Thread: Some Republicans say open to U.S. climate bill

Some Republicans say open to U.S. climate bill

Richard Cowan
WASHINGTON
Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:59pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Some prominent Republican senators expressed openness on Tuesday to a U.S. climate change bill that might be introduced next week and that would need bipartisan support to have any chance of advancing.

Senator Lamar Alexander, a member of the Republican leadership in the Senate, praised the sector-by-sector approach in a compromise bill aimed at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

"I think a sector-by-sector approach makes a lot more sense for dealing with carbon," the Tennessee senator told reporters.

Winning Republican support would be big breakthrough for Democrats and the Obama White House, especially as some Republican lawmakers have been sharply critical of climate legislation because of concerns industry would be hurt and also due to skepticism over the science behind global warming.

The sector-by-sector approach contrasts to an economy-wide approach taken by a bill passed last year in the House of Representatives that was also sharply criticized by Republican lawmakers.

Alexander said he "would consider a cap on utilities only if we could figure out the right way to do it that didn't drive costs up substantially over the short term."

Republican Senator Scott Brown, whose election in January robbed Democrats of their 60-seat supermajority, told Reuters, "I'm open to reading anything that's being proposed" for climate change legislation.

A trio of senators -- Democrat John Kerry, independent Joseph Lieberman and Republican Lindsey Graham -- are trying to put the finishing touches on a climate change bill that aims to reduce carbon pollution by capping emissions, starting in 2012, from electric power utilities.

The transportation sector would see a new tax, probably after oil is refined, instead of a carbon cap, although the fee would be linked to pollution permits traded in the utility sector.

As for the third sector -- manufacturers -- Kerry, Graham and Lieberman have been weighing a cap-and-trade scheme like the one for utilities, but phasing it in starting in 2016. Alexander voiced opposition to capping factory emissions.

Kerry would not say whether he has succeeded yet in winning the support of any Republicans other than Graham for the bill he hopes to unveil next week.

RALLY AROUND A BILL

Graham told Reuters that the goal was to "put a bill out there the three of us can rally around" and see "the kind of reception it gets once it's rolled out."

But before being introduced, Kerry, Graham and Lieberman still have difficult issues to resolve.

Graham said the trio is "revisiting" how to allocate future carbon pollution permits for electric power companies, a thorny issue that has brought criticisms from various senators, including Democrat Carl Levin from Michigan.

"Things are coming together but there's still some hurdles," Kerry said, without specifying. He said more meetings were needed this week with senators and industry.

Some liberal Democrats attacked the bill's planned inclusion of expanded offshore oil and gas drilling.

"Without very significant alteration of the drilling issues, they'll probably lose my vote," New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez told reporters.

Senator Frank Lautenberg, also from New Jersey who last year voted for an Environment and Public Works Committee climate bill that Kerry's effort builds upon, said expanded offshore drilling could jeopardize his state's beach resorts and related businesses if there was an oil spill.

"I'm not comforted by a 50-mile limitation," on drilling offshore, he added.

The three senators writing the climate bill are hoping to introduce it early next week, according to sources, around the April 22 40th anniversary of Earth Day, an event that sometimes draws derision from some Republicans.

"We're not going to do it on Earth Day," Graham said, adding, "It's going to be offshore drilling day when it's introduced."

(Editing by Philip Barbara)

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6 ... 22&sp=true

FRAUD ~ GLOBAL FRAUD

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!

Man I'm so sick of this stupid fraud being advanced on America!

Originally Posted by AirborneSapper7

Some prominent Republican senators expressed openness on Tuesday to a U.S. climate change bill that might be introduced next week and that would need bipartisan support to have any chance of advancing.

Apparently we have quite a few Republicans that need to be voted out of office.

Holy Mackerel! What is wrong with these people? They need to be stopping illegal immigration, reducing legal immigration, passing the FairTax, protecting our trade, lifting the bans on oil and gas drilling and working on a plan to legalize/regulate/tax under the FairTax the illegal drug trade so we can fix our economy, get our people back to work, reduce government spending, pay down the national debt and lower the tax burden on Americans.

Holy Mackerel! What is wrong with these people?

You know what is wrong. Lobby money. Pure and simple. Graham supports this nonsense because he sees it as the only way to get the number of new nuclear power plants built that he wants, which is pay back to one of his biggest supporters. I suspect every other Republican senator who halfway supports this crap has lobbyist checks stuffed into every mattress he/she owns.

What the global warming nuts will not acknowledge, nor will the MSM publicize, is that the biggest polluter in the world is Mother Nature. Just this week there is a massive volcanic cloud emanating from Iceland that has temporarily halted most flights to Europe across the Atlantic, and is affecting flights in Europe as well. Also in the news this week was the discovery at the bottom of the Caribbean Sea of a massive fissure that vomits out, among other things, CO, CO2, Hydrogen Sulfide, and methane. Highly acidic. And the article acknowledged that scientists have no idea how many thousands of such fissures feed into the oceans of the world. Hot too. The heat inside the fissure is several thousand degrees, enough to melt steel.

Soooo, what's wrong with protecting the environment? I would assume that some of you have kids, and would like a decent planet to live on when we the people die. We are doing nothing for our children. Republicans and Democrats have made sure that our kids are going to suffer our consequences. Personally, I would rather the generation that caused the mess to suffer, not my kid. The people that don't care about the environment should be ashamed, because it is so obvious that it is a problem, but as usual, you reduce it do a Left vs Right political issue. You kids will be PROUD!!

Originally Posted by DarthIllegal

Soooo, what's wrong with protecting the environment? I would assume that some of you have kids, and would like a decent planet to live on when we the people die. We are doing nothing for our children. Republicans and Democrats have made sure that our kids are going to suffer our consequences. Personally, I would rather the generation that caused the mess to suffer, not my kid. The people that don't care about the environment should be ashamed, because it is so obvious that it is a problem, but as usual, you reduce it do a Left vs Right political issue. You kids will be PROUD!!

I for one totally support protecting the environment, but paying companies to stop polluting in one area by selling credits to other companies to pollute another area and then having the government profit from taxing the transactions, isn't how I would solve the problem. We have a Clean Air Act already that like our US immigration laws, just needs to be cleaned-up a little bit and then enforced.

Originally Posted by Judy

Originally Posted by DarthIllegal

Soooo, what's wrong with protecting the environment? I would assume that some of you have kids, and would like a decent planet to live on when we the people die. We are doing nothing for our children. Republicans and Democrats have made sure that our kids are going to suffer our consequences. Personally, I would rather the generation that caused the mess to suffer, not my kid. The people that don't care about the environment should be ashamed, because it is so obvious that it is a problem, but as usual, you reduce it do a Left vs Right political issue. You kids will be PROUD!!

I for one totally support protecting the environment, but paying companies to stop polluting in one area by selling credits to other companies to pollute another area and then having the government profit from taxing the transactions, isn't how I would solve the problem. We have a Clean Air Act already that like our US immigration laws, just needs to be cleaned-up a little bit and then enforced.

Agreed! But, coming from a state that thinks pollution is a right (Texas) and have a kid that has asthma, I think ANY help would be appreciated. It's all fine and dandy until you have someone that is directly effected by it. Bush DESTROYED our environment while he was governor, and hurt it even further when he became president. Something needs to happen and it needs to happen now.

Soooo, what's wrong with protecting the environment? I would assume that some of you have kids, and would like a decent planet to live on when we the people die. We are doing nothing for our children. Republicans and Democrats have made sure that our kids are going to suffer our consequences. Personally, I would rather the generation that caused the mess to suffer, not my kid. The people that don't care about the environment should be ashamed, because it is so obvious that it is a problem, but as usual, you reduce it do a Left vs Right political issue. You kids will be PROUD!

Cap and Trade (and its assorted variants) is a tax scheme, not an energy / environmental solution. Nobody in the government gives a tinkers dam about the environment. It is about money. When you hear the establishment talk about the "green" movement, they really mean "greenbacks". In the mid-70's, during the Nixon administration, OPEC imposed an oil embargo. You would have thought warning bells would go off and we would want to protect ourselves from that. Nope. Never happened. We are just as dependent on foreign oil today, if not more so, than we were then. Not one administration since, nor one congress, has ever addressed this issue in a sane, comprehensive manner. It is either drill here, drill now or tax the bejesus out of users or build pregnant roller skates that are gasoline powered death mobiles in order to increase gas mileage, or drive hybrid cars which are an environmental joke, or grow food and burn it as bio-fuel. W

I agree with Judy. Most of us are concerned about the environment. In my youth we were called conservationists. Who doesn't want clean air and safe drinking water? The problem is that there is no easy answer and no quick solution. You want Cap and Trade? Fine, but understand it will do NOTHING for the environment. It will line the pockets of special interests, and it will give more political power to a select few. The fact is that an abrupt transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources cannot be done without killing our already damaged economy. The alternative energy sources do not have the capacity or infrastructure necessary. Excessive taxing of oil, gas, and coal will SLOW the process, not speed it up because the necessary investment will not be made. Higher taxes discourage investment, they do not invite it. What is worse, without a COMPREHENSIVE plan, it will not be done right anyway, and may create worse problems. Remember, this is the government that kept screwing up what should have been a relatively simple transition to digital television. What do you think they will do with something as complex as energy production, distribution, and development. Review their accomplishments for the last 35 years for a clue.