THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING

Global warming bill faces stiff GOP opposition

Senators' vote marks start of weeklong debate

Email|Print|Single Page| Text size + By H. Josef Hebert
Associated Press / June 3, 2008

WASHINGTON - The Senate began what is expected to be a weeklong, contentious debate yesterday over legislation to combat global warming by mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Senators voted 74-to-14 to proceed to the bill, but immediately it became clear that Republican opponents were not going to make it easy. A request by Democrats to begin considering substantive changes in the bill was blocked by GOP opponents until Wednesday at the earliest.

Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada promised a thorough debate that will probably last through the week, if not longer. He said it is clear that "global warming is real" and Congress must act.

But supporters of the bill acknowledged that it will be difficult to overcome a certain GOP filibuster threat against the legislation, meaning congressional action on global warming will probably be decided in the next Congress and by the next president.

Many of the GOP senators who voted to debate the issue have said they are opposed to the bill.

The Senate measure, which has wide Democratic and some Republican support, would cap US emissions of greenhouse gases, cutting them by 18 percent by 2020 and by two-thirds by midcentury. It would target refineries, power plants, factories, and transportation for 70 percent reductions and make emissions allowances available to be traded in an open market.

Senator Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from California and a chief architect of the 500-page bill, said at a news conference that the urgency of taking action against climate change cannot be overstated. "It's about our children, about their children, and about the planet we've inherited," she said.

Democratic leaders were ready to spend the week, and possibly more, on the legislation. But the tone of the debate emerged in the opening hours.

Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called it "a giant tax on virtually every aspect of the economy," and accused Democrats of being "laughably out of touch" in taking up the bill when the country is reeling from $4 a gallon gasoline and other high energy costs.

President Bush said at a White House event that the measure amounted to "a huge spending bill fueled by tax increases" and that it "would impose roughly $6 trillion in new costs on the American economy."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Bush would veto the bill as it stands, but said it seems unlikely the legislation will clear the Senate anyway.

The White House maintained that the carbon limits would "impose a huge new tax" and demand "drastic emission cuts that have no chance of being realized."

The bill would raise gasoline taxes by 53 cents a gallon by 2030, said the White House statement, a position ridiculed by the bill's sponsors. "People would be thrilled to have gas prices rise only 2 cents a year," said Senator Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Independent and cosponsor of the legislation.

Alluding to carbon-intensive industries, such as most utility companies, Lieberman acknowledged "real resistance from people who don't want to change" and fear the shift away from fossil fuels. Getting 60 votes to overcome a filibuster is "going to be hard," he said.

Boxer said it was "misinformation and an untruth" to suggest that the climate legislation would impose new taxes or raise gasoline prices. The bill proposes using proceeds from the sale of carbon emission allowances to funnel $800 billion in tax relief, over 40 years, to people facing higher energy costs, she said.

Senator John Warner, Republican of Virginia, whose cosponsorship of the bill has been credited with bringing a scattering of GOP senators on board, also rejected the administration's prediction of economic chaos. "The president has the stick to bring back the throttle" and set new emission timetables if there are serious economic problems, he argued.

"The United States has to lead," Warner said at a news conference.

The sponsors of the bill sought to blunt criticism over costs by including a pollution allowance trading system. The emissions allowances were projected to generate $6.7 trillion in revenue over 40 years.

more stories like this

  • Email
  • Email
  • Print
  • Print
  • Single page
  • Single page
  • Reprints
  • Reprints
  • Share
  • Share
  • Comment
  • Comment
 
  • Share on DiggShare on Digg
  • Tag with Del.icio.us Save this article
  • powered by Del.icio.us
Your Name Your e-mail address (for return address purposes) E-mail address of recipients (separate multiple addresses with commas) Name and both e-mail fields are required.
Message (optional)
Disclaimer: Boston.com does not share this information or keep it permanently, as it is for the sole purpose of sending this one time e-mail.