US Politics & Climate Change

[awakening2lite]

Climate Change and the New Congress

CURWOOD: This New Year brings a new president and new congress to Washington,
and perhaps a new federal approach to global warming. President-elect Barack Obama made climate change a high priority in his campaign. Many of his fellow Democrats in Congress want to act as well, and other nations are waiting for the U.S. to lead the way to an international climate agreement this year. But even though there's a new lineup in Washington, there are still plenty of nay-sayers on climate change. From Capitol Hill, Living on Earth's Jeff Young reports.
YOUNG: The depth of a recession is no time to raise energy prices. That's the argument against a climate change bill, and one we're sure to hear a lot this year. But don't tell that to California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer.
BOXER: The people who say 'oh my God we can't do anything about global warming because the economy is bad,' they miss the whole point. Because I believe, and I want to reiterate this, combating global warming not just good for economy it's great. It produces jobs - it makes us stronger. And this is a strong belief I have.
YOUNG: Boxer chairs the Senate's environment committee and was a lead sponsor of last year's major climate bill. That bill sought to establish a cap and trade system to harness market forces to control greenhouse gases. But it landed with a thud on the Senate floor amid criticism that it was too expensive and too complicated. Boxer says she learned a lesson from that.
BOXER: The bill got pretty cumbersome at the end of the day. So I think, a simpler bill; it's going to be greatly streamlined. It is going to be very clear and much simpler than the last bill.
YOUNG: Boxer promises a bill this month that will amend the clean air act to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to set up a cap and trade program for carbon dioxide emissions. She'll have a strong ally on the other side of Capitol Hill. California Democratic Representative Henry Waxman, a strong proponent of climate action, will take control of the powerful House Energy Committee. Waxman is likely to introduce his own legislation. He favors a cap and trade bill that auctions off all permits, rather than giving them away to major emitters. And Waxman thinks it's important to set aggressive near term goals to cut greenhouse gases quickly.
WAXMAN: Scientists tell us we have only a short period of time in which to start taking action and reduce these carbon emissions. Otherwise they say that the damage will be irretrievable. It will take on a life of its own and it will not be reversible. We need to act now.
YOUNG: But even with expanded democratic majorities in both houses a climate bill will still face tough opposition based on geography, not party. Both Democrats and Republicans from states with coal, oil and heavy manufacturing are cool to anything that puts their favored fuels at a disadvantage. Senate Energy Committee Chair, New Mexico Democrat Jeff Bingaman, warns against rushing into another ambitious climate change bill right away.
BINGAMAN: Fortunately we don't have to try to do everything that is worth doing on the subject of global climate change in one gigantic bill.
YOUNG: Bingaman would like to see an energy bill first. He argues that passing a bill with strong investment in renewable energy and technology like carbon capture and storage would make legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions more palatable. Any energy bill will also have to address some unfinished business from the last Congress -offshore oil drilling. The nearly 40-year moratorium on expanding offshore drilling ended last year amid anxiety over record high gas prices. President-elect Obama says he's not against an expansion of drilling if it is part of a larger, comprehensive energy strategy.
OBAMA: I'm not thrilled with it simply lapsing as a consequence of inaction without broader thought to how are we gonna achieve energy independence and reduce our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels.
YOUNG: The first item on the agenda for the new president and Congress, however, is a massive economic recovery program that could pump 600 billion dollars or more into infrastructure spending. The size and contents are works in progress but many Democrats promise a green approach to economic stimulus. Here's how House Speaker Nancy Pelosi describes it:
PELOSI: We rebuild our infrastructure to make it green and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to preserve the planet by stopping global warming. This is what we will have: it will be a forward-looking, an economic recovery package for the future. This is not a 1930's public works project; this is a broadband, modernization of the grid, initiative for the future.
YOUNG: Although Pelosi supports acting on climate change she has not yet made a climate bill a priority for action early in the new Congress. But Eileen Claussen of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change sees hopeful signs.
CLAUSSEN: I think you have to look at energy security, climate change and economic revitalization as one. If we move forward on these issues we will be creating new jobs, we will be rebuilding our economy in a different kind of way. I think that is the way it is being viewed. And that's why I'm optimistic we will get climate legislation even if times are difficult.
YOUNG: Claussen's group advocates for an international agreement to fight global warming. She says that won't happen until the U.S. knows what it's willing to
do at home.
For Living on Earth I'm Jeff Young in Washington.
January 2, 2009
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.ht...01&segmentID=2

[awakening2lite]

The Obama-Biden Plan

The energy challenges our country faces are severe and have gone unaddressed for far too long. Our addiction to foreign oil doesn't just undermine our national security and wreak havoc on our environment -- it cripples our economy and strains the budgets of working families all across America. Barack Obama and Joe Biden have a comprehensive plan to invest in alternative and renewable energy, end our addiction to foreign oil, address the global climate crisis and create millions of new jobs.
The Obama-Biden comprehensive New Energy for America plan will:

• Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
• Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
• Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
• Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
• Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

Energy Plan Overview

• Provide Short-term Relief to American Families
• Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation.
• Swap Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Cut Prices.

Eliminate Our Current Imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 Years

• Increase Fuel Economy Standards.
• Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.
• Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.
• Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
• A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases.
• Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.

Create Millions of New Green Jobs

• Ensure 10 percent of Our Electricity Comes from Renewable Sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.

• Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source – Energy Efficiency.

• Weatherize One Million Homes Annually.

• Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.

• Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.

Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050

• Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

• Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change.

http://change.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment_agenda/

[awakening2lite]

Browner: Climate Change Law Would Bolster U.S. Role at Global Warming Talks

By Kent Garber
Posted April 13, 2009


The Obama administration today acknowledged that its ability to play a leading role at international climate change talks later this year will be dictated largely by how quickly Congress acts on global warming legislation
.


"The president has been very clear that he wants to re-establish the United States as a leader on the issue of climate change," Carol Browner, the president's adviser on energy and climate change issues, told an energy conference at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology this afternoon. But Browner added that the U.S. position at climate talks will be "driven by what we are prepared to do domestically."


Congressional legislation, Browner said, "is absolutely essential to our position and what we can ultimately hope to achieve in Copenhagen," where more than 180 countries will meet in December to write a new treaty to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.


Browner's comments offer some of the most explicit public statements yet from the administration on how it plans to handle climate change policy this year. They suggest that the White House is exerting significant pressure on Congress to keep global warming legislation at the top of its agenda in coming months.


"I am very confident Congress is going to act," Browner said, noting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made a commitment to allow debate on global warming legislation and that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would be supportive of such efforts as well. "We talk to the staffs virtually every day on our efforts with Congress," Browner said.


Meanwhile, there were new signs today that House Democratic leaders are listening closely to the concerns of their colleagues in manufacturing states, many of whom are warning that a cap-and-trade program to limit emissions will have a negatively impact on their state's industries.


Particularly in the Senate, the support of these moderate Democrats will be central to passing legislation.

"We have to set aside a certain amount of carbon credits to ensure that the steel and the paper and other trade-sensitive, energy-intensive industries are not exploited in the near term by the Chinese and others," Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, one of the leading House Democrats on climate change and the recent coauthor of a draft global warming bill, said at the conference today.


In the past, President Obama and some Democrats have called for auctioning all carbon credits. But in order to win votes in Congress, they now seem to be making concessions. "We can't have all the credits auctioned off immediately," Markey said.


http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/...ing-talks.html

[awakening2lite]

House Democrats reach deal on climate change bill

Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:54pm EDT



By Richard Cowan


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats in the House of Representatives on Tuesday said they had reached a deal on difficult agriculture issues in a climate change bill, clearing the way for a vote and probable passage in the chamber this week.


"We have an agreement finally," said House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, whose support had been widely sought by House Democratic leaders. Peterson declared he is now prepared to vote for the controversial bill.


Representative Henry Waxman, a main proponent for legislation to reduce industrial emissions of carbon dioxide associated with global warming, told reporters: "I think we will have the majority to pass the bill."


Waxman also predicted environmental groups will remain supportive, despite new provisions to help farm states that some feared would weaken the bill.
The breakthrough came just hours after President Barack Obama, at a White House press conference, embraced the Democrats' bill and urged the House to move quickly on it.


"It is legislation that will finally spark a clean energy transformation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and confront the carbon pollution that threatens our planet," Obama said.


Earlier in the day, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said he hoped the bill would be debated by the full House, and passed, on Friday.


Last month, Waxman's Energy and Commerce Committee easily passed a climate change bill to reduce industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050, as well as provide new incentives for producing alternative fuels.


But since then, Waxman has been in difficult negotiations with farm state Democrats and other House Democrats to gain their needed support since few Republicans are expected to vote for the bill.


AGRICULTURE DEPT OVERSIGHT ROLE
In announcing the deal after briefing a group of moderate Democrats, Waxman said that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, not the Environmental Protection Agency, would be put in charge of overseeing certain steps to be taken by farmers to reduce carbon emissions.


Known as "offsets," the program would allow farmers to claim achievements in reducing carbon pollution by planting trees or taking other environmental actions. But the agriculture community objected to EPA overseeing the program and insisted that the more sympathetic USDA do the job.


"We agreed that we would have the USDA run the program and we will seek guidance from the administration to figure out the appropriate role for EPA," Waxman said.


Waxman announced another break for agriculture as part of the deal: The climate change bill would halt an EPA proposal that farmers feared could hold U.S. ethanol makers responsible for greenhouse gases from crops overseas.


Waxman said a "five-year moratorium" on a proposed EPA rule would be included in the legislation and USDA and Congress would have additional powers to stop the plan after the five years.

Corn-based ethanol has become a major boost to U.S. corn prices and farmers feared the EPA proposal could hurt sales.


Peterson said there also was a "meeting of the minds" on smaller details still to be worked out.


To win over farm state lawmakers, the bill also was amended to give 0.5 percent of permits, which would be issued to firms to control their emissions, to small electricity local distribution companies that serve rural areas.


The Senate has not yet crafted its version of a climate change bill and it is unclear whether it can pass a bill this year, before Obama heads to an international climate change conference in Copenhagen in December aimed at endorsing new international efforts to control global warming.


House Republicans have complained the legislation would raise energy prices and encourage manufacturers to ship more operations and jobs abroad to avoid the new pollution limits.


But Democrats counter that the climate bill would create new "green" jobs developing alternative energy and more efficient transportation and electricity systems in the United States.


Democrats also have been touting new government estimates that the climate change bill would have a negligible impact on consumer prices, challenging Republicans' warnings that it would cost households $3,100 more a year in higher prices for energy and other goods.


http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...dChannel=11569




Call me crazy, but I hope the trees the farmers will be planting (instead of crops) will be fruit trees.

[texanne]

Fruit trees are the only kind that would make sense in this area. We have too many trees already. I sort of wish a group of tree lovers would come cart off some of my excess trees.

[awakening2lite]

Climate Change Bill to Heat Up Senate


6.27.09

Word that the House has narrowly passed a (historic! landmark!) climate change bill that would employ a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gases in the United States to 83 percent below 2005 levels by mid-century, touches down on the front pages of each major paper and finds a top spot on most business news Web sites. The controversial bill now heads to the Senate, "where political divisions and regional differences are even more stark [than in the House]," according to the New York Times. Adds the Wall Street Journal, "The 1,200 page bill—formally known as the 'American Clean Energy and Security Act'—will reach into almost every corner of the U.S. economy. By putting a price on emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, the bill would affect the way electricity is generated, how homes and offices are designed, how foreign trade is conducted and how much Americans pay to drive cars or to heat their homes." The Congressional Budget Office estimates the measure would cost an average of $175 a year per household, Bloomberg says.

Cap-and-trade works by setting "a limit on overall emissions of heat-trapping gases while allowing utilities, manufacturers and other emitters to trade pollution permits, or allowances, among themselves. The cap would grow tighter over the years, pushing up the price of emissions and presumably driving industry to find cleaner ways of making energy," the NYT explains. Proponents of the bill, including Dow Chemical (DOW) and Ford (F), a slew of environmental clubs and the president himself, say the measure would create jobs while helping save the environment.

Opponents

chiefly House Republicans—argue that the bill is no more than a national energy tax that would, in fact, cause the economy to shed more jobs rather than gain them. Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, clearly lays out much of the opposition's view in a column published by Reuters, highlighting issues such as the lack of technology to meet the would-be requirements under the legislation: "Meeting these standards now is technologically impossible without radically reducing our standards of living, but Congress is hoping that technology will magically appear as needed." As well as the effect it would have on businesses: "Not only does the bill penalize American firms through higher costs, it gives firms a financial incentive to move abroad through 'offsets,' activities that supposedly lower carbon emissions elsewhere."

http://www.reuters.com/article/bigMo...81371720090627

[awakening2lite]

Climate bill could punish Democrats in 2010 elections


By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Board
Could the climate-change bill of 2009 be deja vu for the Democratic Party, bringing back memories of the debacle of the BTU tax of 1993?


The Democratic Party better hope not. It lost power in Congress at least partly because of the tax.


I wrote about the tax early in the first term of President Bill Clinton in 1993. He alienated Republicans and many Americans by trumpeting the merits of the new energy tax.


The measure was worth supporting because it had the potential to make sweeping changes in how Americans used energy. In short, it was aimed at reducing energy consumption by Americans and harmful emissions by the power industry.


The U.S. House narrowly passed it, but it died in the Senate.


The New York Times has a timely story resurrecting what happened to the tax.


The article examines Democratic-led House passage of the climate bill pushed by Democratic President Barack Obama early in his first term and how it might lead to similar outcomes in Congress after the 2010 elections.


http://voices.kansascity.com/node/4964

[awakening2lite]

Some details:

American Clean Energy and Security Act

EXCERPT~

The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) is an energy bill in the 111th United States Congress that would establish a variant of a cap-and-trade plan for greenhouse gases to address climate change. The bill was approved by the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009 by a vote of 219-212, but has not yet been approved by the Senate.[1][2]

This vote was the "first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change."[3]


Details
The bill is a variant of a cap-and-trade plan:
Year ......Required Annual Percentage
2012 ......6.0
2013 ......6.0
2014 ......9.5
2015 ......9.5
2016 ......13.0
2017 ......13.0
2018 ......16.5
2019 ......16.5
2020 ......20.0
2021-2039..20.0

• It sets a slightly higher target for reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases than that proposed by President Barack Obama. The bill requires a 17-percent emissions reduction from 2005 levels by 2020; Obama has proposed a 14 percent reduction by 2020. Both plans would reduce United States' emissions by about 80 percent by 2050.
• It includes a renewable electricity standard (almost identical to a renewable portfolio standard, but narrowly tailored to electrical energy) requiring each electricity provider who supplies over 4 million MWh to produce 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources (such as wind, solar, and geothermal) by 2020. There is a provision whereby 5% of this standard can be met through energy efficiency savings, as well as an additional 3% with certification of the Governor of the state in which the provider operates.

Alternative compliance payments are 2.5 cents per KWh in violation of the standard, adjusted for inflation beginning in 2010.

• It provides for modernization of the electrical grid
• It provides for expanded production of electric vehicles.
• It mandates significant increases in energy efficiency in buildings, home appliances, and electricity generation

The bill's cap-and-trade program allocates 85% of allowances to industry for free, auctioning the remainder. 15% will be auctioned, the revenue from which shall be redistributed to low-income households.[citation needed] 30% of the allowances will be allocated directly to local distribution companies (LDCs) who are mandated to use them exclusively for the benefit of customers. 5% will go to merchant coal generators and others with long-term power purchase agreements.

Hearings on the draft of the legislation took place the week of April 20 and the bill was passed by the House on June 26.

Criticism

Criticism has focused on ultimate costs and benefits of the plan. A report written for the conservative Heritage Foundation on the discussion draft of the bill claims that the economy would react to this cap-and-trade system like it would to an energy crisis.[37] This same report also claimed that the impact on global temperature by the end of the 21st century would amount to a reduction of no more than two-tenths of one degree celsius.

Economist Arnold Kling said the bill "maximizes rent-seeking (favoritism toward particular businesses) and minimizes carbon reduction".[38] Other economists have warned of the bill's great financial costs. The Wall Street Journal accused the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) of significantly underestimating its ultimate costs, pointing out flaws in its calculations. The Wall Street Journal also suggested that the bill's costs would disproportionately affect lower-income households, for which the CBO estimates did not account.[39] The New York Times reported that the bill's provisions to levy tariffs on Chinese imports due to carbon emissions could provoke a trade war.[40] The thinktank Competitive Enterprise Institute argued that the bill was essentially the "largest tax hike in world history".[41] The American Petroleum Institute, which represents the petroleum and natural gas industry, said the bill would place "disproportionate burden on all consumers of gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil, jet fuel, propane and other petroleum products", and by 2035, it would cause gasoline prices in excess of $4.00 per gallon by today's standards.[42]

By contrast, the EPA estimated the discussion draft version of the bill to cost average households $98–$140 per year. A preliminary update of this study says that the changes "would likely result in lower allowance prices, a smaller impact on energy bills, and a smaller impact on household consumption."[43]

There is criticism that neither existing hydropower nor nuclear count as a renewable source of energy under the definition in the bill, although both are zero-emission sources of energy.

There is criticism that unless China and India adopt similar emissions standards, the impact on global climate will be insubstantial. This is largely an argument based on the leading role these two countries have obtained in carbon dioxide emissions which could reach 34% of the global total by 2030.[44]

Critics also note that the bill would create the largest market in carbon in the world. It would also "open up the so-called 'sub-prime carbon' market in carbon offsets — whereby industries can claim emissions reductions by investing in various projects around the world that theoretically reduce greenhouse gas emissions..The Government Accountability Office (GAO) claims it's virtually impossible to verify whether carbon offsets represent real emissions reductions.[45]"

On June 26 2009, Reuters reported that "[s]tates that have set the U.S. agenda on addressing greenhouse gas emissions are lining up behind a federal climate bill, fearing signs of dissent would weaken a plan that still faces hurdles"[46] The article noted that representatives from members of the Eastern U.S. 10-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord, which joins six U.S. states with Canada's Manitoba, and the 11-state-and-four Canadian province Western Climate Initiative were supporting the legislation, even though "the Eastern market -[who] has already been operating a cap-and-trade system- member states would lose a direct revenue stream of hundreds of millions of dollars if the federal plan were passed."[47] The three existing regional carbon cap and trade programs, who are in varying states of development, would likely be merged into the national plan, since "the federal 'cap-and-trade' plan pre-empts any similar state scheme from 2012 to 2017."[48] However, ACES leaves states the option of resuming trade of pollution credits after 2017 and "would allow holders of RGGI allowances to convert them into federal allowances, which means the states will likely hold auctions until the federal plan begins.[49]

Criticism from environmental organizations

While the Environmental Defense Fund[50] and many other environmental organizations [51] strongly support the bill, other environmentalists have sharply criticized the legislation in its present form as too weak and have called urgently for it to be amended so as to include additional and more vigorous measures to protect climate and natural resources.

Some environmentalists have criticized the fuel efficiency standards in the "cash for clunkers" provision of the bill, because new cars would only need to get 22 MPG to be considered fuel efficient.[52][53] New SUVs and pickup trucks would only need to get 18 MPG to be considered fuel efficient.[54] Vehicles older than 25 years are not eligible for the program. CNN reported that "One of the biggest criticisms is that it's not very environmentally friendly."[55]

The New York Times has noted that "while some environmentalists enthusiastically supported the legislation, others, including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, opposed it."[19] Friends of the Earth, an international environmental organization, announced its opposition to ACES believing the bill to be too weak and cited support from Shell Oil Company and Duke Energy as evidence of the bill's shortcomings. [56] Environmental organizations critical of the bill say the bill falls short by allowing for 85 percent or more of pollution permits to be given away free of cost to the electricity sector. A coalition of environmental groups released a statement saying that "to craft a bill that allows for 2 billion tons of offsets per year -- roughly equivalent to 27 percent of 2007 U.S. greenhouse gas emissions -- is to allow for continued and dangerous delay in real action by our country at a time when the world is looking to the U.S. for leadership on climate change."[57][unreliable source?] Critics of the bill about it not going far enough, claim that there were too many concessions made in rewriting the bill and that they gave into special interests.[58] Thus, making the bill weak and potentially harmful to the economy and environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...d_Security_Act

[awakening2lite]

Obama Warns Dems on 'Protectionist' Tax in Climate Change Bill

President Obama warns lawmakers to think twice about a provision in the cap-and-trade bill that would allow the U.S. to impose tariffs on other countries, raising questions about whether the package can pass Congress without it.

6.30.09

After a "Buy American" provision in the stimulus bill triggered a tit-for-tat with Canada, President Obama is warning fellow Democrats to think twice about another "protectionist" measure in the House-passed climate change bill.



The climate bill that passed the House last week on a 219-212 vote includes a provision to impose tariffs -- starting in 2020 -- on imports from countries that don't have a system for limiting global warming pollution.
The provision was pushed as a way to keep the U.S. competitive with other countries that haven't imposed rules to reduce carbon emissions and promote clean energy.



Obama told energy reporters that, while he is "very mindful" of wanting to ensure a "level playing field internationally," Congress should consider alternatives to tariffs.



"At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we've seen a significant drop in global trade, I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out there," Obama said, according to a transcript of the Sunday session with reporters. "I think we're going to have to do a careful analysis to determine whether the prospects of tariffs are necessary."



With the White House predicting that the Senate version will ultimately look different than the House version, the disagreement over the trade measure raises questions about whether the package can pass Congress without it.



"It's very clear it was put in there to get it over the finish line" by attracting Rust Belt Democrats, said Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "If you take it out, you're shy of some members."



Forty-four Democrats voted against the bill last week. Just eight Republicans voted for it.



Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., who pushed Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to include the trade provision, said Friday that it was needed to protect U.S. jobs.



"As we act, we can and must ensure that the U.S. energy-intensive industries are not placed at a competitive disadvantage by nations that have not made a similar commitment to reduce greenhouse gases," he said during House debate.



It's unclear whether congressional Democrats will budge on the measure going forward. Levin could not be reached for comment Tuesday.



Stewart, whose boss opposes the climate bill with or without the trade measure, said he'd be "surprised" if the provision stays in the final Senate version, warning that the language could spark a "trade war" with key partners, and big polluters, like India and China.



"We're already seeing the effects of (the Buy American provision)," he said. "Why would we want to increase that with two of our largest trading partners? Would it even be legal?"



The "Buy American" language in the economic stimulus, though watered down in its final version, required projects funded with stimulus dollars to use U.S. steel, iron and manufactured goods.



Canadian officials in particular bristled at the measure. In early June, Canadian mayors passed their own resolution in response, which reportedly could shut out U.S. bidders from local contracts.



Keith Rockwell, spokesman with the World Trade Organization, was reluctant to draw comparisons between the backlash over the stimulus provision and the potential for a similar response to the climate bill provision.



He said it's "very, very difficult" to tell whether such a provision could draw any complaints more than a decade down the road, when rules could be different. He noted that nations could reach a climate agreement anyway at the summit in Copenhagen later this year, which he suggested might be preferable.



"A multilateral approach is always better and safer than a unilateral approach," Rockwell said, adding that nations are in the meantime taking a "wait-and-see" attitude to the U.S. tariff measure.

Rockwell said the legality of the measure ultimately depends on whether it is challenged in a WTO court.



"Really nobody would know unless there's a challenge," he told FOXNews.com, speaking from Geneva. "People are watching and paying attention, and people saw what President Obama had to say on this particular element."



Rockwell said that when it comes to environmental measures, individual countries have the flexibility to pass trade-restrictive measures provided they are intended to protect the safety of humans, plants and animals.



But such measures cannot be discriminatory, meaning they can't single out certain countries for stricter treatment than others. And they can't be "protectionist" measures masquerading as health-and-safety measures.



Though Obama has suggested the climate bill provision is protectionist, Rockwell said a WTO court would be the judge of that.



The White House apparently does not want to tempt any trading partners into testing the provision in international trade court.



Asked about the provision Monday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the president has "concerns" and that the bill will probably look "a little different coming out of the Senate."



"Those ... will I think be reconciled and the president will have something to sign that he's comfortable signing later this year," Gibbs said.



Meanwhile, Republicans continue to take to the airwaves to rail against the "cap-and-trade" bill as a vehicle for a massive tax increase -- in the form of higher utility bills.



"When this president talks about, 'Oh I don't want to raise taxes on the middle class,' that's not exactly what this administration's all about," Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele told FOX News Tuesday. He ripped the House for passing what he calls "cap and tax."


Obama predicted "tough negotiations" ahead for the House and Senate.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...ision-climate/

[awakening2lite]

GOP senators balk on votes on climate change

By H. JOSEF HEBERT
The Associated Press
Monday, November 2, 2009; 7:15 PM


WASHINGTON -- Republican senators on Monday demanded additional studies on the cost and job impact of a climate bill before it is voted on by a key committee, exposing the sharp partisan divide in Congress over legislation aimed at addressing global warming.
Ranking GOP members of six Senate committees that are playing a part in crafting an overall bill to cut greenhouse gases said that an Environmental Protection Agency analysis was unsatisfactory, although supporters of the bill called it an exhaustive examination.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., co-sponsor of the climate bill, which is before her Environment and Public Works Committee, said she plans to press ahead with consideration of the measure on Tuesday, even as GOP panel members threatened to boycott the proceedings.

In a letter to Boxer, the Republicans warned that failure to accommodate GOP senators seeking further studies "would severely damage rather than help" the chances of getting the bipartisan support needed to get a bill through the Senate.
The Democratic bill calls for imposing mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and industrial facilities and cutting emissions by 20 percent by 2020. Polluters would be given emission allowances that they could trade among themselves to ease the economic effect of the transition from fossil fuels.
But Republicans have argued the bill - patterned after legislation passed by the House earlier this year - amounts to a huge energy tax because energy, including electricity, from fossil fuels will become more expensive. Boxer argues such costs can be contained and cites the EPA study that says the cost to households would on average be $80 to $111 a year.
Boxer said she wants to try to accommodate the Republicans, but insisted she will push ahead with plans to begin voting on amendments to the bill. But when those votes will start was unclear. Boxer said on Tuesday she will make available officials from the EPA so Republicans can quiz them about their cost study.
"We think this is going the extra mile for our friends on the other side," Boxer told reporters Monday. "We want to move the process forward."
But Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the environment committee's ranking Republican, said he expects GOP senators to stay away, except possibly for one Republican to make the case for the boycott. "There has to be some sort of leverage" to get a more detailed study, said Inhofe, a sharp critic of not only the Democratic bill, but of the science of climate change.
While Boxer said she hoped the Republicans would "change their minds" and participate, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., another committee member, wasn't as kind at a news conference.
"It's almost like school children over there," said Lautenberg. He called on the Republicans "to step up to the plate."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110203233.html