WASHINGTON POLITICS:

Love it or hate it, climate change bill heads to Senate

As legislation squeezed through House, partisan divide showed

Thursday, July 2, 2009 | 2 a.m.

Shelley Berkley, Democrat

I rise today in support of this bill. It addresses climate change, promotes the development of clean-energy sources, and brings us closer to our goal of securing America’s energy independence. This bill also takes extra steps to protect consumers while creating new green jobs.

Nevada is in the forefront of renewable energy use. In 1997 Nevada enacted a renewable portfolio standard requiring that 20 percent of our electricity come from renewable sources by 2015. Nevada’s solar potential, coupled with our state’s geothermal and wind resources, will bring jobs to Nevada and make us a leader in the production of clean energy.

In contrast, the alternative proposed by the House Republicans continues the same old failed policies, including the Yucca Mountain project. It doubles the amount of nuclear waste that can be shipped to Nevada and jams twice as much of this radioactive garbage down our throats.

The Republican plan to more than double the size of the Yucca Mountain dump would only double the danger to families in Nevada and across our nation at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars.

Dean Heller, Republican

Here is the bill. It is 1,201 pages. What does this cost the American taxpayer? It is $700 million a page for this bill. What does this bill do? Every time you flip on your light switch, you are taxed. Every time you drive your kids to school, you are taxed. Every time you cook your family dinner, you are taxed. Air travel, food prices, electricity costs, gas prices, transportation cost all will skyrocket under this bill.

This bill will cost my district a half-billion dollars in economic activity. It will cost my district 5,500 jobs. It will cost my district nearly $650 million in personal income loss in just the first year.

Nevada, as a whole, will lose 14,000 jobs. Mining, housing, farming, ranching, tourism industries will be devastated at a time when Nevadans are hurting. The majority can’t afford the time for hearings or debate, but Americans can’t afford this bill.

Dina Titus, Democrat

I rise in strong support of the Titus-Giffords-Heinrich amendment, which the manager’s amendment incorporates into the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

Our amendment will create clean-energy jobs, promote deployment of renewable energy technology, and put the federal government in a position to lead by example. Our amendment extends the limit for the federal government to 20 years on a contract for the acquisition of electricity generated from a renewable energy resource, often referred to as a power purchase agreement. This provision will encourage wide-scale deployment of renewable energy technology at federal buildings, BLM land and Superfund sites. Additionally, it will allow agencies to plan for more sustainable and affordable energy use over an extended period of time. This small change will open the door to government investments in cleaner, more sustainable, and ultimately more cost-beneficial energy technologies.

Our amendment also establishes a Renewable Electricity Standard for federal agencies. This RES will ensure that the federal government meets 20 percent of its electricity demands through renewable energy by 2020. It will drive demand for new, clean-energy technologies and help create new, clean-energy jobs. Indeed, we will be leading by example.

Climate bill showdown: Obama, Dems pressing hard (6-25-2009)
Climate change law will cost, but how much? (4-3-2009)

Archive of Sun politics stories

Politics: The Early Line

Washington — The rowdy House floor debate on climate change provided one of those moments of political theater when it is hard to know whether the warring sides are even talking about the same bill.

In remarks last week Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley praised House Resolution 2454 as legislation that “addresses climate change, promotes the development of clean-energy sources, and brings us closer to our goal of securing America’s energy independence.”

Republican Rep. Dean Heller followed several minutes later.

“What does this bill do? Every time you flip on your light switch, you are taxed. Every time you drive your kids to school, you are taxed. Every time you cook your family dinner, you are taxed … Nevada, as a whole, will lose 14,000 jobs.”

In cop parlance, this is a he said/she said. Hard to know who’s right — except there are some neutral arbiters.

Experts say, and Democrats and Republicans agree, that the bill’s groundbreaking system to cap carbon emissions and trade pollution allowances would result in higher prices. Electricity and gas prices would go up, and companies would pass that along to those who buy the goods — you and me.

But there is help. The bill, approved on a 219-212 vote, provides cash back directly to those with low incomes and senior citizens, as well to companies to offset the higher costs. The money for this aid comes from the sale of pollution allowances.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is helpful here. It estimated the net cost to households will be about $175 per year.

And job losses? CBO says, yes, jobs will be lost, but mostly in specific locations, such as the coal industry in Appalachia. The overall change in “unemployment would be small compared with the normal rate of job turnover in the economy.”

What is very clear, though, is that the bill’s passage last Friday evening says as much about politics as policy.

For Democrats, the narrow victory shows the difficulty President Barack Obama faces in keeping his party on board with his ambitious agenda. Forty-four Democrats voted no, and the legislation faces an uphill climb in the Senate.

Republicans stood practically united against cap-and-trade. Just eight Republicans crossed party lines to vote for climate change legislation — almost as powerful as the unanimous Republican opposition to the economic recovery act.

House Minority Leader John Boehner practically shut down floor proceedings, refusing to yield the floor as he dissected a 300-page amendment unveiled the night before. (Lawmakers in the House cannot filibuster as senators can. Friday evening’s Fili-Boehner, as it has come to be known, was about as close as it gets.)

Within these political stances, both sides envision their political futures, and their strategy for the 2010 midterm elections.

Democratic Rep. Dina Titus, who will run for reelection in a swing district that only recently trended toward Democrats, was immediately targeted for criticism by Republicans after the vote. She and Berkley voted yes.

Titus countered that Republicans seemed more interested in blocking the bill than offering solutions.

Titus co-wrote an amendment that had been sought for years by the solar industry, and was passed with the final legislation.

Under her amendment, the solar industry can extend its government contracts. The industry routinely develops solar power systems and sells the energy to government customers under 10-year contracts. Titus’ bill extends the purchase contracts to 20 years, giving solar developers a longer horizon to recoup their investment.

“I think the public is looking for some cooperation,” Titus said. “They’re just seen as the party of ‘No.’ ”

Republicans maintain their bill would have cost less and developed more jobs. However, their bill also promoted the development of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, including a provision to lift the limit on how much waste could be stored at the desert site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Many Nevadans oppose the Yucca Mountain project.

As the action turns to the Senate, the debate continues without a clear route to bipartisan consensus.

Republican Sen. John Ensign thinks the cap-and-trade plan is “a national energy tax that will hit every American just for flipping on a light switch or driving their car,” his spokesman Tory Mazzola said. “From middle-class families to small-business owners, the American people will face a significant tax increase under this plan.”

Sen. Harry Reid, the majority leader, issued a statement calling the House bill “a courageous step toward a safer and cleaner energy future that will create good jobs, reduce pollution and decrease our dependence on foreign and unsustainable sources of energy.

“The bill is not perfect, but it is a good product for the Senate and our committees to start,” Reid said.

Of course in the Senate, rules allow for the filibuster.

Discussion: 27 comments so far…

By davelv

7/2/09 at 8:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Very good summary of the topic.

But all Nevadans should know what Berkley, Titus, and other Democrats voted for:

Every home would have an energy rating and if it did not meet the federal minimum then you could not sell it until it was brought up to the minimum.

The California building codes for energy would apply to the entire nation.

Every city would have to have 3 full time people dedicated to energy standard review prior to building a structure.

Every garage would have to have an outlet for charging a hybrid vehicle - when a common design doesn't even exist yet.

The list goes on and on. This bill was not just cap and trade, it was a far reaching federal government takeover of American lives and property that would cost over 2 million job losses per year and trillions of dollars.

Berkley was asked a few years ago how she decides what projects to fund, and her reply was America is rich enough to fund everything. Just as she was proven wrong on this statement, so too will this Democratic taxation method of reducing carbon dioxide emissions be proven to be a total disaster for America.

The Republican proposal to create more carbon dioxide free low cost energy supplies such as from at least 100 new nuclear power plants is far better, and would actually create millions of jobs. America should lead the way in building the future, not in taxing. Hopefully that is what will be passed by the Senate instead of a California based solution - a state that is currently issuing IOUs and is on the verge of bankruptcy. California's energy methods and politicians obviously are not what the country should be following.

Please Senators Reid and Ensign, work together for a long term win win solution for average America workers, and not just short term political careers. A high quality of life and world competitive business is enabled by low cost and abundant reliable energy. Heavy energy taxation is not the answer.
By henderson

7/2/09 at 9:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

davelv - Nicely put!

The only thing I would like to add would be that this bill by design will not necessarily eliminate pollution or impact "climate change." Regardless of your beliefs in climate change or carbon dioxide, this bill will simply send our share of emissions to be taken on by countries like China and India along with our jobs. So we'll basically hurt American business, lose millions of American jobs, raise the already skyrocketing prices Americans pay to light, heat, and cool our homes, and there will be no impact on climate change whatsoever.
By mrjb

7/2/09 at 9:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

I agree with House Minority Leader John Boehner,
This thing is a pile of S#%*.
By Patrick_R_Gibbons

7/2/09 at 9:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Some truth about the cap and trade bill:

http://npri.org/publications/capandtrade...

from the article,

"According to an econometric analysis performed by the Heritage Foundation, by 2035 this new energy tax would lower GDP by at least $9.4 trillion cumulatively. In addition to seeing the cost of nearly all consumer products increase because of the new tax, American families would see their direct energy costs "necessarily skyrocket," according to President Obama.

According to the Heritage Foundation's analysis, the typical family of four would see its direct energy costs increase by $1,241 annually as the inflation-adjusted prices of electricity, gasoline and residential natural gas would increase by 90 percent, 58 percent and 55 percent, respectively. These increased costs would reverberate through the economy and lead to the loss of 1,145,000 jobs, while increasing the national debt by an additional $28,728 per person."
By darthbry

7/2/09 at 9:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Now with the supermajority in the senate be ready to have everything the socialist administration wants slammed down our throats! I hate to say it again, but welcome to the USSA!!! all hail chariman MaObama.... (said with complete sarcasm! I better be careful or I might be put on the DHS watch list as a right wing extremist)
By OpenRange

7/2/09 at 9:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Deep down I think that we all knew this day was coming. We cannot continue down the path of unlimited consumption while spewing the waste into the air, land, and sea. The gas, oil, and coal companies have long since bought off a good chunk of Congress because there is a lot of money to be made in their industry due to our addiction to fossil fuels. But after the taste of $4.00 a gallon last Summer, many now understand that Cheney's Energy Task Force was not a strategy for the nation, but a strategy for special interest.

If you are afraid of the increase in taxes from cap & trade, I ask you to ponder the return of the demand for foreign oil when the world economies recover. We can choose to invest in ourselves and our future, or we can choose to maintain the staus quo out of FEAR and continue to invest in offshore companies with zero interest in eliminating our dependence on a limited substance. Do the math.
By Patrick_R_Gibbons

7/2/09 at 11:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Open,

Have you heard of Supply and Demand?

The Oil reserves are nearing peak production, meaning supply will start to go do down relative to the growth in demand.

The world's population is growing that means more and more demand.

If demand continues to grow as supply begins to drop you will see prices increase. In fact this is what we've been seeing for the last 10 years. Economic growth (thanks to capitalism and free trade) have reduced poverty and brought billions into the modern world. THEY WANT a good life, and that means oil consumption for energy and transportation needs.

More demand with a supply that isn't keeping up, means higher prices.

When prices get too high, people NATURALLY begin looking for alternatives. We don't need government to step in. And enough with the foreign oil argument, both conservatives and liberals get on this xenophobic bent and it is nonsense.
By gotjobs

7/2/09 at 11:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Cap and TAX is a job killer.

This just passed the house, 1200 pages never read like the stimulus bill (hows that working?) nobody voting for it bothered to read the darn thing.

Everyones fav Obama has said "under my plan your energy bills will go SKYHIGH".

The oil argument is a joke, we are swimming in oil and gas. Natural gas is at historic lows, we have tons of it right here in the USA. Yet not one tree hugger wants to talk about clean natural gas.

The White House has squashed an EPA report that global warming isn't happening. Australia facing Cap & TAX asked the White House for some backing info, Obama and company had "no comment" so Australia dumped it.

If dimbulb Harry Reid wants fans, how about a fan wind farm in Searchlight?
By UNLVStud

7/2/09 at 1:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

For all of you that say this is a "job killer" and "it's going to raise my taxes" here's a few points:

(1) There's going to be job creation in these new technologies. We are the most ingenious and inventive people in the world. To think that we can't create technologies to adapt to the changing world is ridiculous. Jobs are not going anywhere. They're going to be created right here. They'll be right here in Nevada especially. The future is bright if we take this as an opportunity to become a world leader again. We're Americans, we can do better.

(2) What price would you place on our national security? This bill is going to finally get us on a path off of foreign oil. We will no longer be going to war in countries, like Iraq, to get oil to feed our needs. We will be SAVING TONS of money by reducing our huge military complex that is dedicated, in part, to securing our energy future. Right now we are at the mercy of OPEC and BigOil. The only way to stop either of them from stealing money from our wallets is to enact laws that reduce our energy consumption.

(3) Finally, cap and trade is a free market solution to our energy problems. The government is market incentivising what the private sector is refusing to do: controlling carbon emission, green houses gases, etc. These need to be controlled sooner than later or we will not have an inhabitable planet to live on. This system will force companies to actually be responsible with their pollution, and in doing so the fit companies will be able to sell off what they save (credits) to other polluting companies and will be making money by doing it. It's the only viable solution out there right now.
By henderson

7/2/09 at 1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

UNLVStud-

1) Millions of American jobs will be lost. This bill will cripple entire cities throughout the midwest that will never see these jobs you speak of.
2) The fact that you think we are at war over oil speaks to your ignorance and naivete.
3) If today's energy aternatives were affordable, profitable and cost-effective, the government would not need to incentivise because everyone would already be using these methods. They are not, they are very expensive, not at all cost-effective. Also, you clearly do not understand what the term "free market" means. Free market does not include the government telling you what kind of light bulbs you can produce, buy, sell or use in your home.

Obviously you have a few years to go at UNLV. Use them wisely.
By darthbry

7/2/09 at 2:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Glad to see UNLV is still teaching reality! ha ha ha..
By UNLVStud

7/2/09 at 2:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Henderson:

(1) Midwest jobs are being lost because those businesses have failed to adapt to a changing world. The midwest can still save themselves by changing. There's still time. They could spark new industries that produce and manufacture these new technologies. If those companies do not adapt then it's there own fault that jobs will be lost in those sectors. In addition, the People will be able to retrain themselves and acquire new skills to fill these new jobs. We don't always have to be stuck in the past and prop up dying industries. It's time to enter the new century already.

(2) If you really think the sole reasons we are over there is because of 9/11, WMD's and "liberating" the Iraqi people and it has nothing to do with oil then you are sorely mistaken.

(3) That's such a specious argument. What technology or industry has ever started off affordable and profitable? If, for example, Microsoft and Apple had the same attitude as you we wouldn't have personal computers. Those first computers were tens of thousands of dollars and took up entire rooms. They certainly weren't affordable, profitable or cost effective. Over time, with market forces and incentives, this technology has become affordable, profitable, and cost effective. Just because a technology doesn't start off making money doesn't mean it can't become that way.

(4) The term free market does include the government telling businesses what they can produce, buy, sell, etc as they have always done so and will continue to do. From securities, to safety standards, to health standards, to efficiency standards, etc the government is there to protect against the unsteady hand of corporations. Without the government setting the limits of the "free market" our economy would collapse. (As seen with the financial crises we are now in.)
By henderson

7/2/09 at 5:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

How are we benefitting from the Iraqi oil again?
Apple, Microsoft, Xerox are private industries that chose to advance and develop technology. The government didn't put a gun to their head and get involved. That's how prosperity happens, they saw how lucrative this could be. There is no such anticipation with cap and trade. It is only an energy tax. And no, free market does not include the government telling businesses what they can produce, buy, sell, etc. Safety standards, drug standards etc. are regulatory issues. It is not up to the government to tell you what light bulb you must use and it never has been. You are just too young and naive to understand that the free market prospers with less government intervention, not more. Your own example of Apple and Microsoft prove that point. This administration is already crippling our nation by quadrupling Bush's deficit within months of taking office, and now going against their promise to raise taxes, trying to push Cap and trade which will tax every household in this country far more than what they are telling us.
By boftx

7/2/09 at 6:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

UNLV, please, DO NOT share whatever drugs you are using.

There will be few if any jobs created from this bill. Just how the hell do you expect manufacturing (which is almost non-existant today) to compete in this country when they can go elsewhere and pay far less for labor AND avoid the energy taxes? This bill is lunacy for us given our current economy and trade policies.
By odeman

7/2/09 at 10:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

The problem with cap and trade is that polluters who do not meet standards will be spending money for credits instead of fixing the problem. American managers have taken the easy way out for years and most will do the same under cap & trade. Their bonus is the only thing they care about. If Wall Street can find a way to get involved the ranks of the billionaires will grow while the rest of us go broke.

If sources are right, the provision that every house must pass an energy test before being sold will be a disaster. If standards are set high enough most houses will have to be gutted and not many people can afford that. I see a booming business in arsonists and arson investigators.
By Patrick_R_Gibbons

7/2/09 at 11:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

UNLV Stud is making a logically fallacious comparison.

Yes, green energy subsidies will create jobs in green energy but those jobs will be far more costly than alternatives. Thus you've probably destroyed jobs overall.

You can't just compare spending money on project x to burning the money in a bonfire - yet that is what UNLVstud (and all our politicians) usually do.
By davelv

7/3/09 at 4:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

The USA attacked Iraq because, as President Bush stated later, Saddam tried to kill his daddy. No joke. You don't mess with a Texan!

Now admittedly, other people probably had their own reasons, many of which were patriotic, some for greed. But unfortunately Iraq really doesn't have much oil, Saddam just stated he had a lot to look good to the world.

The main issue with what UNLV Student is posting is that obviously the green propaganda is making it into the university school systems and young people are actually believing the stuff. America is in real trouble if the country's future leadership doesn't start asking hard questions and doing their own non-biased research on major national issues.
By Narcissa

7/3/09 at 6 p.m.

Suggest removal

Ahahaha, that's rich, UNLV, that's rich. Spoken like a true statist and on the eve of Independence Day, no less!

Thank you for reminding us what we can look forward to with Maobama's tryannical big government and his unconstitutional trampling of our individual liberties.

Well played, sir, well played.

And just for the record, I'm going to use whatever goddamn lightbulb I want, regardless of whatever crippling legislation you Stalinist creeps try to ram down our throats.
By Bodytalk555

7/3/09 at 7:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

This bill is a joke.
By castle

7/3/09 at 10:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Wait until the "light bulb police" find out what you are doing. They may have to spend thousands to find you not using approved CFC bulbs; but hey its worth it isn't it?
By Expatstudent

7/4/09 at 1:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

The people against this bill are, for the most part, throwing away the future prosperity of the country. If the Senate doesn't pass this bill, it will not be jobs that the critics say will be lost, but innovation and knowledge through a generational brain drain. The smart and young people who grew up in this country will leave, and the world's brightest who emigrate will go elsewhere. By following free-market principles, the brightest will go elsewhere to regions of the world that are more receptive to the challenges that face this planet in the 21st century.

The Bush years brought the United States a brain drain in medical research due to the restriction in stem cell research. Do you want this country to be a second rate innovator in the 21st century or a leader? The choice is yours.
By henderson

7/4/09 at 7:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Expatstudent,

Speaking of brain drain, are you high right now?
By Expatstudent

7/4/09 at 5:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

It's simple free-market exercise in this global economy. If the "A" location does not have what I or many other people need they will go to "B" or "C" location.

If "A" thinks that because of historical precedent and history knowledge and creativity will always flow to it because in their words "we're A." They're wrong.

Use the simple formula for everything. What was the original pull factor for people to come to Las Vegas?

or

The American automotive industry. Why should I buy from "A" when "B" and "C" have what I want and are the better value?

Who creates all this innovation? Governmental policy. If the government in location "A" restricts research and development in future growing industries and progress. Money, knowledge, and creativity will go elsewhere.
By davelv

7/4/09 at 10:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Expat,
If the government restricts, people go elsewhere - exactly!

China and the rest of the world are building nuclear power plants. America is not, instead going on a fool's errand to develop windmills and solar, both of which are extremely expensive in comparison. America is on a path of ever decreasing jobs and wealth due to misguided energy policy making our products non-competitive with the world.

People objected to buying Detroit cars because they cost more due to labor. OK, why are people around the world going to buy American products that cost a whole lot more just because they were produced with wind or solar? They won't is the answer.

History guys. Study history to know the future. Listening to politicians and naive Greens is not a smart path to prosperity.
By Expatstudent

7/5/09 at 1:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

If government restricts in fields that hold a research development future (stem cells, new energy, etc) people will go elsewhere. Governments create wealth, markets only exist because of the governments. Government guides, markets follow and build from the guidance.

Detroit cars do not cost more due to labor. It's health care that is driving up the costs. If labor was the reason for increases in cars then Ford and GM Europe and international divisions would not be racking in profits, same for all the other European manufactures.

When you remove the health care burden from companies, they use the money on research and development! = better products and less de-industrialization.

History, okay. If you are or were a student of economic development you'd know that capitalism has inherent crises roughly every 45-60yrs in the Kondratiev cycle. Well, just to let you know, we're in a new phase of capitalism or cycle. To refresh previous ones were (2009, 1971, 1927 etc). What worked in the last cycle doesn't work in this current phase.

Regardless, the United States needs to modernize the way it thinks about transportation. The country's infrastructure is not sustainable. Building that extension on the highway is a vast money pit or adding a few lanes isn't going to solve problems.

The whole transportation system needs to be turned upside down but with how the United States operates structurally (why people complain nothing gets done, its the system folks, parliamentary systems just work better or just abolish the Senate) this isn't going to happen.

If you want to find the source for all of the country's infrastructure and energy problems, a guy named Robert Moses is the answer.
By davelv

7/5/09 at 9:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Expat,

Labor costs include health care and energy. So who is going to pay for the health care of the autoworkers? And don't say "the government" because the government is funded by us.

But my point was if not health care, then energy costs will be so high that America's products will be non-competitive. Cheap reliable 24 hour energy is what is needed, not high cost sporatic solar or wind.

As to redoing transportation, the United States is BIG. Adoption of European train systems will not work here. Cars are it for the future. These can be made incredibly efficient through hybrid electric powered by nuclear baseload electricity.

Unfortunately, your writing and thoughts mesh perfectly with Obama's -- socialistic with tendencies towards communism, i.e. big government with redistribution of wealth and forced changes to lifestyle. Neither of these is what made America the superpower that it is. America doesn't want or need to be a second tier country. It has the resources to stay number one for centuries to come - as long as fad science isn't embraced.
By Expatstudent

7/8/09 at 11:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Rome wasn't built in a day. The United States built the interstate highway system in 30yrs, they can do it with trains.

Yes trains can and will work, they worked before the car in the 50s and they'll work now.

A transportation system based on reason.
No, New York to Los Angeles or Chicago is not realistic.
But trains to LA from Vegas Vegas to Phoenix San Diego to Seattle.

We have to think regionally.

Both political parties who hold a monopoly on power in this country believe in liberalism. Not once has any president or leader of both swayed from that ideology. So to say that one party or person is socialist is like someone saying this person is fascist etc. The argument has no philosophical grounds as its factually incorrect.

Communism is the abolishment of the state, therefore no government or as you would put it no "big government."

The idea of a smaller government is outdated and naive. How do you expect to have infrastructure built, social security, etc.

Government is the only apparatus that can achieve those goals, so to say that the 'big scary government' is going to come and take you away is being silly.

Besides, for all of those who say they do not want government in their lives, they're the first ones to shout 'it's not a choice.' It has always been and always will be 'government out of my life except for when I want it to be in it.'

No, the United States was not built on individualism, but is instead based on egalitarianism and fraternity. It is a system based on Utilitarianism and not individualism.