What does the KGL proposed climate bill entail? What does Senator Graham mean by "cap-and-trade is dead"? And what sense can be made of the subsequent media coverage and commentary?

Considering the media scrutiny of the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman (KGL) proposed climate legislation in recent days, you would think the three U.S. senators would make a concerted effort to outline details of the bill on their websites, in their own words. However, not only is the bill for cleaner energy legislation not prominently addressed on their home pages, but after quite a bit of digging, not anywhere on their sites did I find a single mention of it. Perhaps this is by design for political reasons of which I am ignorant, but as a result my only source of reference is a patchwork of media explanations and commentary.

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST

Let’s start with The Washington Post article in which Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was quoted as saying “Cap-and-trade is dead.” Instead of applying a blanket cap on emissions that all industries would be subject to, the KGL climate bill would apply different controls to different sectors. As the Post outlines:

• Power plants would face an overall cap on emissions that would become more stringent over time
• Motor fuel may be subject to a carbon tax
• Industrial facilities would be exempted from a cap on emissions for several years before it is phased in
• Domestic oil and gas drilling offshore and would be expanded
• Federal assistance would be provided for constructing nuclear power plants and carbon sequestration and storage projects at coal-fired utilities

The Post article goes on to explain the possible “cap-and-dividend” option:

“The change in policy, which might even include giving money raised through carbon pollution allowances directly back to consumers, a scheme known as ‘cap-and-dividend,’ could appeal to some wavering senators.”

FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES

In response to “cap-and-trade is dead” quote,  The New York Times offers more of Graham’s thoughts to help put the quote in context:

“This started with the planet is heating up and Iowa is going to become beachfront property,” [Graham] said.

“Now people go around not saying that much. I think they’ve oversold the consequences to climate change, to global warming. And the momentum around this large cap-and-trade bill to save the planet has been replaced by a business model: How do we create jobs and stay ahead of the Chinese and clean up the air?”

FROM THE HUFFINGTON POST

For The Huffington Post‘s Dan Rosenblum, the proposed carbon tax on motor fuels is of greatest concern, noting:

“[The Senators] appear to recognize that carbon taxes make sense and can fly politically. The bad news is that the type of carbon tax that is likely to be proposed for the transportation sector bears little or no resemblance to a well-designed carbon tax, incorporates some of the worst elements of cap-and-trade and would be ineffectual and counterproductive. It almost makes cap-and-trade look good.”

FROM GRIST

Grist’s David Roberts marvels at the “Stupid things senators are saying about the [KGL] proposal,” which he calls “a torrent of confusion, nonsense, and outright falsehoods,” going on to note:

“It’s become pretty clear that most conservative and ‘centrist’ senators don’t have even a rudimentary understanding of carbon pricing. They think the KGL plan is better, but at no point does any of them offer any coherent policy rationale for that preference.”

FROM POLITICS DAILY

Finally, Politics Daily reports on John McCain’s characterization of the bill as as “joke,” specifically in reference to the funding of more nuclear power plants: “It’s a joke when there’s no site recycling and there’s no storage. Nuclear power is not viable without recycling and without storage. Period.”

FROM LITTLE OLE’ ME

In weeding through all this media coverage of the KGL climate proposal I am compelled to offer my own commentary on two points:

1) Graham’s reference to the bill as a means of “staying ahead of the Chinese.” We can’t very well “stay ahead” of a country that is already ahead of us when it comes to clean energy development. Yes, it’s a race we seem intent on winning, but one in which we seem to be sabotaging ourselves.

2) McCain’s concern over no proposal within the bill for how to recycle and/or store nuclear waste. Might I suggest the Bill Gates-endorsed TerraPower, a “traveling wave nuclear reactor design” that utilizes nuclear waste as fuel for producing clean energy.

What to expect? Only one thing for certain – the KGL climate bill will need 60 yes votes to pass the Senate.

Meredith Simonds Climate Change bill, climate, Graham, Grist, Kerry, Lieberman, McCain, media, Politics Daily, proposal, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, The Washington Post