The climate bill and hopes for a global treaty are withering on the vine. The bill will not pass out of anywhere in time for Copenhagen, or by the end of this year. Next year, timid Senators in reelection fights won't touch it. By early 2011, politicians will focus on an overriding issue of far greater critical importance than that of the planet -- their own fates in the 2012 election.
Yesterday, Senator John Kerry told United Nations General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon that he, Senator Joe Lieberman, and Senator Lindsey Graham were working on a framework for a bipartisan climate change bill. A "framework"? Tomatoes can be supported on a framework, but let's not confuse the framework with the fruit.
Senator Kerry was the sunny optimist on the bill bearing his name until yesterday:
"I'm confident we'll pass a law as soon as it is practicable. And when I say practicable I mean after health care and after financial reform."
This is the first time that Kerry has publicly placed financial reform ahead of the climate bill on the Senate's timetable. The priorities make perfect sense, given that no powerful interests will oppose financial reform, financial reform will be as much of a cakewalk as healthcare reform, we don't have anything important occurring on December 7, and we can afford to wait on another year of business as emissions usual.
You want to reform the financial system before climate change, Senator Kerry? In wholly unrelated news:
The world will have to spend an extra $500 billion to cut carbon emissions for each year it delays implementing a major assault on global warming, the International Energy Agency said on Tuesday.
Senator Blanche Lincoln may have the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee avoid hearings on the bill altogether. She's in a tough reelection fight and doesn't want to alienate voters by acting like a real Democrat. Her fellow Senator Debbie Stabenow, "who is leading an effort by moderate, heartland Democrats to protect manufacturing and agriculture industries, said committees were no longer under any timetables to produce legislation."
You want to protect agriculture in the climate bill, Senator Lincoln? In wholly unrelated news, researchers at North Carolina State University found that crop yields plummet in heat over 90 degrees:
The study shows that crop yields tick up gradually between roughly 10 and 30 degrees Celsius, or about 50 to 86 degrees Farenheit. But when temperature levels go over 29 degrees Celsius (84.2 degrees Farenheit) for corn, 30 degrees Celsius (86 degrees Farenheit) for soybeans and 32 degrees Celsius (89.6 degrees Farenheit) for cotton, yields fall steeply.
"While crop yields depend on a variety of factors, extreme heat is the best predictor of yields," Roberts says. "There hasn’t been much research on what happens to crop yields over certain temperature thresholds, but this study shows that temperature extremes are not good."
You want to ensure that the climate bill protects the agriculture industry in your home state, Senator Stabenow? Start with the impact of climate change on Michigan's tart cherry industry.
Senator Jay Rockefeller suggests that climate change legislation be deferred until after the 2010 election, because Boxer’s bill doesn’t include enough incentives for the coal industry. (Photo credit: Washington State Historical Society via Grist.)
You want to protect the coal industry, Senator Rockefeller? Start by protecting the people who work in it, not its profits.
In wholly unrelated news:
The Environmental Protection Agency found mercury — a pollutant primarily released from coal-fired power plants — and polychlorinated biphenyls in all fish samples it collected from 500 lakes and reservoirs from 2000-2003. At 49 percent of those lakes and reservoirs, mercury concentrations exceeded levels that the EPA says are safe for people eating average amounts of fish. Mercury consumed by eating fish can damage the nervous system and cause learning disabilities in developing fetuses and young children.
Two moderate Republicans considered potential yes votes also opine that Congress should start all over again with a new bill. Senator Richard Lugar warns Democrats: "I don't see any climate bill on the table right now that I can support," said Lugar, one of the half-dozen Republicans that Democrats are courting on the issue. "We really have to start from scratch again." Senator Lisa Murkowski likewise wants to start over with a blank piece of paper rather than Boxer's bill. That's just peachy, Senators. We can just move to Planet B.
There's only one hero in the Senate over the last couple of days, and it's an unlikely one. Politico reports: "Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said he would work to expedite the bill through his committee, with a markup possible before Christmas." If that occurs -- and Kossacks have reason to be skeptical given Baucus' past history of speed -- it would be welcome news. In the meantime, the rest of the Senate seems content to let the climate bill wither away.