Climate Security Act Vote This Morning

Watching the Climate Security Act cloture vote in the Senate right now on CSPAN2. An aye is to move forward with debating and amending the bill. A no is a vote to get behind the Roadblock Republican filibuster against climate action. I'll let you know what happens!

UPDATE 9:33am: Cloture vote fails 48-36 (need 60 to break Republican filibuster). An additional six senators entered statements into the record that they couldn't make the vote but would've voted to move forward with the bill, bringing the total to 54 senators in support. 54-36 is nearly a reversal of the 38-60 vote in June 2005 on the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act, a much weaker bill. Amazing how far the Senate has shifted in just three years!

UPDATE 9:47am: Only four Democrats voted against moving forward -- Sherrod Brown (OH), Byron Dorgan (ND), Tim Johnson (SD) and Mary Landrieu (LA). After some questions about his position, Sen. Webb voted to end the filibuster. Thanks to all the Virginians who urged Sen. Webb to vote the right way!

UPDATE 10:28am: Here's the full roll call vote.

Webb to Vote with GOP Filibuster on Climate Action?

I've heard from sources that Sen. Webb is "leaning against" supporting the Climate Security Act. Apparently Sen. Webb wants to protect coal interests like the Wise County coal-fired power plant, which a Virginia State Corporation Commission analysis shows would result in a net loss statewide of 1,474 jobs.

Hard as it is for me to believe, I'm told there's a real chance Sen. Webb could vote against Democratic leadership and with Sen. James "Global Warming is a Hoax" Inhofe on this bill. (That is, if the Roadblock Republicans ever let it come up for a vote in the first place.)

A vote on continuing debate on the bill is expected to happen by Friday morning at the latest. If you haven't already, please take a few minutes to call Sen. Webb right now at (202) 224-4024 to ask him to strengthen and pass the Climate Security Act.

Remember in November: Senate Republicans Fight Climate Action

Following the interminable Senate discussion of the Climate Security Act? You can thank Senate Republicans for the unbelievable 30 hours of debate -- and that's before a single amendment can be offered.

You see, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (up for re-election - hint, hint, Kentucky voters) doesn't want any Republicans on record on climate action. He'd much rather let people like Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) claim to support climate action without having to actually vote on any existing proposal. So McConnell is pushing for as much debate and delay as possible, living up to his reputation as the leader of the pack of the Roadblock Republicans.

As Greenwire reports, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid plans to try to keep McConnell on a short leash:

"We need to get some kind of agreement, a gentlemen's agreement, from the Republicans, or we'll have to approach it in a different manner," Reid said.

Asked about the timing for the overall debate, Reid said he expected to give senators a chance to consider amendments through this week and into the next. "I would hope that we can finish the bill next week," he said. "That'd be really good. I'm not determined to get it off the floor this week."

But Reid added, "This is the most important issue facing the world today. I want to be patient and try to get as much done as soon as we can. If we arrive at a point where we're just wasting our time, we will have to figure out something else." [...]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he expected Reid to allow an unlimited number of amendments on the bill, though he was not ready to say just how many the GOP planned to offer. "I don't have a number," he said. "We have some important amendments. I wouldn't call it an unlimited number."

Oh, well that's reassuring. It's not an infinite number of amendments. It's safe to say it's somewhere between one and 196,843,012. If McConnell has his way, we should have a vote on the bill just as the Capitol is swallowed by rising sea levels.

As Grist's Kate Sheppard reports, only three Republicans spoke in favor of climate action on the first day of debate. While there are other Republicans like Sen. Norm Coleman who back strong global warming legislation, the rest are doing their best to prove that if you want to be green, you have to vote blue.

Ask Sen. Webb to Support Climate Security Act

The U.S. Senate opens debate today on the Climate Security Act. It's by far the strongest global warming legislation to make it this far in Congress. Check out Grist for the long version of the bill and its journey to the floor.

The Climate Security Act aims to cut carbon dioxide emissions by setting up a cap-and-trade system, putting a price on global warming pollution. Revenues from the program would be used to promote the development of new low-emissions and efficient technologies, helping low- and middle-income families with energy costs, and preserving America’s natural resources. The legislation would also allocate resources to states and tribes to assist with local global warming efforts.

Some greens are complaining the targets aren't tough enough. While deeper cuts would be ideal, the current ones are still light years ahead of anything even Democrats are proposing here in Virginia. The Climate Security Act would cut national emissions 19% from current levels by 2020 and close to 70% by 2050, while Gov. Kaine's Virginia Energy Plan would only aim for a 7% cut from current levels by 2025.

While Sen. Warner is a co-sponsor of the bill, Sen. Webb hasn't yet indicated if he'll support it. Please take a few minutes to call Sen. Webb right now at (202) 224-4024 to ask him to strengthen and pass the Climate Security Act.

Cross-posted from Raising Kaine

Another Primary, Another Month of Media Ignoring Climate Change

The Pennsylvania presidential primary has come and gone, and still the media refuses to talk about global warming.

It's especially puzzling because while the media delights in meaningless "gotchas," George Stephanopoulos passed on a prime chance to "get" presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. Back in February, McCain was on ABC's This Week and had this exchange with Stephanopoulos:

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about on the issue of climate change? Because you and Sen. [Joe] Lieberman [I-Conn.] have come out for a bill which would have mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases.

MCCAIN: Gradual reductions, yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But they are mandatory.

MCCAIN: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you sticking by that?

MCCAIN: What I mean by that is that it's cap-and-trade, that there will be incentives for people to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's a free-market approach. The Europeans are using it now. We did it in the case of addressing acid rain -- look, if we do that, we stimulate green technologies. I have great faith in the American industry. General Electric, the world's largest corporation, has announced they're dedicated to green technologies. This will be profit-making business.

It won't cost the American taxpayer. It will make profits, because we'll move forward with the innovation and ability of American industry to address this issue.

But now McCain has changed his position. He says he'll only support the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act if massive new subsidies for nuclear power are added. If he sticks by that position, he might as well oppose the bill entirely, because if costly nuclear subsidies are added, many Democrats will vote against the legislation.

So McCain is trying to take credit for supporting climate action, but only with amendments that would be fatal to its passage. Sounds like a prime opportunity for a "gotcha," right?

Nope. McCain was on This Week again on April 20th and climate change didn't even come up.

Time magazine has a more comprehensive look at the politics of climate legislation.

Hampton Roads in 2100: Average Storms Become Isabels

When it comes to flooding, the Hampton Roads area is already the second-most-vulnerable area in the country behind New Orleans. So what happens when sea levels rise about two feet (the conservative projection) over the next century due to global warming?

With a mouse-click, Lockheed Martin analyst Chris Mang showed the impact of a routine winter nor'easter striking on top of the higher water level. Large parts of the city went underwater, much as they did during Hurricane Isabel in 2003.

"In a hundred years, even your average storm becomes a real problem," Mang said. And a hurricane with Isabel's punch would cause far more damage than Isabel did.

Mang detailed the disturbing projections at yesterday's Virginia Commission on Climate Change meeting in Williamsburg.

Some business interests opposed to climate action tried to use the meeting to attack the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, the climate legislation due to come before the Senate in June. They also argued that even in the face of the flood projections, Virginia should do nothing to confront climate change. Fortunately, commissioners fought back:

Keith McCoy, a spokesman for the National Association of Manufacturers, said a patchwork of carbon dioxide emission limits by states would create confusion and possibly prompt industries to move to less restrictive states, with no net loss in emissions.

McCoy said polls suggest that while people want to reduce greenhouse gases, "they don't want to give up their SUVs, and they don't want to turn down their thermostats."

One commission member called McCoy "plain wrong."

You can view the slides of all of the presentations at the commission's website.

CNN: Global Warming "a Largely Unscientific Hoax"

The Green Miles' roommate, while liberal, tends not to be overtly political. He's a journalist, so he see things more in shades of gray than black and white. Also, he's not overtly anything. It's just not his style.

So when he burst into the living room in anger after he overheard Mary Matalin on CNN, she must have said something pretty outrageous:

BLITZER: (reading Matalin quote) "I don't think he [Sen. John McCain] rests comfortably anywhere that conservatives would call home today. If it was true yesterday, it's not true for tomorrow's issues. The ones that he has chosen to take a lead on are the ones that conservatives either don't prioritize or flat-out loathe."

MATALIN: Like --

BLITZER: Like what?

MATALIN: -- some global warming issues. But he's going --

BLITZER: They loathe that?

MATALIN: Because it's a largely unscientific hoax. And it's a political concoction.

BLITZER: But he believes with [Sen.] Joe Lieberman [I-CT] -- he's co-sponsoring legislation on that.

MATALIN: He's going to have to put together an energy policy that has elements of conservation but productivity, and reduces our dependence on oil. He has said that. Some of the other issues, though --

BLITZER: But on global warming he's a true believer.

MATALIN: But he's not going to prioritize that, because that's not where the country is right now. And you haven't heard him prioritizing that.

"Unscientific hoax?!" my roommate shouted at the television. "Are you insane?!"

As Media Matters details, it's not the first time a CNN analyst has asserted blatant falsehoods when it comes to global warming.

When it comes to the science of global warming, there is no debate about whether it's happening or whether our greenhouse gas emissions are to blame. There's debate about the degree to which we'll warm, how fast, and what we can do to cure the planet's fever.

There's confusion in the public's mind only because conservative pundits keep making stuff up about climate science and networks like CNN keep giving them free air time to do it. For the straight science, check out RealClimate.

As for whether McCain will "prioritize that," it's a bit of a puzzle. While he co-sponsored climate legislation with Sen. Joe Lieberman, he says he won't support the current version of the bill, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, unless it includes more subsidies for nuclear power. If his ultimate goal is to cut carbon emissions, why is he prioritizing the nuclear industry over climate action? Odd.

Top US Climate Negotiator on Lieberman-Warner: "I don't know the details"

We know the Bush administration has fallen behind the rest of America and the world on climate change. How far? The Associated Press has the embarrassing details:

First, newly installed Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd reversed his country's long-standing policy by signing the Kyoto pact Monday, leaving the United States as the only major industrialized country to reject the agreement. Rudd called on the U.S. to follow his lead, and the Australian delegation basked in applause and accolades at the opening of the conference in Bali.

The next blow came from a domestic source: Congress. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed a bill Wednesday to cut U.S. emissions by 70 percent by 2050 from electric power plants, manufacturing and transportation, defying the administration's opposition to mandatory caps. [...]

On Thursday, Watson was adamant the Bush administration would stick to its guns, no matter what Australia or the Senate did.

"In our process, a vote for movement of a bill out of committee does not ensure its ultimate passage," he told reporters. "I don't know the details, but we will not alter our posture here."

That last line had me doing a Scooby Doo-style "Wha-huh?" Dr. Harlan L. Watson doesn't know the details of the Climate Security Act, also known as Lieberman-Warner? The Bush administration's senior climate negotiator doesn't feel the need to keep himself appraised of such things?