Sen. Inhofe’s Energy/Climate Bill Boycott Fails [Update X2]

On Halloween, I wrote a post detailing Sen. Inhofe’s (R-Denier) attempt to stop the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee from doing their jobs and voting on a piece of legislation.  Why boycott the energy and climate legislation committee markup?  Because then it may not get out of that committee, dying before an up-or-down vote could be made in the whole Senate.  That up-or-down concept received a lot of attention when the Cons were in charge and Democrats were trying to debate the Cons’ bills and offer amendments.  Now?  Not so much.  Hypocrites.

In response to Sen. Inhofe’s childish tantrum to not play with others, Sen. Boxer laid out a potential work-around: using an interpretation of the rules to move the bill out of committee without having any minority party members present.  The committee met today to vote on the bill.  Sen. Inhofe and his car of clowns didn’t bother to show up.  Sen. Boxer had the committee vote – and they passed the bill out.

Sen. Inhofe, predictably, ran to the press, crying that things were so unfair and Sen. Boxer was a big meanie who didn’t want to listen to them.

Who the frack cares?  Seriously.  The Cons made the decision to not participate.  They know what’s at stake, which is why they’re trying to prevent any reasonable consideration of energy and climate legislation.  They have dirty energy corporations to appease with their votes.  As to Inhofe’s complaint that how often the procedure has been used?  More nonsense.  Either come to the table with an intent to do some work or shut the hell up.

This leads to 2 conclusions.  1: Do your damn job, Cons!  2: More of this, please.  If the Cons don’t want to participate in good faith, Dems shouldn’t let that hold them back from moving bills through Congress.

[Update 11/6/09]: Oh, Max Baucus (Bought-ND) was the only person to vote against the bill.  10-1 was the final number and all of them were Democrats.  I don’t care that the bill passed as it relates to Baucus.  He tried to destroy the health care bill and voted against this bill.  I’m supporting whoever his next opponent is – in a potential primary but for sure the general election.  Votes have consequences, Max.  You’re done.

[Update 2 11/8/09]: The more you read, the more you know.  It turns out that the Cons wanted the EPA to redo a lengthy analysis on the legislation, something the EPA justifiably rejected on the grounds that the differences between a new analysis and an analysis already done would be undetectable by their models.  Further, I read this at Climate Progress:

Since 2001, the Senate has debated at least eight energy or global warming bills where there was no analysis by EPA, Congressional Budget Office or the Energy Information Administration completed in advance of Committee deliberations.

Isn’t that interesting?  Senate Cons have no valid reason to demand another analysis be done, not when they didn’t allow, request or demand such studies be performed during their mishandling of the Senate in the recent past.

Sen. Inhofe (R-Denier) Plans Boycott of Senate Committee Vote on Energy/Climate Bill

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said Thursday that she is planning to hold a markup Tuesday on S. 1733 (pdf), the Senate version of the Energy and Climate legislation President Obama and a majority of Americans are searching for.  In usual fashion, the Cons in the Senate are trying to figure out ways they can continue to stall movement of the bill.  In much the same way that they convinced all-too-willing Democrats to push health care legislation further and further back on the legislative calendar, climate legislation has been bottled up in committee for months now.  If Sen. Inhofe (R-Denier) and his Con colleagues get their way, the energy and climate legislation will either never move out of committee or will be so terribly weakened that there might as well not be any legislation at all.

Sen. Inhofe and six other Cons on the Environment and Public Works Committee are planning a boycott of the markup come Tuesday, which would mean Sen. Boxer couldn’t hold a vote to move it out of committee.  She unfortunately needs 2 Cons to show up to move the legislation further along.  Those same Cons are more interested in trying to show how ineffectual government can possibly be by slowing everything down to no movement (thereby fulfilling their own sick predictions), especially when it comes to energy and climate legislation.  By doing so, they prove they are pleased with recent news that China and other nations are taking over industries the U.S. invented in the 20th century, industries that will determine which country dominates the 21st century.  Enslaved to their failed ideologies, the Cons work tirelessly to ensure it is not the U.S. that continues dominance in these fields and in 21st century geopolitics.

Despite ever-growing proof that our climate forcing is causing changes in Earth’s climate much faster than recently thought; despite ever-growing proof that switching our economy to more efficient and renewable-energy-driven technologies will save us billions every year (costing no jobs, wrecking no economies) and stop our climate forcing, the Cons cannot break away from their dirty energy corporate benefactors and do something positive for this country and the planet.

Instead, the Cons are whining about how Boxer runs her Committee meetings, planning senseless obstructionist tactics and demanding that the EPA undertake study after study after study, none of which will ever get one single Con to vote for the bill anyway.

Sen. Boxer opened the door to alternative approaches for moving the bill, including the use of Senate Rule 14 that allows the majority to discharge legislation out of a committee and bring it directly to the floor.  I hope she does it.  When Cons were trying to force their extremist political nominees and destructive legislation down Americans’ throats, they couldn’t talk enough about “Up or down votes” and how Democrats were holding them up.  Why won’t Cons support “Up or down votes” now?  Because their fringe party is now in the minority.  They’re truly being obstructionists, needlessly so on every issue.  Sen. Boxer and the Democrats should do whatever they can to push the people’s business forward – rolling over the Cons if need be.

Climate Bill Action In The Senate – 9/30/09

The Senate version of the 2009 energy and climate bill, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, has made some small progress this week.  The draft version of their version of the legislation, largely constructed thanks to Sen. Boxer and Sen. Kerry, is reported to include a 20% reduction of 2005 GHG emissions by 2020, which is slightly better than the 17% goal in the House ACES bill.  This version should have been released after a 11:30A EDT press event in D.C. today.  Like the House bill, a cap-and-trade system is established.  Also, pollution allowances will be generated, but no distribution plan has been laid out yet.

It is well worth noting that GHG emissions are estimated to have been reduced by 6% below 2005 levels thanks to the Republican’s Great Recession.  So the 20% reduction is really an additional 14% reduction, according to the Senate version, and an additional 11% reduction according to the House version.  Which means it is very, very doable.  Energy efficiency measures alone would likely help us achieve those reductions in time for the 2020 goal.  Between now and then, as climate change effects continue to take hold, and political willpower to do something about climate change hopefully grows, technologies will be developed and marketed and it will become normal to reduce our greenhouse forcing.