Progress on the domestic climate bill reaches its end for 2009. (image: change.org)

Well, it’s all but official: there will not, in all likelihood, be a climate bill passed this year, reports the Wall Street Journal. On Tuesday, key Senate Democrats said there probably not be any more major committee action on climate-change legislation, signaling that a comprehensive bill to cut greenhouse gas emissions will have to wait until next year.

Climate change leaders around the world would naturally prefer to see a Senate bill passed by the time of the Copenhagen summit. However, according to Carter Roberts, CEO of the World Wildlife Fund, it may be enough for senators to release a blueprint for action and demonstrate efforts to fashion a compromise.

A climate bill should have a “credible cap, strong international provisions and flexibility to move to solutions within a fairly urgent timetable,” Roberts said, adding that the US shows leadership on climate change, other nations will follow. And if President Obama attends the conference to “close the deal,” as it was reported yesterday, his presence will make a strong statement about the seriousness of US efforts to pass climate legislation.

Although the Senate Environment Committee did approve a version of the bill, there is opposition from moderate Democrats, especially from senators on the Finance and Agriculture committees.

“It’s common understanding that climate-change legislation will not be brought up on the Senate floor and pass the Senate this year,” Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) said, adding that although he planned to hold hearings on climate legislation and eventually mark up a bill, he didn’t know if he could put it together this year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev), whose plate has been overflowing this year with debate on healthcare legislation and finance reform has dropped his earlier schedules for committees, and an aide said that the leader hasn’t drafted any new timetables on climate change.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a moderate Democrat from Michigan, is taking the lead on making an effort to protect manufacturing and agriculture industries. She said the Agriculture Committee—which has jurisdiction over climate provisions fundamental to containing costs and cutting emissions in the farming and forestry sectors—might not even debate or vote on any provisions for the bill, especially since committees were no longer under any timetables to produce legislation.

Even Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), who has been a leader on the climate bill, has conceded that he is more focused on getting the 60 votes necessary to pass a bill than erecting deadlines which may be unrealistic. “The main thing to do here is to build the adequate base of support and consensus,” he said.

(image: StevensonPhotography via flickr.com)

Big Oil isn’t the only industry trying to stop climate change legislation. As the Miami Herald reported on Monday, the agriculture industry “is likely to have a central place in the debate on the bill later this year about the short-term costs of acting to curb climate change - and the costs of failing to address the long-term risks.”

Many farmers – concentrated in the Midwest – have joined a letter writing campaign started in October by the American Farm Bureau attempting to persuade senators to vote against the climate bill. This effort to oppose carbon caps sheds light on a group that stands to be big losers or big winners depending on how the climate bill restricts emissions and affects the price of farming necessities such as fuel, electricity and natural gas-based fertilizers.

The irony, of course, is that agriculture stands to be one of the first and heaviest hit industries if calamitous global warming predictions prove accurate. A comprehensive, federal report released in June called “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States,” warns of a harsh future for farmers if no action is taken. According to the report, high temperatures will impair plan growth and yields, while droughts and overpopulation will only add to the burden.

With that in mind, it appears that the benefits of a climate bill will most likely outweigh the initial costs, a sentiment that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack expressed in a written testimony last week. Though the price of fuel will rise, he highlighted provisions in the climate bill that would prevent fertilizer price increases before 2025.

Senators from agriculture-heavy regions are mostly against the bill. Senator Kit Bond (R-MO), said, “The huge taxes on carbon would be devastating to Midwest farmers.” Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the Agriculture Committee’s ranking Republican, dismissed the bill as “bringing economic pain with no benefit.”

Part of farmers’ concern over climate legislation is skepticism of global warming predictions, as they have not seen first-hand evidence of drastic changes in climate. However, scientists are quick to point out that the effects of greenhouse gas emissions manifest over a long period of time, and seasonal weather patterns are not necessarily representative of the long-term warming trend.

Not all farmers oppose climate legislation outright. One Missouri farmer, Richard Oswald, supports a mandatory cap on emissions and a trading scheme for pollution permits, as long as farmers’ concerns are met. As the chairman of the board of the Missouri Farmers Union, which is part of the National Farmers Union, he supports farmers’ involvement in shaping an effective and fair bill.