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 Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.

Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?