Well, he certainly is not quitter on this issue. This is a good speech and it looks like he will keep pushing to pass a comprehensive energy bill.
In 1931, not long before he died, the famous inventor Thomas Edison had a conversation with his friends Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone about the energy needs in the future. He told them: “I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.”
Edison wasn’t an environmentalist, by any means. But he did recognize that oil and coal are finite sources of energy. And if we intend to maintain our standard of living, if we want to remain competitive in the world economy, if we expect to continue protecting our national security, we’re going to have to find new, renewable and sustainable clean sources of energy – solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and hydroelectric.
<snip>
I know some of our critics, even some of our friends, have suggested that we settle for an “energy only” bill. But as tempting as that may be to some, it is an approach that ignores the fact that America today is confronting three interrelated crises: an energy security crisis, a climate crisis and an economic crisis. Our best response to all three is a bold, comprehensive bill that accelerates green innovation and creates millions of new jobs as we develop and produce the next generation of renewable power sources, alternative fuels and energy-efficient cars, homes and workplaces.
We all want American prosperity. We all care deeply about American jobs, competitiveness and the living standards of our families. And that is precisely why we need the energy and climate change legislation we will bringing forth – legislation that will promote the kind of investment and research that will not only get our workers back on their feet and but will also transform our world.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/05/kerry-edison-and-the-energy-quest/It looks like they Kerry and Lieberman might introduce it themselves, without Graham - though Kerry says Graham still stands behind it.
Senator John Kerry, whose efforts to forge a compromise on U.S. climate-change and energy legislation stalled last month, said today a bill will be introduced “very, very soon.”
The legislation will have support from “a unique coalition,” including utilities, nuclear-power advocates and oil companies, Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said today at a green-jobs conference in Washington.
Kerry said oil companies have been acting in “good faith” in their discussions with him about the legislation. Expanded offshore drilling was set to be in the bill, though the measure is in question after the BP Plc oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. Lawmakers including Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, said they will oppose drilling provisions.
Kerry today stressed the need to move beyond oil.
“We can’t drill and burn our way through the crisis,” he said. “We don’t have enough oil.”
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-05/kerry-says-climate-bill-to-be-offered-very-soon-update1-.htmlThat report based on Kerry's speech, makes off shore drilling sound iffy. Lieberman however has said they are keeping the off shore drilling in. A Senate aide spoke of states getting the right to ban it up to 75 miles from their shore line.
The bill has long been expected to include provisions to expand nuclear power and widen offshore drilling. Kerry’s cosponsor, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), said Tuesday they did not plan to remove offshore drilling provisions despite the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
The plan is expected to provide states that have new drilling off their shores a share of the leasing and royalty revenue. A Senate aide also said that states would be able to pass laws that prevent lease sales in federal waters within 75 miles of their shores.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/96169-kerry-seeks-to-blunt-gop-attacks-on-climate-billNot mentioned anywhere is the question of what will the oil spill do to the economics of offshore drilling. As it was, there are a huge number of plots, legally available, where it is currently not economic to drill. I would guess that given the likely high costs of this spill plus legislation - that should pass if written for future spills, to remove the cap on clean up exposure, will raise the cost of that insurance - thus the price of drilling there. This should move an additional set of possible places into the not profitable group.
The 75 mile provision is interesting as well.
One other question is what will Obama's position be. One question is whether Obama will back them if they remove offshore drilling. Obama did not stipulate that he was for it only if a climate change bill was passed. If a climate bill fails, it is likely that some Democrats and most Republicans would vote for the energy only bill.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
