.

"The public has already lost confidence in trade agreements and the way we approach globalization," Brown said.