Bingaman: ‘Difficult to see’ 60 votes for climate change bill

[Robert DAH Bruce]

Source: The Hill

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said it is unlikely the Senate can pass legislation that imposes limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

The senior Democrat offered the grim political prognosis in an interview that aired Sunday on “Platts Energy Week.”

“If you actually have a bill that puts in place a cap-and-trade system or a limit on greenhouse gases and a mandatory reduction in greenhouse gases, I think it is difficult to see where we get the 60 votes to pass that legislation,” he said.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) plans to bring a broad energy package to the bill next month. Environmentalists and lawmakers backing greenhouse gas curbs – including Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) – are fighting to keep some form of carbon limits in the mix, but face a difficult climb.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/105745-bingaman-difficult-to-see-60-votes-for-climate-change-bill

---

Difficult to see, eh? I'd say it'll be difficult to see, breathe, eat and drink food and water that doesn't kill us, if we don't have a strong climate bill.

[Radical Activist]

1. It has to be done like health care.

With less than 60 votes.

[bonnieS]

2. they don't seem eager to use

reconciliation for other budget issues, like unemployment insurance.

[qazplm]

3. health care

was done that way because you could tease out budget impacts to allow it, a bit harder to do that with climate issues.

I'd prefer we moved next on jobs/employment, not environmental issues. We have about ten crises going on of which the environment is important but if I were to triage it, employment is at the top.

[Radical Activist]

6. Having a job doesn't matter when your place of business is destroyed

by a flood, hurricane or tornado, or your town is overrun with climate refugees, or when food prices skyrocket because farmers couldn't get their crops in the ground. Having health care as a theoretical right doesn't mean shit when the hospital is severely damaged, overrun and without power.

This isn't just an environmental issue. This is the only issue that gets much, much worse for every year that we don't take action. You seriously don't get it.

[obxhead]

12. Your NEVER going to stop those events from happening.

Never. They have been occurring for millions of years.

Fact is they occur all the time now and we recover from them. Will they increase in occurrence and strength, yes that argument can be made.

But to tout hurricanes, floods and tornadoes and the damage they cause as a number one priority is really kind of missing the greater need of many, many people to put food on the table and pay rent or mortgage on an insured home.

That's what insurance is for, a disaster that may occur with or without any change in climate legislation.

[Radical Activist]

14. Yeah, who cares if hundreds of millions more people die?

Who cares if we start getting several catastrophic disasters happening at the same time so that our ability to respond is stretched beyond the limits? It's no different than what's been going on for years, right?

You really don't get it. What you're suggesting is a criminal injustice that will sacrifice the lives of many people over the next few decades in exchange for the short-term financial comfort of the current generation. That's an attitude I only expect to hear from self-serving conservatives.

And once again, who gives a shit if you have a home, a mortgage, and food on the table when most of the homes in your town are destroyed and you no longer have a table. What about when it's happening on two coasts at the same time, plus Midwest flooding, plus a few bad crop seasons in a row...

[obxhead]

15. Without a stable economy we will not get a meaningful

change in our climate concerns. It has taken decades to create the problems and will take many more decades to repair them.

The disaster response you speak of requires a strong economy to maintain. Sure pass a watered down bill now to "effect" climate change. It will likely do very little to change any weather patterns over the next few decades, but it won't matter because people won't have anything in the way to get run over.

I'm concerned about the millions that are suffering right now, not the potential for the 2012 end of days you're parroting here.

Edit to add:

In all seriousness there is only one meaningful thing we can do to bring the climate back to what we think it could be. To completely stop using oil and coal. No bill that comes across the Obama desk will have any such thing in it.

[Radical Activist]

16. Now is the pefect time because of the economic downturn.

Demand for energy is down since the economic decline. Consequently, greenhouse gasses have gone down. Now is the perfect time to take old coal plants offline and replace them with renewable energy sources as our energy use starts to rise again. There's no reason it has to take decades.

It's a great time to get people jobs building new energy sources. Why are you repeating the false Republican assumption that we have to choose between economic growth and clean energy sources? No one has any better ideas about how to revive the economy and provide jobs than building a new energy infrastructure.

You're setting up straw men. We don't have to completely stop using all oil and coal and it doesn't have to happen right now. And no one claims we're going to stop all weather disasters or even go back to what it was. At this point we're just limiting how bad the damage will be.

Maybe you won't be around for the next few decades. I may be. My generation will have to deal with this shit. Will the last act of the boomer "me generation" be tying the noose for the future because they wanted a secure retirement and mortgage bailout instead of changing our energy economy? Anyone with that selfish, homicidal attitude can go fuck themselves.

Your level of negativity and cynicism about the hopelessness of getting anything passed or solving the problem is a death sentence for many others. I'm not ready to give up yet.

[obxhead]

19. I'm not of the boomer generation

and I see your point of creating green energy jobs. At the same time the cost of a massive revamping of our sources of energy is going to be passed down to the consumer of the energy. We can barely afford to heat our homes now with cheap fossil fuels, much less a costly energy reform program.

I agree that something needs to be done. I just think they need to be pushed back to Obama's second term.

Right now we need comprehensive reform to get our economy on track. We need to end these to money sucking wars as well.

Then we will have the money we need to handle a proper climate bill. If we try to ram through a climate bill now, during a time when both repubs and dems are crying pay for it or no, all we'll get is a watered down, do nothing for the climate, yet find funding for the corporations bill passed.

I for one and done with the passing of barely paid for bills that do nothing but stimulate big business and server rotten scraps to the people.

When it comes down to it, the people need food and shelter. There is no ability for many to get behind clean energy when people are hungry and without homes. It's that simple.

[Radical Activist]

24. Sure, let Republicans pick up a Senate seat or two in 2010.

Then we'll see what kind of climate bill we'll get. I'm guessing it will be worse. And a second term? We're passing tipping points in the next few years that make that kind of delay suicidal. It may be too late for anything we do to matter by then.

Right now the highly subsidized coal and oil industries are passing on costs to the consumer in other ways through higher taxes, higher medical bills and all of their other externalized costs, such as the BP spill. Fossil fuels are not cheaper unless taxpayers prop them up like we are now. Consumers will benefit when we end that system.

Any legislation on any topic will be watered down. Why should we pick this one issue and not work for progress simply because we're likely to get a mixed bag of results? That makes no sense on a topic where any action taken sooner is important considering the costs of delay. Should we do nothing to stimulate the economy because we'll only get watered down results on that too?

The largest chunk of stimulus spending was for efficiency projects and renewables. It's already fueling the economy. People will welcome clean energy jobs when we stop repeating the false choice that we have to choose between addressing global warming or having economic recovery. Addressing one is the best solution to the other.

[Radical Activist]

17. Here's something you badly need to read.

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/key-findings

[truedelphi]

18. Problem is, the actions that will be taken will penalize the poor and

While the rich corporatists get their "tax credits" that they swap around in order to continue
their polluting.

Same old same old.

For instance, all the many paper plates I have avoided using mean nothing in terms of the Huge Gulf Oil Drilling Catastrophe. But until a month ago, no one, not even Gore was talking about really and truly making the Big Oil companies take oil drilling seriously.

And for all I know they still aren't. (Though maybe our elected officials have been nudged in that direction by the magnitude of this disaster. But more probably, they're just collecting the monies they want for their campaigns seo the Big Boys will continue to pollute.)

[Radical Activist]

20. The current subsidized energy economy penalizes the poor.

The transition to a clean energy economy will create more jobs than what we're doing now. So the poor will be better off if we take action and over time less people of all economic backgrounds will have to spend so much money on medication for asthma, emphysema and other coal-related medical problems. We can also stop spending billions subsidizing coal and oil.

[truedelphi]

22. Oh please. there is nothing sound in the policies that our Washington DC crowd

Will implement.

If their policies were that wonderful, the activists in Bolivia would not have gone to the trouble of having their own Cliamte Change Summit.

To which the real activists showed up. Not the industry friendly trolls that inhabit our halls of Congress, but real living breathing activists.

And all of the activists that showed up in Bolivia, did decry "Cap and Trade."

[Radical Activist]

23. Ok, I'll just give up and gripe about Obama like everyone else.

I disagree with your implication that the inability to get something perfect is a reason to not try for getting the best we can. There are many ways current subsidies to the oil and coal industry penalize the poor, not to mention the lack of green energy job creation. I don't see anything to be gained by maintaining the status quo.
Obama has already put money into efficiency and renewables while proposing to end oil subsidies. We see that he's moving us in the right direction.

[truedelphi]

25. He put a measly amount of money into the

Renewable energy situation.

I mean, billions. When the wars he is fostering are costing TRILLIONS.

And again, if we always have to support a totally backwards propositon like cap and trade for the sake of "Doing something," count me out.

[cowman]

26. Amazing

the same fucking people that said we were headed for another ice age in the 70's are the same fucking people who say we are headed for global warming. This has been happening since the birth of the earth and if you think mankind can change it, well thats awfully arrogant of you

[Radical Activist]

27. Which right wing talk radio show did you hear that on?

No, there was never the kind of widespread scientific consensus about a looming ice age as there is about climate change. No, it isn't the "same people" and it was so obscure that no one remembered it until it became a talk radio talking point.

We've known mankind can change the climate since the first atomic bomb was dropped. It's awfully delusional of you to deny it. The current man-made warming is very different than previous natural cycles. There's no comparison.

[tomhayes]

5. HUH? Healthcare had 60 votes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess people don't understand what happened with the health care bill.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/24/health.care/index.html

Washington (CNN) -- The Senate passed a historic $871 billion health care reform bill Thursday morning, handing President Obama a Christmas Eve victory on his top domestic priority.

The bill passed in a 60-39 party line vote after months of heated partisan debate. Every member of the Democratic caucus backed the measure; every Republican opposed it.

[Radical Activist]

7. How did the vote on the House version with the public option go?

I didn't think the final version that eventually passed required 60 votes.

[karynnj]

10. The Senate never voted on the House bill

The Senate had a series of votes that replaced the House bill with the Senate bill - and voted the Senate bill out with 60 votes.

After Scott Brown was elected, the plan to reconcile the House and Senate versions, where they still would have stayed very close to the Senate bill - there were many articles on the agreed combined bill, was stopped by the election of Brown.

The House then voted for and passed the Senate bill, unamended.

Then theHouse passed ANOTHER bill that made changes to the just passed bill. That was the bill that was written to be acceptable under the reconciliation rules. Aside from a minor part that was struck out by the reconciliations rules, the Senate passed it unamended. The House then had to pass the slightly amended version the Senate passed.

So, TWO HCR bills -

The HUGE one, that passed the Senate with 60 votes and passed the House - and a tiny (but very important) secondary bill that passed the Senate under reconciliation.

[karynnj]

8. It can't be done through reconciliation

Unlike for health care there was no enabling language but into the budget to allow for it. In addition, to make it even clearer, there was an amendment that passed with 67 votes - even some from DU favorites - that specifically prohibits that.

nstead, there was the Johanns amendment that prohibited using it.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Johanns Amdt. No. 735 )
Vote Number: 126 Vote Date: April 1, 2009, 05:51 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 735 to S.Con.Res. 13 (No short title on file)
Statement of Purpose: To prohibit the use of reconciliation in the Senate for climate change legislation involving a cap and trade system.
Vote Counts: YEAs 67
NAYs 31
Not Voting 1

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---67
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs ---31
Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 1
Kennedy (D-MA)

[Warren Stupidity]

4. After the catastrophe is manifest we will be blamed for not forcing them

to do something.

[ezmerelda39]

9. When is this government

going to stop destroying Everything, the environment, people's
livelihoods, the economy, education, not to mention other
countries for political or monetary gain, or both.  It is
about time to begin to look at the future of this planet, not
the size of the portfolios of those running this country. This
is so unbelievably pathetic that it defies definition! 

[gtar100]

11. Silly environmentalists and their agenda at it again.

Can you believe these people wanting clean air, pure water, healthy food, sustainable agriculture, beautiful national parks, healthy cities and homes? Can you imagine the effect it would have on our bank accounts if they got what they wanted? Really, what's more important? Their values are so screwed up. Why, if we just did away with all regulations and government protections, those things would happen naturally anyway. Right?

(I know... trying to understand the "conservative mindset" is a trip into insanity)

[Psephos]

13. Virtually everyone wants those things.

The disagreement is over how to get them.

[Triana]

21. If they want 'difficult to see' take the lot of them and dunk their butts

naked into the GOM - let's see what they can SEE then.

[FlyByNight]

28. Who knew that having solid majorities in either...

...legislative branch isn't enough in a democracy/republic?

:sarcasm:

[Politicub]

29. Of course not - It's sad that protecting the environment...

isn't a winning political issue in every precinct in the U.S.

Conservatives and sadly some dem politicians care nothing about the planet they will leave to the next generation -- even their own children and grandchildren.

What's the worth of winning political office if your posterity can not breathe the air or drink the water?

It means nothing to so many that the gulf is dying right before our eyes because of the world's hunger for oil. And the geyser has not stopped. All of the oceans are connected not to just to one another, but to the ecosystem that keeps all things alive. Do people honestly believe this can be "cleaned up?"

[madokie]

30. When the :puke: are in the majority it only takes 50 votes plus the VP

when the dems are in the majority it takes 60, how fucked up is that?