Yay?
The letter was sent to business, religious, and conservation leaders that the senator has been working with on the climate change legislation. An aide to Graham told CNN the senator will no longer be attending a major news conference scheduled for Monday with Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut to unveil details of their "tri-partisan" climate change legislation.
The reason for his hissy fit is because Sen. Reid wouldn't promise which agenda item, climate or immigration, will be next after financial reform. TPM has more:
Graham (R-SC) charged that Obama and Senate leaders have signaled immigration is their priority. Graham said that "has destroyed my confidence that there will be a serious commitment and focus to move energy legislation this year."
"All of the key players, particularly the Senate leadership, have to want this debate as much as we do. This is clearly not the case," Graham wrote in in the letter, obtained by TPMDC and included below.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) swiftly responded in a statement pledging that both immigration and climate change are top priorities. He said while he appreciates Graham's work on both issues, "I will not allow him to play one issue off of another."
For those concerned, the "climate bill" about to be unveiled wasn't looking too green. Mother Jones obtained details of the bill including:
* The bill would remove the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, and the states' authority to set tougher emissions standards than the federal government.
* There will be no fee—or "gas tax"—on transportation fuels. Instead, oil companies would also be required to obtain pollution permits but will not trade them on the market like other polluters. How this would work is not yet clear.
* Agriculture would be entirely exempt from the cap on carbon emissions.
* Manufacturers would not be included under a cap on greenhouse gases until 2016.
* The bill would provide government-backed loan guarantees for the construction of 12 new nuclear power plants.
* It will contain at least $10 billion to develop technologies to capture and store emissions from coal-fired power plants.
* There will be new financial incentives for natural gas.
* The bill would place an upper and lower limit on the price of pollution permits, known as a hard price collar. Businesses like this idea because it ensures a stable price on carbon. Environmental advocates don't like the idea because if the ceiling is set too low, industry will have no financial incentive to move to cleaner forms of energy.
* The energy bill passed by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last year will be adopted in full. This measure has sparked concerns among environmentalists for its handouts to nuclear and fossil fuel interests.
This led Treehugger to ask, "How Much Compromise Would Make the Climate Bill Worthless?
I know that everyone's trying to keep their judgment reigned in before the climate bill is officially unveiled next week, but I can't help saying something: it just keeps looking worse and worse for the thing. Reuters just reported that Johny Kerry (D-MA), one of the bill's chief architects, is now saying there's not going to be any kind of motor fuel tax, or any kind of 'linked tax' on the oil industry--but that there will indeed be expanded domestic drilling and more nuclear entitlements. Which gets me thinking--how low will this thing have to go before it's not even worth doing from an environmental standpoint?
I was excited to see the tripartisan climate bill but I knew there was trouble upon reading the first reports about it. I guess I should have expected that when Lieberman is part of a Gang of Three. We'll see where this goes, but Graham throwing hissy fits is no big deal if this is the climate bill we're going to get.