"The odds of a Senate climate bill just jumped through the roof."

get South Carolina's Representative imgage higher?

This is Good news for the Planet!

But since it's apparently acceptable to Republicans, I just gotta... How worthless is the bill now? What useful provisions were mangled or entirely cut, and how much money is going to the oil and coal industries?

I'm guessing the compromise is dirty+clean energy, with both being monitored, cap-and-trade on emissions, as long as they're allowed to keep building dirty power.

facts, more (other links there too)

This is the sad reality, unfortunately, that this bill, that is already weak, though better than the House one, is shunned by Democrats who do not want to do anything, just like Republicans. They apparently think we can wait.

So, yes, there will be compromises to make. We already knew that. But it is progress.

This said, Graham did no say he agreed with the Kerry-Boxer bill. He said he agreed something needed to be done. Sadly a lot better than Rockefeller and Dorgan.

The details that back the words in this bill are not yet known. There is nothing here that suggests anything was cut from the bill.

One thing to think of though is that this bill will put a price on carbon. That IS the most important feature of the bill. That will, in itself, lead to money spent to invent technology that is more efficient - as companies have to explicitly consider carbon production in their cost analyses.

What this seems to do is to fund research on coal and nuclear. Here, we should let science determine the answer. If, as many experts think, "clean coal technology" is not possible, then it will be priced out of the market due to the cost of carbon added to the other costs.

As to nuclear, it is currently too expensive to compete. Wind, solar and other techniques will also likely become more efficient as companies (in addition to anything funded by the government) will have the incentive to do more research than in the past as there is greater likelihood of a payoff. There is also some question of whether renewable alternatives can provide the complete amount needed. So, it may be that nuclear could be the cheapest, cleanest way to fill that gap. If the renewable alternatives remain cheaper and can be expanded to fill the entire demand, then economics will determine that nuclear is not needed.

It will be important to see what is included on dealing with nuclear waste.

One thing to consider though is that we really need a bill NOW. There is no one more committed to the environment in either house of Congress than John Kerry. He has been very involved in moving the issue internationally as well as in the Senate.

http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/49498

That link identifies many problems that need to be worked out to really do this - and it is pretty daunting.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/canadian-study-scrutinizes-carbon-capture/

From this, it would seem that what Kerry is giving them is the research that those Senators think could work. (Kerry was pretty skeptical in a SFRC hearing last summer.) Those Senators are representing their constituents and if all it does is provide research dollars, it will either answer the question of whether scientists can devise a successful method for coal or not.

Maybe the exodus of companies from the Repubs' pet Chamber of Commerce was a wake up call.

Tired of watching the nut jobs take the party off the edge of the cliff he is going to put together a coalition of moderate Republicans that will deal with the Democrats.

The House and Senate leadership will no longer be able to bet on 100% support and they will start having to negotiate with him.

A brilliant move for him actually.

Maybe? :shrug:

How can we possibly lose???? :eyes:

But hey, if he helps bring some more GOP votes in for good legislation (assuming that we aren't compromising the roof away to secure his and possibly other Republican's support for the legislation) then, well, good.

Maybe that finally got his attention. If Cape Cod gets submerged, most people in SC would shrug their shoulders
until someone tells them that Charleston and Hilton Head would share the same fate.

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20091012/NEWS/910120304/1069/YOURUPSTATE01/Lindsey-Graham-joins-Democrat-John-Kerry-on-climate-change

Very interesting that SC's small business chamber of Commerce backs Graham on this. (Is the small business chamber of commerce the chamber of commerce? - I thought the CoC was always small business leaders. Anyone know?)

Plus....most every lake and river is so badly polluted already that people are told they should NOT eat fish caught from those waters more than ONCE a month. Geez Louise, think about the rural poor across that state who depend on those waters to feed their families.

These right-wing toadies are all pro-business and anti-environment until suddenly it's the environment of THEIR state,
and the choicest real estate where the big money hangs out, that is threatened with its very existence, and then sha-ZAAM!
Instant environmentalists, every one.

This WP article seems to have the spin that the WH has not done as much as it could - even though if you read Kerry's quotes, he has said the WH has given support. From other articles, it is clear that the WH has worked with Kerry and others for months - starting with a big meeting at Senator Kerry's home soon after Obama took office and got people in place. Obama also gave a UN speech on this. This could signal a more public WH push.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/11/AR2009101102108.html

Too little, too late will be the story of the US's reaction to global warming.

Please note that no matter what else you hear, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CLEAN COAL.

Kerry is a proponent of COAL. Can you imagine ANYONE concerned with the environment who thinks coal is the way to go?

I don't know specifically about Lindsay Graham, but since he's from SC, a coal state, I can assume that he too is a COAL PROPONENT.

So the fact that they BOTH agree on something that's BAD, even horrible, for the environment, means CRAP.

Now if they got together and decided that it's time for a wind energy/new electric grid/solar push to solve our climate problems, that's great! But somehow I'm thinkin'...no, that's not what they have found in common.

I have no clue where you found your information, but this is absolute BS. Kerry has always said he was skeptical about clean coal and if anything, COAL SUPPORTERS including Democrats like Rockefeller or Byrd oppose his legislation.

However, they will need their votes to pass something, and this means that Kerry and Boxer had to add some sweetening in order to get something passed. Of course, if we had 60 people standing where those 2 stand on the issue, we would have a stronger bill, but clearly, you have your problem upside down here.

Rating

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?category=30&go.x=16&go.y=10&can_id=53306&type=category
2008 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Environment America 100 percent in 2008.

2007-2008 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2007-2008.

2007-2008 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 96 percent in the First and Second Sessions of Congress in 2007-2008.

2007 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 93 percent in the First Session of the 110th House of Congress in 2007.

2005 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 95 percent in 2005.

2003 Senator Kerry supported the interests of the Sierra Club 100 percent in 2003.

Obviously the record of a supporter of coal.

I remember it because I was shocked by it. I had thought he was a strong proponent of environmental issues. But there he was, actively proposing that clean coal was to be one of our ways out of global warming.

I remember it especially well, too, because a relative I was speaking to on the phone had heard him speak about it and asked something like, "Coal? I thought he was supposed to be pro-environmental?" I responded that, well, he IS supposed to be, that I didn't understand it.

THEN I realized...he NEEDED THE VOTES FROM THE COAL STATES.

And that's the name of that tune, as Baretta would say.

if there is no choice.

Your shot at Kerry is uninformed while you laud Graham - VERY uniformed and you're pretending like you actually paid attention in 2004. Baloney - if you did you'd KNOW that Kerry's environmental positions have been the strongest of any nominee in modern history.

because he wants the coal industry protected. HE is from a coal state and HE has already come out against Kerry-Boxer bill BECAUSE he says it hurts the coal industry.


May I ask why you decided to post a claim against Kerry that isn't true?

to our environmental/energy concerns.

I remember it well. I was shocked, since I had been under the impression that he was strong on environmental issues (as was his wife...and still is, I guess). But it is true. He pushed coal.

Then I realized why. He needed the votes from the coal states.

I voted for him anyway. His environmental position was certainly better than Bush's.

As for Graham, I do believe that SC has some coal industry there.

May be it would make sense to go after the REAL pro-coal people. This way, the other ones would not be forced to sweeten the deal to get them onboard.

coal, as is Graham.

His point is somewhat well taken in that IF there are going to be coal mines, they may as well be "clean." But that's silly to say, since there is no such thing as "clean" coal.

I've looked up SC. Yes, it is a HUGE coal state. And yes, Kerry did indeed need the votes from Ohio and W. Virginia, two big coal states, when he changed his opinion on coal.

And Kerry is one of the most pro-environmental senators in the Senate. So, you make no sense at all, except if you want to state the truth against the entire US Senate. The truth is that most of the electricity in this country comes from coal, and that, if you want to create progress when it comes to emissions, you need both to promote non-carbon based electricity and to try to clean the emissions from the existing coal electricity plans. This is all what Chu, Obama, Kerry, and others are referring to. This does not make them pro-coal. This makes them people who live in the real world.

You would also need to deal with nuclear (France is one of the few countries who actually got some results when it comes to emission reductions), but it is a different question, because I do not trust private companies when it comes to civil nuclear. So, I am somewhat leery about the subventions the bill has.

And, yes, it would make sense to go after those who block a bill, rather than after those who want it. You stated that the bill was BAD news, and, for that , you blame Kerry. My point is that is where you are wrong. The bill is bad because Boxer and Kerry needed to get the votes of people who are not on board when it comes to global climate change.

"all" Senators are not pro-clean-coal, BTW.

HOwever I think this is great news we got some Repubs on board and see where takes us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/opinion/11kerrygraham.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

"The United States should aim to become the Saudi Arabia of clean coal. For this reason, we need to provide new financial incentives for companies that develop carbon capture and sequestration technology. "

You forgot to post that line from the op-ed by Kerry and Graham.

Not that they haven't agreed on some important things, but pushing clean coal for our country (as opposed to pushing it in countries like China that have no intention on doing ANYTHING green, so clean coal would at least be better than nothing) is not something Obama campaigned on. For the obvious reason that there is no such thing as clean coal. And of course, the environmental damage that's done in the mining has nothing to do with the black that spews forth into the air.

Still, I commend Graham for having the guts to do something that few in his party do: do something about the environment and energy issues we face, and work across the aisle if necessary.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_statements_on_coal

In addition, they need to promote clean coal to get the coal states Senators on board. This is the goal of sentences like that. Because without Dorgan, Rockefeller, and Reid, there is ZERO chances to pass any bill.

China has committed $200 billion to green technology, compared to our $80 billion.

In addition, the commitment is to RESEARCH on clean coal technology. That is needed to get some coal state votes for the entire bill.

But look at it this way, the worst that happens there is that the research finds nothing that works at a reasonable cost. Even then, I would not say the research money is necessarily wasted. It will have shown that clean coal is not feasible. On the other hand, if they were to find something, it would be a game changer. (From a SFRC hearing, Kerry is skeptical that it can be done.)

Now, consider what happens to coal if they can't find a way to make it cleaner. The cap and trade rules will "add" a cost for the carbon produced. This will make it more expensive than it was before compared to things like wind, solar etc. At some point it makes coal not economically viable.