By IAN TALLEY
WASHINGTON — Key Senate Democrats Tuesday said it is unlikely there will be any more major committee action on climate-change legislation this year, the strongest indication yet that a comprehensive bill to cut greenhouse-gas emissions won’t be voted on until at least next year.
Although the Senate Environment Committee last week approved a version of the bill, the proposal will face strong revisions from moderate Democrats, particularly 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 said on the sidelines of a caucus lunch.
…
“I wouldn’t want to bet my paycheck that all the relevant committees will report out legislation by the end of this year,” said Sen. Thomas Carper (D., Del.).
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), who is leading an effort by moderate, heartland Democrats to protect manufacturing and agriculture industries, said committees were no longer under any timetables to produce legislation.
…
Even Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.), a climate-bill champion who last week said committees should have climate legislation processed by the end of the year, Tuesday backed off such expectations. “I don’t want to create artificial deadlines which get in the way of our being methodical about this,” he said.
Instead, Mr. Kerry said he is focused on getting the 60 votes necessary to pass controversial climate legislation — a higher margin than a simple majority and no mean feat. “The main thing to do here is to build the adequate base of support and consensus,” he said.
h/t to Dr. Benny Peiser
Not totally out of the woods, right? can’t the EPA still push something similar through based on their “endangerment” finding?
This is a good news, bad news news. The good news is that the federal legislative branch won’t pass a climate bill this year. The bad news is that the EPA will regulate CO2 by declaring it a dangerous gas. Why are the EPA bureaucrats able to exercise such powers over the citizens of the US? Under the Constitution that responsibility belongs to Congress.
Can’t wait to see some of the hand-wringing.
And on a related note, Al Gore’s Current TV is laying off 80 employees. I feel bad for the employees, but wonder how much longer CTV can survive. I also give Gore credit for trying something different. That said, is it wrong for me to want to see him fail?
I didn’t think they could push it through, even so, I’m sighing a great sigh of relief. The longer the legislation stays in congress, the longer we have to get real science back into the debate. Perhaps sanity will win the day after all. I can’t help but think this web site, along with a few others have contributed greatly to the delays in this legislation. Thanks guys, keep up the good work and keep fighting the good fight!!!!
The Clinton Administration never submitted the Kyoto Protocol for senatorial ratification. The senate had previously passed a resolution 95-0 that pre-empted the Kyoto Treaty.
Small comfort, that events conspire to unravel Congressional mischief–we’ve still Dear Leader’s executive powers to contend with until they’re bound under myriad indictments.
I wonder if Newt will join Nancy on the couch again?
Don’t trust or believe a word of it. This may be just a trick to rile up some public indignation by the greens. A few acts of “civil dissobediance” with a complicit press, some horrid images of drowning polar bears and Maldivian diving politicians, etc., and then in the dark of night a vote will be held a few days before the Copenhagen signing ceremony. President Obama will attend and sign both the law and the accord.
I think this is a likely scenario, but I hope it doesn’t come to pass
Can we now ask the Goracle to follow Sentator Chuck Grassley’s recent advice:
“Apologize to the American People and COMMIT SUICIDE!”?
The U.S. Senate killed off Kyoto by insisting that, among other things, all nations must be subject to the same rules, and that any such agreement would not cause serious economic harm to the U.S.:
Well all that legalese is fine and dandy. The US Constitution also says that the Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare OF THE UNITED STATES.
So nowhere are they authorised to collect taxes for anything else; like medical insurance, or carbon restrictions.
And please note that wording about the “general welfare of the United States.” That means that political entity that is headquartered in Washington DC. Is says nothing about providing for the general welfare of every tom, dick and harry. Yet the socialists try to claim that they have authority to rob Peter to pay Paul.
And note that when they do, they cite not the Constitution of The United States; but instead they cite the preamble to that document; where the words “of the United States” do not appear, and also provide for is replaced by “promote”.
But when has Congress ever paid ANY attention to that Constitution, where in article 9 of the Bill of rights it plainly says that the PEOPLE retain ALL of the rights that they haven’t ceded to the United States (the feds) in THE Constitution.
So if there is no mention of it in the Constitution; it’s for sure you have retained that right .
The other clause that the socialists like to drag out is the final clause of Article I, Section 8, which defines the powers assigned to the Congress. That final clause says that they have the power to make all laws that are “necessarty and appropriate” to carry out the mandates of the previous 17 or 18 clauses.
But then what Congressperson understands that ” (A )is NECESSARY for (B) if and only if , in the absence of (A), (B) is impossible, no matter what. ”
So any problem that can be resolved by law, in two or more different ways, is not in the bailiwik of the Congress, since none of those solutions is “necessary”; given that there are other ways to solve it. So in that case the Sovereign States can each do it their own way.
But Congress universally uses that clause to argue that they can write any laws they feel like (related to carrying out those few mandates). They can’t , unless there is no other way to perform that function.
But they do it anyway.
And if you ever wondered why Congress loves deficit spending, and will never stop doing it; well the answer is in the first clause of Article 1 Section 8; they have the authority to lay and collect taxes to pay for the debts of The United States; so they can fund all their unConstitutional socialist programs with deficit spending, and transfer the problem to the National Debt. But you don’t see a lot of action going on, in paying down that national debt, which they are authorised to tax us to do.
The whole bunch are run amok hoodlums; well IMHO.
And I don’t believe that the US Supreme Court has ever cited the preamble to the US Constitution as its governing authority on any ruling they have ever issued; the first words of the US Constitution are :- “Article I Section 1 ”
Anything before that is just the library card that says what this document is about.
A little pragmatism or realism from the Democrats, well I never!
Can the USA now run the Copenhagen truck off the road? – Surely Obama will not attend the UN jamboree in Denmark?
We, the British proletariat have still to convince our dimwitted politicians, that the flawed hypothesis of AGW is holed below the waterline, not forgetting the gullible EU commission – who are more pro AGW than even the British! – and that is saying something.
They are brilliant. This bill only has a chance being voted on in hot weather. If we can get some sizzling hot temps next summer, they may build up some steam and get it railroaded thru. Buffet just bought the BNSF railroad, so it seems he is bullish on the lucrative coal business.
What is that deficit figure again? The political advantage remains for a hidden tax on energy, compared to increased income- or sales-taxes.
The science has been an amusing sideshow. It might linger as “precautionary principle”, but “energy security” is my candidate for renewed emphasis.
Smokey (08:59:44) :
I somehow doubt that the current congress thinks this is binding on them.
Seems Barry & Nancy are too busy helping sick Americans to help save the planet.
One must have priorities after all.
wws (07:52:32) : & 01wmarsh (07:54:18) : I tried not to be too obvious in my underlying point to see if there was a reaction. Thank you for revealing an important element that may become an internationally contentious matter.
Constitutionally, the Senate must ratify a treaty with a super majority. Everyone knows (or should know) that. Yet if the treaty retains the binding language and Obama signs it as he has promised to do so, it will further erode Obama’s support at home while giving the far left, redistribution, one-government types at the UN and in the Third World ammunition to further criticize the US. It’s a set up.
I remember that the legal precedent has been set, that the US President can cancel a treaty that the Senate has approved with the stroke of a pen. It was a treaty with Formosa (aka Taiwan). I think it was Carter, and some Senator sued, and the Supreme Court handed down the decision.
The EPA can cause much mischief, but it is a creature of Congress, it will become an election issue, and the House could simply refuse to budget the EPA at anything like “normal” levels.
Me, I want to push back hard, on several levels. Including impeaching the Kelo majority, not just for Kelo, but that’s the easiest one to cite.
Mother Earth is going to protest about her inhabitants purile attempts to place controls on her future climate in December by throwing a climatic tantrum this NH winter 🙂
Hu McCulloch (08:22:20) :
With next year only 2.5 months away, I don’t find this very reassuring!
Hu, we recently set our clocks back an hour, not a month.
Crossing my fingers behind my back, this is great news. Now if we in California could somehow get rid of the children running Sacramento and shut down the economy-killing legislation that is AB-32. Unfortunately, when you believe that shutting down anything that produces carbon will bring back the unicorns and fairies (is that politically incorrect?), you’re beyond hope.
Right, just like the Health Care bill wasn’t going to pass either.
Beware the miscreants in the dark of night.
WWS has it right.
It’s dead, Jim.
On September 30, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposal describing how it
intends to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act’s (CAA) Title V and
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting programs. EPA’s proposal, if adopted, would
establish specially tailored emission thresholds for the application of the Title V and PSD programs to
sources that emit GHGs. EPA estimates that the proposed thresholds would apply to sources with nearly
70% of the national GHG emissions from stationary sources and result in GHG-related permit
requirements for approximately 14,000 facilities, including approximately 3,000 sources that previously
have not been subject to the Title V program.
Glen Blackburn (08:18:24) :
Seems to me the EPA night take over where the senate is leaving off. Remember your not paranoid if everyone really is out to get you