Now a Kerry-Lieberman-Graham Climate Bill is in the Works

And it won't have much to offer if you don't support offshore drilling or believe in "clean coal".

Tossing another layer on top of the anarchy that has erupted in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee over the proposed Kerry-Boxer climate bill, Senator Kerry himself announced today that he would also be pushing a second climate bill on a "dual track" outside of the committee process, even as his first bill struggles forward. He will be working on this bill behind closed doors with Senators Graham (R, SC), and Lieberman (I, CT).

As this Washington Post article notes, other Senate committees have been working on their own climate bills as well, and all will have to be reconciled in the end. This just adds another to the heap. But the action by Kerry, who made his announcement alongside Senators Lieberman (I, CT) and Graham (R, SC) today, shows that Senate leaders don't have much faith that the Kerry-Boxer bill will win the necessary 60 votes in the end. (Or, you could look at all this with rose-colored glasses, like the Boston Globe, which is reporting that "Sens Kerry, Graham, Lieberman join forces to rescue climate bill.")

This country has a lot to do to curb GHG emissions, and strong federal mandates for renewable generation and energy efficiency should form the core of any good bill. Waxman-Markey emerged from the committee process in the House so badly weakened that environmentalists were privately dismayed, and publicly almost ready to withdraw support. So its a major (major) disappointment that the Senate may end up pitching more of the Waxman-Markey framework overboard. (Kerry-Boxer was 90% based on Waxman-Markey.) Even more worrisome, according to the Post "Graham said that the bill should protect the climate, but also allow for more offshore drilling, an expansion of nuclear energy and an emphasis on 'clean coal' technology." And Lieberman confirmed that the three were committed to a "cap and trade" scheme, "but noted that the scheme had 'a lot of moving parts you could negotiate on.'"

The Huffington Post does not mince words, reporting the story as "Kerry, Graham, Lieberman Working on Weaker Climate Compromise," here.

Morning News Roundup on Kerry-Boxer Bill

This morning, several newspapers have unfurled their analyses of the newest version of the Kerry-Boxer climate bill, which was released in its "Chairman's Mark" form late Friday night. The bill is similar to Waxman-Markey in its awesome length (923 pages) and breadth. For now, though, now it has a lower overall reduction target (GHG emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020, as compared to 17% in Waxman-Markey), and seems to place a greater emphasis on shoring up the coal power industry through carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). As the New York Times describes it, the Kerry-Boxer bill

largely mirrors a House version of legislation that passed in June, with a few tweaks here and there. The similarities between the two bills leave lobbying interests largely in the same place they were in months ago[ with e]nvironmentalists . . . settling in to defend the new bill's stronger emissions reduction targets, . . . [and] many industries and interest groups . . . unsatisfied with their share of the proceeds.

Of course, the idea that environmentalists are simply settling in to defend the bill is a little misleading, since internally at least, the environmental community was quite disappointed in the final version of Waxman-Markey. (In their eyes, it started out a little weak, and got significantly weaker, and more compromised, as it went through the committee process.) What environmentalists would have liked to see was a much stronger version of the bill coming out of Boxer's committee, with reinvigorated renewable and energy efficiency targets, stronger protections for forests and natural resources in the scramble for biofuels, and less emphasis on trying to curb the negative effects of (what they see as) irredeemably dirty sources of energy, like coal. (Many in the environmental community have severe doubts that CCS will ever happen.)

The rest of the Times story can be read here. The Wall Street Journal, which notes that the oil industry, in particular, is unhappy with its share of the pie, posted an article here. The Washington Post's take can be found here.