Skip to main content

Without You: Climate Change Bill Bypasses GOP

inhofe We can’t really call yesterday’s passage of the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill through the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee tainted, because the bill itself is almost pristine. No amendments were added to it, nothing was removed. But the process lacked a – certain – something:

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported out a climate change bill on Thursday despite a boycott by Republican members, who had required a complete analysis of the measure before participating in the committee debate.

The Republicans bailed out because they wanted a full EPA analysis of the bill before proceeding. Neither Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) nor ranking member James Inhofe (R-Okla.) have put up press releases about Boxer’s maneuver yet. However, Inhofe did issue a statement:

"The Republicans offered a clear path forward to a bipartisan markup, but it was summarily rejected by Chairman Boxer.[Boxer] decided to ignore the entreaties of all 6 ranking members from Senate committees with some share of jurisdiction over climate change legislation, as well as leading moderates in the Senate. Her action signals the death knell for the Kerry Boxer bill," he added.

We’ll see about that death knell. After all, the Finance Committee will have a run at it – Max Baucus (D - Montana), who chairs that committee, was the one vote against it in the Energy committee – and all the Senators will be able to festoon it with amendments once it hits the floor.

But for now, the bill, including the rather empty nuclear title, is the same as when the committee presented it for hearings. We await the next move.

Sen. James Inhofe would like to make a point.


Joffan said…
Since this post is definitely in partisan territory, I feel no qualms in observing that the Republicans were attempting to stall the due process of reviewing this bill by their boycott. Their excuse of looking for EPA analysis is in direct contradiction to their absence during questions of an EPA representative. In fact they were indulging in a political manouever and a counter-manouever was executed against them. Not surprisingly, as the minority party, they found that the ultimate power lay with the majority. Inhofe clearly does not realize that he no longer holds the gavel.
DocForesight said…
@Joffan - Please advise of the date, time and location of the Republican "absence during questions of an EPA representative." I have watched the EPW video from last month where EPA chief Lisa Jackson admitted that any restrictions on CO2 by the US only would have no impact on global climate.

Is it too much to ask for the EPA to produce a cost analysis when you consider the effect, in terms of energy prices and cost to consumers, of this bill?

Not surprisingly, the minority party didn't think the majority party would stoop to a minor technical allowance in the Rules to advance this bill to the floor. Such a move by Republicans would garner howls of protest from the Left, but now it's just shrugged off as the "cost" of being in the minority.

Brute power on display in the formerly greatest deliberative body in the world.
Joffan said…
Hi Doc. The EPA presentation I was referring to was on Tues 3 Nov. The EPA has already produced cost analyses of this legislation. What was already done for the House bill was good enough to adapt for the committee's purposes, unless you are a fan of government departments redoing work from scratch every time a different politican asks the same question.

Abdication is a better description of what happened here. The Republicans cannot function as an opposition if they don't turn up for the debate or the vote. I wonder if they still got paid?
bruce said…
I'm proud that Democrats have taken a stand against these various Republican demands for favorable treatment of nuclear. Nuclear power is a dangerous form of energy and I see no reason to compromise with Republicans on this point. Good job Democrats!

Again, this is partisan territory, no point in being shy about it. So far, Democrats have canceled both Yucca and re-processing, there is no nuclear waste storage solution, so it should not be part of the climate bill.
David Bradish said…
Nuclear power is a dangerous form of energy

Any facts to back that up or is that just an opinion?

there is no nuclear waste storage solution, so it should not be part of the climate bill.

What do you think the nuclear industry is doing right now with its used fuel? Is our management of used fuel in such a dire situation that it needs immediate attention?

Right now, used fuel is stored safely and securely in spent fuel pools and dry casks that are designed to last a very long time and withstand nature's wrath. To me, that doesn't sound like we need to drop all other issues to solve how we manage our used fuel.
Anonymous said…
@Bruce - I'm a Democrat who works in the nuclear industry, so I take exception to your suggestion that Republicans support nuclear power en bloc and Democrats oppose it. No offense, but that's as lazy a generalization as some of your other assertions.

If you were to evaluate the votes on, say, Yucca Mountain with respect to party affiliation, I think you would find that the situation is too complex to accommodate such a binary. There's no other way to explain the fact that the repository program has easily survived every vote in Congress (and in fact received some of its highest funding levels under the Clinton administration and Energy Secretary Bill Richardson).

Moreover, as far as the Yucca Mountain Project is concerned, I can tell you personally that it has not been "canceled." Despite the brutal and frankly unethical funding cuts orchestrated by Harry Reid, and despite Energy Secretary Stephen Chu's betrayal of his former Berkeley colleagues in LBNL's Earth Science Division, who contributed essential components of the Project's technical baseline, the YMP continues to be the law of the land (i.e., mandated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act).

As such, the licensing proceeding continues at NRC, with DOE and its contractors submitting responses to NRC requests for additional information and providing support for legal contentions brought by opposing parties. Rest assured that, unless the NWPA is amended, any cancellation of the YMP will be in direct contravention to the law, which no one from any party should be proud of.

And no matter how much you convince yourself that nuclear power is "dangerous," it will remain true that our nation currently has around 60,000 metric tons of nuclear waste it must store safely and securely. Since you seem to use the notion of "no storage solution" as an implied argument against the continued use of nuclear power, what solution would you suggest on behalf of the 160 million American who currently live within 50 miles of the nuclear waste we have already produced? Too many of my fellow Democrats are unwilling to address this issue honestly.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot., the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.

From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…