Members of the Senate Finance Committee. (image: clubrelaford.com)

Over a Republican boycott, the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee passed a draft climate bill.

Now the hard work begins.

Despite Democratic control of the Senate, the bill faces considerable opposition—not just from Republican Senators, but also from Senate Democrats. In both cases, concerns center around economics, not environmental science—how much will curbing carbon emissions cost, and how are those costs (and any gains from trading emissions allowances) distributed?

The Republican boycott, for example, was held because EPW Committee Republicans wanted the Environmental Protection Agency to analyze the costs of carbon reduction more thoroughly.

As the New York Times reports Monday, the bill is heading for simultaneous hearings before the Finance Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Finance is likely to be a particularly difficult test for the draft legislation. It’s chaired by a Democrat, Senator Max Baucus of Montana—the only Democrat to vote against the bill in EPW. In voting against it, Baucus signaled that he will not let party loyalty force him to go against what he thinks is best for his constituents. His concern, like that of his Republican colleagues, is that the bill will be too expensive and that its costs will not be fairly distributed. Very telling is the line-up of witnesses set to testify before his Finance Committee: union leaders, economists, and energy industry representatives. Missing—at least so far—are the environmental scientists and Cabinet Secretaries, all boosters of the climate bill, who were the marquee names testifying before the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Baucus has proposed reducing the 2020 targets for emissions reduction, from a 20 percent reduction to a 17 percent reduction (albeit with a kicker to raise it to 20 percent if developing countries, such as China and India, set their own aggressive limits.) He seems unwilling to have US industry pay a disproportionate share of the price of curbing global warming: “We have to be sensitive to our own industries, as other countries are sensitive to theirs.”

Baucus is far from the only Democrat expressing concerns about the bill. For example, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who chairs the Health Committee, has stated flatly that the draft scheme for distributing carbon allowances needs to be changed. The scheme, as reflected in the House version of the bill passed earlier, would give too many credits, Harkin and other Midwestern senators believe, to coastal utilities, forcing Midwestern power companies (and therefore Midwestern states) to bear too much of the cost.

Similarly, staunch Democrat Jay Rockefeller (W.Va), while not putting a stake in the ground on a particular issue or aspect of the bill, was blunt in saying that bill supporters should not expect easy, quick, or nonjudgmental passage. “[A]mong people like myself who come from coal state and manufacturing states who can’t just sort of meet the Copenhagen deadline. We’ve got to be satisfied that it’s a good bill and I’m not at that point.”

The “Copenhagen” in question is the upcoming Copenhagen climate summit. The deadline that Rockefeller refers to relates to the sense among many that US leadership is necessary for meaningful and enforceable international carbon reduction targets to emerge from Copenhagen. A number of officials, both US and UN, have expressed their belief that without US climate change legislation in place before (or at least during the early stages of) Copenhagen, it will be impossible to make progress on slowing or reversing global warming.

It was at least in part a concern over the timing of Copenhagen that prompted the EPW Chairperson, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), to ignore Republican calls for further analysis and send the bill out of committee in order to move it along. However, it is possible that Boxer’s strategy may backfire—compared to Representatives, Senators are famously fractious, independent, jealous of their authority and jurisdictional bailiwicks, and unwilling to play party ball. Adding to that, Boxer is not a particularly popular Senator; as Heatingoil.com’s Carol Sonenklar wrote, her strongly liberal views and combative attitude do not endear her to many of her colleagues. By riding roughshod over Republican and conservative Democrat concerns and rushing the bill out to the broader Senate, Boxer may have contributed to the drawing of battle lines—battle lines that may prevent the bill from gathering the 60 votes it needs to overcome Senate parliamentary tactics by foes whose opposition is based in economics.

A good takeaway or lesson from the bill’s progress might be: don’t ignore the concerns of legislators who are worried about the impact on their constituents’ bottom line, especially during a recession.

(image: washingtonindependent.com)

The biggest obstacles to the most important legislative issues of our day? Political maneuvering, says David Roberts at Grist.com.

Roberts writes that in the House, the climate bill’s legislative process was orderly and progressed smoothly through committees en route to final approval. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey introduced their bill in a special committee and made some necessary concessions, but never lost control of the process. Their goal was to negotiate the bulk of the issues behind closed doors so that when the resulting bill was brought up on the floor, it could pass uneventfully. And that’s what happened.

Unfortunately, the Senate has a different playbook. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chairman of the Energy & Public Works (EPW) Committee, wanted to replicate the House’s orderly process with the Senate version, the Kerry-Boxer climate bill. She tried, says Roberts, repeatedly expressing her desire to work with others and welcoming feedback and an open dialogue. But it’s not working because politics is getting in the way. Boxer is not particularly popular, partly because of her very liberal stances. Various Democratic committee members within the Senate began marking up the Boxer bill, and two Republicans, James Inhofe of Oklahoma and George Voinovich of Ohio, called for stalling committee debate on the bill.

This prompted a boycott of the EPW committee vote by all Republican members that led to a bill passed out of committee without any GOP involvement.

According to the Associated Press, Boxer said that advancing the bill is a necessary step on the road to garnering the needed 60 votes, and she was pleased that despite the Republican boycott, the Democrats have had the will to move this bill forward.

But Boxer’s influence is waning, says Roberts. Between the Senate Democrats’ predilection for not going along with all Democratic initiatives—as opposed to the strong party discipline found in the House—and the fact that an extremely liberal and combative female Senator was shepherding the bill, it is bound to fail.

As a result, some of the Senate’s centrists came in to open a “dual track” of negotiations. John Kerry (D-MA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) rebuked their colleagues on the EPW Committee for not participating. But on the other hand, Graham also asked EPA Chief Lisa Jackson for more time – five more weeks of study, which an EPA official testifying to the EPW said would be expensive, time-consuming, and unnecessary.

In their need to purge the bill of anything Boxer-ish, Kerry and Graham felt they had to draft another one. The final bill will, like most important legislature in Washington, be hashed out in the White House, behind closed doors.

Despite winning committee passage for her bill, Boxer’s attempts to build some bipartisan support have failed, whether fairly or not. According to Roberts, in the Senate it’s every man (or woman) for himself.

Passage of a climate bill in the near future? Don’t hold your breath.