Senate Republicans boycott climate change debate

By Agence France-Presse
Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009 -- 12:12 pm
Share on Facebook Stumble This!

Senate Republicans boycott climate change debateWASHINGTON — Republicans on a key US Senate committee were absent Tuesday as debate opened on a Democratic proposal for sweeping climate change legislation.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee opened its critical debate on the plan at 9:00 am (1400 GMT) without its Republican members, despite last-ditch efforts to avert an opposition boycott from Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, who chairs the committee.

Republican Senator George Voinovich did show up soon after the meeting opened, but only to deliver a statement opposing the measure.

Supporters of the climate change legislation are pushing hard to pass it ahead of December's make-or-break global summit in Denmark.

In a statement, the Republicans said they would oppose the bill until they had a "comprehensive analysis" of the economic impact of the legislation from the federal watchdog agency, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Story continues below...

"There are five weeks until the Copenhagen meetings begin, which, according to the EPA administrator, leaves enough time for chairman Boxer to work with us and the EPA to conduct a full economic analysis" of the legislation, the Republican statement read.

In his statement, Voinovich said that the committee "lacks a full analysis" of the measure, so considering the bill "seems a little premature."

He said that he and his Republican colleagues "need time to read the bill and prepare amendments".

Boxer however said that the committee "released the EPA analysis and there is no reason at all to do additional analysis.

"The only reason is to delay" the process, she said. "We must move forward."

Boxer emphasized that committee was "not rushing... We have a full blown analysis backed up by 340,000 pages."

Republican committee members were absent because they were unhappy with the EPA analysis, she said.

"We have taken every step to welcome them at our table. If we all care about jobs we need to work on this bill together," Boxer said.

Boxer also said that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has committed to carry out "a full analysis when the final bill is put together."

The US House bill calls for cutting US greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by 83 percent by 2050. The Senate's slightly more ambitious bill calls for a 20-percent cut by 2020.

Both bills would create a cap-and-trade regime, the government would set the total level of domestic emissions allowable and then allocate quotas to companies.

Firms that emit less than their quota would be allowed to sell their surplus allocation to others that exceed theirs. Those in excess could also face fines.

The Senate text -- which is likely to change considerably before a final vote -- also makes a push for nuclear energy research and training, and promotes natural gas as a clean energy source.

Democratic Senator John Kerry, a co-author of the bill, has warned that US leadership is on the line ahead of the global climate change talks in Denmark's capital Copenhagen next month.

The December 7-18 summit is aimed at a treaty that will tackle carbon emissions and their impacts, and encourage a switch to cleaner energy after 2012, when the current Kyoto Protocol pledges expire.

Kerry has said the full Senate will not vote on a final bill before the Copenhagen summit.

Share this article:
  • Print this article!
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Story comments are below...
  • alverant
    No amount of analysis will satisfy them. They just don't want to admit their supporters are the ones causing the problem. I thought conservative values included personal responsibility. Instead it appears conservative values included hiding behind a corporate logo.
  • miggy
    AGW fraudsters must be stopped.
    The atmosphere is an ocean of gasses which behaves almost identically to a liquid ocean. Gasses are highly mobile in the atmosphere and just like a liquid cooling system in an internal combustion engine for example, these highly mobile atmospheric gasses act as a transport mechanism for heat.
    Because atmospheric gasses are subject to the laws of thermodynamics the atmosphere behaves as a temperature regulation system for the planet. A typical example of this process at work for instance can be witnessed by air cooling systems such as air cooled motor engines. Hence the term AIR COOLED. So the atmosphere is a cooling mechanism for the planet.
    To claim anything to the contrary is a fraud.
    To claim that a gas such as CO2 can trap in heat is a fallacious argument. There is no substance that can trap heat. To try to impose a taxation based on a fallacious argument is a fraud. Any proposals to impose such a tax made by government representatives due to gather at Copenhagen this coming December for instance will be wholly invalid and fraudulent.
    If you would like to know more about the AGW fraud and carbon tax, download this free .pdf book
    http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html
  • Fran Taylor
    You don't know squat about thermodynamics.

    If there is no substance that can trap heat, then why is it warmer in my house than it is outside?

    Really your post is just an embarrasing indictment of our pathetic school system and its inability to teach the most basic of concepts to its students.
  • alverant
    Miggy must be home schooled. Not even the public schools can do this bad of a job.
  • Savantster
    "So the atmosphere is a cooling mechanism for the planet.
    To claim anything to the contrary is a fraud"

    you're kind of stupid, aren't you.

    "To claim that a gas such as CO2 can trap in heat is a fallacious argument. There is no substance that can trap heat."

    Yup, really really stupid. Do you wear more clothes during the winter to not freeze? Your clothes "trap heat".

    You clearly have NO understanding of science.. at all.. You read some bullshit online some place and now think you're a scientist? You're not.. you're just another two bit moron. If you weren't killing me, it would be laughable.
  • jimbobuddy
    Go ahead , wallow in your ignorance. Or try this www.realclimate.org
  • davidbodhi
    These Repubs are twits. Dorks. Idiots.

    Exactly the same behavior as if they were told there's a volcano up the road and the lava is going to consume their houses in an hour, so they better get out. But they protest that someone better prove to them that missing a day of work will be worth SURVIVING THE LAVA, or they're not moving. <having a snit and stamping their little foot>
  • davidbodhi
    Oh, and miggy?

    You obviously know NOTHING about thermodynamics of liquids or gasses, despite throwing around the big words. Based on your ramblings, the ocean can't be colder at the poles or warmer at the equator.

    I'd suggest you read about how the warming mechanism works, but I know you won't.

    The ediface of science is SO huge and has SO much evidence and is SO cross-discipline now that people rejecting any major portion of it, like you're rejecting the conclusions of thermodynamic studies of the atmosphere and oceans, are also rejecting things like whether the transistors in their TVs work or not, like whether electricity really travels through copper wires, like whether crystals in their LCD screens really change characteristics when electricity is applied.

    Go home and pray to be taken up to heaven. Oh, and stay there till your prayers are answered. Please!
  • jeffersonperrin
    Sure, give Republicans more time and THEN they'll join in and do the right thing. Just like they've done with healthcare reform after 'delaying and knee-jerk' legislation 18 years ago. Asshol... Wait... the anus is a useful and functional part of a human being's anatomy. These people are more akin to the product rejected and ejected by the anus. My apology to anuses everywhere for the near insult!
  • ThomS
    For climate change to be false would require the participation of thousands of scientists in a grand conspiracy. Unfortunately, the greater the number of people involved in a conspiracy, the less likely that the conspiracy can succeed.

    On the other hand, science does not deal in absolutes; it deals in probabilities. As the evidence in support of climate changes accumulates, the probability that it is wrong starts to become vanishingly small.

    For me, if the probability that climate change is happening due to man-made causes, along with all of its nasty consequences, is greater than 5-10%, then it is reckless to fail to act to avoid it. Currently, the weight of the evidence makes human-induced climate change highly probable (better than 90%).

    So yes, the deniers might be correct, that there is no human-induced climate change, but the likelihood that that is the case is vanishingly small.
  • georgehilborn
    Srew them put it to a vote without them
  • AdamTro
    It's about time people face the facts here. "Global warming" is not man-made. The entire thing is a scan to get a global carbon tax. The sun drives the climate (duh?) and no amount of government control or BS taxes are going to alter the sun's output. Jeezus this is not difficult to understand people. Look through the propaganda.
  • jimbobuddy
    turn off FOX. Try reading any - I MEAN ANY - scientific journal. Sci American, Nature, The Lancet,... You only reveal your own stupidity when you make statements like, "the sun drives the climate(duh?),.." What are you 14 yrs old? Here, ..I'm reaching out to you,.. www.realclimate.org Educate yourself.
    For the rest of you, I have this thought: that the denial we see rampant in this society about such an overwhelmingly in-your-face reality as the impending climate change is reminescent of the denial of so many of the victims of the holocaust, even as they were being loaded onto the cattle cars bound for the ovens. The implications of the reality staring them in the face were too horrendous to accept. Likewise , today we're already over 350ppm. The current observations and trends are either at the high end of the modeling or off the charts completely. Most of what I've been reading suggests a 4 - 5C increase by 2100. The consequences are truly staggering, so I guess I can understand - a bit - the reaction of the ignorant, like Adam.
  • AnonymousBosch
    I'm appalled at the cynicism of these Massengills - you can't cry "unfair" if it's your group that refuses to step up to the plate.

    Buncha whining pussies.
  • smallbear
    In another article I read on this topic, the Republicans claim that the effect this legislation would have on the US economy is not yet known, so the bill should be opposed. The trouble is, we already know what the effect climate change will have on the US economy if nothing is done, and it ain't pretty.
  • rickpetes
    OT. Raw, this 'ad.doubleclick' shit is irritating. Why are you making it harder for me to access your material?
  • paddleman
    Over 30,000 American scientists have given their signature to a statement condemning AGW science and hysteria (thousands more in Europe feel the same). There is a huge body of evidence and scientific opinion opposed to the IPCC viewpoint. For a balanced perspective, visit www.climatedebatedaily.com
    I agree with the poster who is pleading with AGW believers to see through the daily propaganda, and do more research. The world elites use crises (some real, many phony - like this one) to advance their schemes for a world government - they're in the open about it as far as Copenhagen is concerned.
  • Bob
    Fran,
    Try turning the heat off in your house and see what happens.
blog comments powered by Disqus