U.S. Senate Bill Would Cap Greenhouse Gas Emissions ( Lieberman and McCain sponsors)

Environment news service ^ | January 8, 2003 | Cat Lazaroff

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

WASHINGTON, DC, January 8, 2003 (ENS) - A bipartisan bill introduced in a U.S. Senate hearing today would attempt to curb global warming by establishing a market based trading system in greenhouse gas emissions. The bill, the first major piece of environmental legislation to be introduced in the 108th Congress, was met with rousing endorsements from the conservation community.

Senators Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, and John McCain, an Arizona Republican, said their bill would spur innovation by giving companies maximum flexibility in meeting national greenhouse gas emissions goals.

Senator Joe Lieberman (Photo courtesy Office of Senator Lieberman)

"By capping emissions and tapping market forces to meet those goals, this bill will heat up American innovation and cool down our changing climate," Lieberman said. "Our approach promises environmental progress in reducing harmful global warming, economic progress by creating new high-tech jobs to meet emissions goals, and international progress by showing our allies that we're serious about this global problem."

The bill, which will be formally introduced soon, was the subject of a hearing today in the Senate Commerce Committee, which McCain will soon chair. The legislation, which is modeled after the successful acid rain trading program of the 1990 Clean Air Act, would require a reduction to 2000 carbon dioxide emission levels by the year 2010, and a reduction to 1990 levels by the year 2016.

Senator John McCain (Photo courtesy Office of Senator McCain)

"Too much attention has been focused on the uncertainties, and not enough on what is known in tackling the problem at hand," McCain said. "This bill uses the best approach we know - a market based trading system - to reduce emissions and give companies maximum flexibility in meeting requirements. Ultimately, the bill rewards improvements in energy efficiency and encourages advances in technologies."

McCain and Lieberman began work on the legislation in August 2001. The bill creates a comprehensive cap on greenhouse gas pollution, paired with an allowance trading system aimed at reducing the costs of meeting the caps while offering a range of opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas pollution and boosting the uptake of carbon by soils, crops and trees.

The bill "marks an end to stalling and the start of the search for serious solutions to the global warming problem," said Fred Krupp, president of the conservation group Environmental Defense.

"The bill's cap on greenhouse gas pollution takes on the problem of global warming in a strong and sensible way," added Krupp. "The bill's cost lowering emissions trading market will cut more dangerous pollution than traditional bureaucratic approaches and promote innovation while spurring American economic growth."

REP America, the national grassroots organization of Republicans for Environmental Protection praised the legislation today. "Finally, someone in Washington DC is exercising the thoughtful leadership we urgently need to combat the threat global warming poses to our environment, economy, and long term security. We're not surprised that someone is John McCain, who has never been afraid to tackle the big issues of our time," said Jim DiPeso, REP America policy director.

But the nonprofit Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative public policy group that seeks to limit government interference with "free enterprise," calls the bill "a regressive energy tax," that would "place an enormous burden on the U.S."

While the bill will likely be supported in McCain's Commerce Committee, and is touted by its authors as an economic bill more than an environmental bill, it will face tough opposition from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, whose new chair, Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe, opposes mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

Power plants and other industries that emit more than 10,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases per year. (Photo by Carole Swinehart, courtesy Michigan Sea Extension)

The bill would apply to emissions from the electricity generation, petroleum refining, industrial and commercial economic sectors, which together account for 85 percent of overall U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. It would apply to all entities that emit more than 10,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases per year, and therefore would not apply to individual car owners, homeowners or the agricultural sector.

The bill is designed to reduce emissions by allowing the trading of emissions allowances on the open market, supported by a government inventory of emissions and emission reductions for individual companies and utilities. Most companies would be required to submit one tradable allowance for each metric ton of greenhouse gasses they emit, while petroleum refiners and importers would have to submit an allowance for each unit of petroleum product sold that will produce a metric ton of emissions.

The Commerce Secretary would determine the number of emissions allowances each company would receive free of charge, and how many would be auctioned off. Proceeds from the auction of these allowances would be used to reduce the energy costs of consumers and assist workers affected by the new policy.

Companies could buy and sell credits among themselves, and could satisfy up to 15 percent of its emission reduction requirements by submitting tradeable allowances from another nation's market in greenhouse gases, or by contributing to projects that sequester carbon dioxide emissions.

Automakers could earn credits by increasing the average fuel efficiency of the vehicles they sell. (Photo courtesy National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

Automakers could earn credits that they could sell to other companies if they exceeded the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards by more than 20 percent. The CAFE standards spell out the average number of miles per gallon that a manufacturer's vehicles must achieve. Many automakers now meet this standard by offering a small number of very efficient vehicles, such as electric or hybrid gasoline-electric cars, to offset the poor efficiency performance of popular sport utility vehicles and other large vehicles.

Any company that failed to meet the emissions limits set by the bill would be fined for each ton of greenhouse gases over the cap at the rate of three times the market value of a ton of greenhouse gas. The market value would be based upon the price of emission credits from trading system provided for in the bill.

Companies would have the economic choice of reducing their emissions to reduce their required allowances, or purchasing other companies' allowances to cover their continued emissions. Companies that have voluntarily undertaken efforts to reduce their greenhouse gases would receive credit for those actions.

The "cap and trade" approach, which is expected to be adopted by Japan, the European Union, and other parties that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, is supported by the environmental community and the independent Pew Center on Global Climate Change. The approach has successfully reduced the emissions of acid rain causing pollutants through a program established in the 1990 Clean Air Act.

So far, the Bush administration has declined to embrace a "cap and trade" concept, or offer any kind of plan that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. President George W. Bush has also withdrawn U.S. support for the Kyoto Protocol, an adjunct to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which will become law when a minimum of 55 countries covering at least 55 percent of 1990 greenhouse gas emissions have ratified the pact.

The announcement of the new emissions trading bill was seen by conservation groups as a sign that the Bush administration's past policy toward global warming will be challenged, even under the Republican controlled Congress.

Recent studies show the planet's surface temperature is already warming. (Photo courtesy Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Environmental Energy Technologies Division)

"It's encouraging to see real action on the environment by senior statesmen so early in the new Congress," said Katherine Silverthorne, deputy director of the U.S. climate change program at the World Wildlife Fund. "The McCain-Lieberman bill could jump start U.S. policy on global warming."

The two senators worked with both industry and conservation groups as they designed the legislation, attempting to craft an approach that would address the concerns of American businesses while taking positive steps toward reducing global warming.

"This effort to solve global warming puts to rest all the excuses for doing nothing: This bill is bipartisan, it achieves environmental goals by encouraging innovation and American ingenuity, and its flexible approach is supported by industry," said Mark Van Putten, president of the National Wildlife Federation. "This is an opportunity for Congress to provide responsible environmental leadership where the White House has failed."

Global warming is a growing problem, with 2002 closing as the second warmest year on record. The 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1987, with nine of them happening since 1990.

Two studies in the current edition of the journal "Nature" show that global warming is already posing a threat to a variety of plants and animals, and other research suggests that the sea ice around the Earth's poles could melt entirely by the end of this century.

"We are already beginning to see the environmental impacts of global warming coast to coast, from coral reef bleaching in the Caribbean to the loss of treasured pine forests in coastal Alaska," said Van Putten. "Each year we procrastinate makes the problem harder to solve."

[Trouble North of the Border]

You guys...take it from a Canadian it is all about economics. The main thrust is to have the US take part in this "trading of C02 credits".

It is a sneaky foreign aid/trade agreement, meant to de-industrialise the western nations. The western taxpayer is supposed to finance the corrupt UN bureauchracies imperialisation of the third world.

And we're supposed to shut up and like it.

Western taxpayers are going to be paying our corporate elite's way using the UN as the tool.

Canadian conservative Ezra Levant has done a great deal of reasearch on the subject and top business/gov relationships that are pushing Kyoto and THIS is the US newest version of Kyoto which is this lame brain bill y'all are now dealing with.

You can buy Ezra's new Fight Kyoto book at http://www.ezralevant.com/

Here are three excerpts for you to read:



Fight Kyoto Book Excerpt
featured in the Calgary Sun and Edmonton Sun
Monday, December 2, 2002
Kyoto Protocol compiled by un-elected global bureaucrats
Ezra Levant

http://www.ezralevant.com/EzrasArticles/Strong_Dec202.htm



Fight Kyoto Book Excerpt
featured in the Calgary Sun and Edmonton Sun
December 2002
NEP: Here we go again
Ezra Levant

http://www.ezralevant.com/EzrasArticles/NEPAgain_Dec02.htm



Fight Kyoto Book Excerpt
featured in the Calgary Sun and Edmonton Sun
December 2002
Canadian Kyoto debate a sham
Ezra Levant

http://www.ezralevant.com/EzrasArticles/AmericanSenate_Dec02.htm


WE SHOULD BE PREPARING TO DO A BI-NATIONAL FREEP ON THIS ISSUE! IT WILL AFFECT ALL OF US AS CITIZENS OF NORTH AMERICA!


Free Dominion has dedicated an entire forum to the subject
http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=43


TRADE CREDITS ARE A CORRUPT SYSTEM FOR THE UN's UNELECTED BUREUCHRACY TO EXPAND AND BECOME RICHER AT BOTH OUR NATIONS EXPENSE!

[Trouble North of the Border]

Here's an example of how currputly incestuous the corporate/Kyoto links are (this email has been circulating around Canadian cyberspace for a few days):




The following was E-mailed to me this morning by a usually reliable commentator.

I don’t know about its bone fides, but I figured someone on Free Dominion might be able to comment on it.

Sounds a bit over the top to me.

Ol’ Tom Humble.
= = = = = = =
Kyoto.

Here is an interesting article about who runs things.

If true, it would explain a lot! A little tale of corruption & intrigue... It may pay you to spend a few minutes tracing the connections of Paul Desmarais and Power Corp. to the leading politicians, etc. of Canada. This association explains the Kyoto pact:

JOHN RAE: leading strategist for Prime Minister Chrétien’s election campaign. Was Executive Vice- President of Power Corp. and Paul Desmarais' right- hand man.

His brother is... BOB RAE: ex-NDP [Socialist] Premier of Ontario, who appointed....

MAURICE STRONG (his god father) to the chairmanship of Ontario Hydro, which he proceeded to dramatically cut in both skilled human resources and generating capacity [to provide a future need for power from James Bay]

Past CEO of Desmarais' Power Corp., Strong received an appointment to the UN as senior environmental advisor to the UN Secretary-General and Chairman of the Earth Council. He was responsible for the Kyoto accords.

More on More Strong: www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html.

PAUL MARTIN: current federal Finance Minister, rose through the ranks at Power Corp., mentored by Paul Desmarais. Bought Canada Steamship Lines from him. Ran against Chrétien for Liberal Party leadership.

JEAN CHRETIEN: Prime Minister. Daughter, France, is married to Andre Desmarais, son of Paul Desmarais, chairman of Power Corporation. Chrétien’s "advisor, counsellor and strategist" for the past 30 years has been...

MITCHELL SHARP, who brought Chrétien into politics when he was Finance Minister. Sharp has been, since 1981, Vice-Chairman for North America of the corporate globalist Tri-Lateral Commission.

DANIEL JOHNSON: Liberal [and Opposition] leader in Quebec Rose through the ranks of Power Corp. Key in delivering federal spending to Quebec based Power Corp. and other corporate welfare cases in the province.

BRIAN MULRONEY: ex-Conservative Prime Minister. Now a lawyer and lobbyist for Power Corporation which, together with Ontario Hydro and Hydro Quebec, has just formed the Hong Kong-based ASIA POWER CORP., to help China to develop its energy potential.

Power Corp.'s legal interests in Asia will be handled by a Hong Kong branch of Mulroney’s Montreal law firm, Ogilvy, Renault.

PIERRE TRUDEAU: past PM and former Power Corp. lawyer. Introduced into the company by his father who had business connections to Desmarais. PET signed over millions to Power Corp. under federal grant programs.

Desmarais funded his election campaign. So...we have the CONSERVATIVE party [via Mulroney], the LIBERAL party [via Trudeau and Chrétien], and the NDP [via Rae] all tightly connected to...Paul Desmarais and Power Corp. And we have the Prime Minister, the Finance Minister, and the Prime Minister's key aide all tightly connected to...Paul Desmarais and Power Corp.

We now see the Power Corp. key alumni in the UN Kyoto deal which so coincidentally benefits the (largely unpublicized) business interests of Desmarais alumni.

Maurice Strong has now joined Brian Mulroney and Paul Desmarais in investing in the Asia Power Group's $100 million venture capital in "small coal-fired power plants being built in the south of China". They are also looking at "larger projects in northern China, as well as in Malaysia, the Philippines and India."

The Asian economies are expected to spend $1 trillion [US] on essential infrastructure, of which an estimated $400 billion [US] will be on power generation. Chinese and Asian labour costs are low - as low, in China, as $45 per month - and potential profits are enormous.

The Nov/Dec. 1993 issue of Council on Foreign Relations' publication FOREIGN RELATIONS contains an article, THE RISE OF CHINA, in which we are warned that China will begin to use more energy than the United States within a few decades, massively straining the world's energy supplies. If you were a power company investment magnet where would you place your future fortunes? In a nation wracked with environmental paranoia or a developing, unregulated energy hungry industrial giant?

China is gearing up to be the world's dominant manufacturing power. Most of China's energy comes from the burning of soft, high-sulphur, highly- polluting coal. In 1991 alone, 11 trillion cubic meters of waste gases and sixteen million tons of soot were emitted into the atmosphere over China - and it has only just begun its long process of increased energy generation! The sulphur in this coal causes acid rain.

The burning of the coal releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the most efficient "greenhouse gas" in the global warming process.

There are indications that Strong, Desmarais and their crones (under ghost corporate affiliates) are behind the current rash of buying of low-grade coalmines in depressed nations to fuel these projects. But this is yet to be fully substantiated. Who would invest so massively in low-grade coal when it was targeted as Kyoto taboo commodity? Maybe someone who knew in advance they would be able to burn it with out regulation in China?

Green house fears bottomed out the price of these coal purchases. If it can be used for power generating fuel, you stand to have a very inexpensive fuel source. China continues to burn coal in its power production unregulated by Kyoto.

Now the real hook. You remember Maurice Strong? Desmarais' familiar and corporate confidante, ex Power boss, major investor in 3rd world coal fired energy enterprise? Well Maurice ended up appointed to the UN as head advisor to the UN Secretary-General on environmental affairs is this irony?

He was campaigned for that position by Canada's PM's and diplomats. As such, he called a little multi national conference called Kyoto! Maurice and his friend Jean Chrétien wrote and signed an agreement, which effectively will destroy their pal Desmarais' chief energy competitor (Alberta Nat Gas) and gave Power Corp investment in China coal/energy an enormous competitive advantage.

Anyone who thinks this as mere coincidence is unaware of the networking of international corporate elites. This revelation makes it clear the Kyoto earth summit was a vehicle used by corporate (Strong/Chrétien) bagmen to create a huge global shift in power generation profits. They were backed by one of the world's most devious businessmen.

Oh, and Paul Desmarais? In September 1993, he joined the Tri-lateral Commission. He spearheaded the Tri-lat initiative of promoting a Kyoto-like conference over concerns for the planet from carbon emissions produced by the DEVELOPED NATIONS. And you thought it was all about saving the planet?

For whom?

FOR FREE DOMINION COMMENTARY ON THIS EMAIL AND THE CORRUPT ALLIANCES THAT KYOTO AND THE TRADE CREDIT DEAL IS FOSTERING GO TO THIS LINK:
http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=8596

[Trouble North of the Border]

FREE DOMINION'S THREAD AN COMMENTARY ON THIS ARTICLE

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=69967#69967

[heyhey]

KYOTO PROTOCOL RIGHT FROM THE UNITED NATIONS

[heyhey]

This bill uses the best approach we know - a market based trading system

[Trouble North of the Border]

"As much as I don't want global warming to be true, there is always the "what if" factor. I am seriously doubtful that it will be as bad as the left would have us beleive. But the logic that if you double the amount of heat trapping gases in the atmosphere that the earth will warm seems fairly sound.

"There is little doubt that with glaciers melting and weather patterns changing, the earth is going through a period of climate change. The question is really whether man's activities are causing it. I don't think it is a risk worth taking ifthere is something we can do about it."


How about the sun's atomic energy is greater then it was a hundered years ago (middle ages vinyard grew along London's Thames) and the UN is using this naturally occuring climatic event to squeeze more power and expand its mandate.

Climatologists (real sceintists), not environmentalists say that this is naturally occuring and there is very little we can do about it.

A GREAT ARTICLE
Worshipping at the Church of environmentalism: The Church of Global Warming.
http://www.iwf.org/pubs/twq/Winter2002k.shtml

[Trouble North of the Border]

"This bill uses the best approach we know - a market based trading system"

I hope this is satire. The "market based trading system" will siphon of American funds to finance UN imperialisation of the third world.

Corporate big wigs and UN bureauchracy will be the only beneficiaries.

The system is corrupt before it even begins.

We are doomed if America, the last bastion of freedom and democracy buys into this BS.

[TRY ONE]

"As much as I don't want global warming to be true, there is always the "what if" factor...."

The real test for a true Global Warming Nut is the following. Do they support nuclear power? Nuks eliminate global warming.

Those who are both Anti-Nuk and Global Warming Nuts are, simply, NUTS who want to stiffle our Industry, our economy and most of all OUR LIFE STYLES!!!

[ancient_geezer]

But the logic that if you double the amount of heat trapping gases in the atmosphere that the earth will warm seems fairly sound.

Thing is mankind is not doubling the amount of heat trapping gasses in the atmosphere. Mankind's total contribution to the greenhouse gases is only 0.26%. A negligible effect on the climate.

 

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics	Percent of Total	Percent of Total --adjusted for water vapor
Water vapor	-----	95.000%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)	72.369%	3.618%
Methane (CH4)	7.100%	0.360%
Nitrous oxide (N2O)	19.000%	0.950%
CFC's (and other misc. gases)	1.432%	0.072%
Total	100.000%	100.000%

 

Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics	% of All Greenhouse Gases	% Natural	% Man-made
Water vapor	95.000%	94.999%	0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)	3.618%	3.502%	0.117%
Methane (CH4)	0.360%	0.294%	0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)	0.950%	0.903%	0.047%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)	0.072%	0.025%	0.047%
Total	100.00%	99.72	0.28%

[Carry_Okie]

This is not a free market at all because it is based upon political price fixing and statutory coercion.

[ancient_geezer]

There is little doubt that with glaciers melting and weather patterns changing, the earth is going through a period of climate change.

Yep back to where it was before the Little Ice Age.

 

Climatic temperature is predominantly a consequence of Solar heating/cooling arising from variation of solar radiance, plus astronomical & geophysical events affecting surface & atmospheric albedo.

A Picture Worth 10,000 Words

A Lukewarm Greenhouse

Climate Catastrophe, A spectroscopic Artifact?

CO2-Temperature Correlations

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse

 

---

Global Warming Score Card

A Look at Environmental Changes and "Global Warming"

---

The Bottom Line:

 

Globally Averaged Atmospheric Temperatures
(NASA)

This chart shows the monthly temperature changes for the lower troposphere - Earth's atmosphere from the surface to 8 km, or 5 miles up. The temperature in this region is more strongly influenced by oceanic activity, particularly the "El Niño" and "La Niña" phenomena, which originate as changes in oceanic and atmospheric circulations in the tropical Pacific Ocean. The overall trend in the tropospheric data is near zero, being +0.04 C/decade through Feb 2002. Click on the chart to get the numerical data.

Ice Ages & Astronomical Causes
Brief Introduction to the History of Climate
by Richard A. Muller

Figure 1-1 Global warming

Figure 1-2 Climate of the last 2400 years

 

Figure 1-3 Climate of the last 12,000 years

Figure 1-4 Climate of the last 100,000 years

Figure 1-5 Climate for the last 420 kyr, from Vostok ice

 

---

 

Seems as though there is room for substantial doubt as to any negative effect human created CO2, Methane etc. may have on our Climate future.

At least these folks believe so:

Petition Project: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.

Specifically declaring:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields.

[Doctor Mongo]

Someone needs to tell McCain and Lieberman that ENRON is out of business and will not be contributing any more money to their campaigns.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

The real test for a true Global Warming Nut is the following. Do they support nuclear power? Nuks eliminate global warming.

You are right on here. One of the first things the greens did when they got into power in Germany is begin the phasing out of nuclear power in the country. Then, they start to complain about CO2 emissions. Well, what do you want?

Ultimately they are correct that fission cannot be a long-term power source due to the left over waste, but it will do just fine for the next 50 to 100 years until we figure out fusion or some other, better source.

I am not 100% convinced on Global warming, but I think it is a risk that we is not worth taking. Plus, anything that moves us away from dependency on Arab oil is good for America. Alternative energy is the only answer. Heck, I am for using more coal if it didn't cause so many other problems (acid rain, etc.). I think we really need a combination of efficiency, carbon sequestration and reasearch in alternative energies program asap. Beats the hell out of fighting a war in the Middle East once a decade. And it would be money invested in American companies instead of Arab monarchies.