U.S. climate bill blocked, while IEA calls for action

Attempts to bring a global warming bill up for debate were blocked in the Senate on Friday, derailing what would have been the first federal U.S. climate change legislation.

According to published reports, Democrats fell short of the 60 votes necessary to end a Republican-led filibuster.

Debate on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 has focused on the cost of throttling carbon dioxide emissions.

"It's a huge tax increase," said Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell, from the coal state of Kentucky, according to an Associated Press story. Trading carbon emissions allowances, McConnell said, would produce "the largest restructuring of the American economy since the New Deal."

The same article quoted Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California accusing the Republicans of spreading misinformation. "There is no tax increase," she said, arguing that consumers would be provided tax relief to help pay energy prices.

President Bush has also warned of carbon regulation costs, and the bill was not expected to be passed into law.

Impact on green tech?
In general, people at clean-tech and energy companies are not counting on a swift introduction of climate change regulations. But most people expect them to take hold within the next five years.

Both presumed presidential candidates--Barack Obama and John McCain--favor climate change legislation.

Climate change regulations are designed to put a price on polluting. For instance, in a cap and trade system that will start for Northeast utilities this fall, large polluters are given carbon emissions allowances that can be bought and sold.

Whether these regulations will benefit green-tech companies and clean energy projects hinges on how the rules are set up.

Until any laws on the books, many technologies are being developed in anticipation of policies to support low-carbon energy technologies and as an alternative to rising fossil fuel prices.

IEA calls for policy-led "energy revolution"
Also on Friday, the International Energy Agency called for a $45 trillion fund to halve carbon emissions by 2050.

In a study, the IEA said that 1,400 nuclear power plants would need to be built and off-shore wind farms expanded rapidly to make this goal.

A "global energy revolution" is necessary to mitigate climate change and to meet rising energy demand around the world, the IEA said. With existing policies, the group said, carbon dioxide emissions will rise 130 percent and oil demand will rise 70 percent by 2050.

"Such growth of oil demand raises major concerns regarding energy supply access and investment needs," Nobuo Tanaka, the IEA's executive director, said in a statement.

[Lerianis]

Big deal about the carbon dioxide increases. The United States Army Corp of Engineers has now come out saying that most of 'global warming' is coming from our sometimes enemy, sometimes buddy known as the Sun.
They got it right on the money with that statement. While decreasing carbon dioxide is good, we have to realize that 90% of it comes from humans BREATHING. So unless you are a eugenist and want to wipe out 90% of humanity (if you do, you should IMMEDIATELY be locked up in a mental ward).... there is little that we can do to decrease the amount of CO2 going into the air.
A better solution? Plant more trees, other plants, etc. in the world and reforestation for deforested areas.

[LT73]

Could you be a bigger moron?

[eredux]

Check out this US Energy Footprint Chart, an interactive United States Energy Consumption Footprint chart, illustrating Greenest States and more. This site has all sorts of stats on individual State energy consumptions, demographics and State energy offices.

http://www.eredux.com/states/

[suyts]

What a hoot. Global temps are now lower than what they were in 1980. CO2, apparently has nothing to do with global temps.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
Now can we quit wasting time and money on some Marxist fantasy and get back to creating wealth and increasing the standard of living......globally?

[Scott 56]

Typical US Congress. Maybe when the water is lapping at the Capitol steps they'll start doing something about this.

I'm glad my house is on high ground.

PS I don't agree with poster #1 that we can/should take no action. Rather try something other than learning how to tread water.

[Scott 56]

Typical US Congress. Maybe when the water is lapping at the Capitol steps they'll start doing something about this.

I'm glad my house is on high ground.

PS I don't agree with poster #1 that we can/should take no action. Rather try something other than learning how to tread water.

[Wiz Zee]

Scott. I'm with you. Congress should something when "water is lapping at the Capital steps." They should also so something when pigs fly or when hell freezes over. Which ever one happens first.

[amandachuck]

$45 trillion? That alone shows it's too expensive to "stop" and would be fare better to "adapt." That's 2/3rds of the world GDP. Yes, you read that right. This "agency" wants to take spend 2/3rds of the world GDP on this scam.
Reminds me of Nixon's head on Futurama when he says "we can't spend all of Earth's money every day, you know."

[fredtheviking]

You make good point, but what are other options do we really have. We have an Oil based ecomony and we need to get off Oil and fast. It going to cost a lot of money to do it, you talking about overhauling our ecomony. It's worth the expense and the pain, if we want to keep things going the way they are now for future generations. Or are you willing to give up your car and easy access to food. Because that's the alternative, or worse (.i.e. Oil Wars).

[snodman]

Typical GOP behavior in congress. They are the ones behind this particular filibuster. Pretty short sighted of them in an election year.

[suyts]

They seem to be the only ones actually trying to follow the facts. We are cooler now than what we were in 1980. See for yourself. http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
CO2 is not now, nor was it ever, related to global temps. Stop the lunacy. Global warming hysteria was a farce contrived by Marxists posing as scientists. They have been exposed.

[ToddWBeaver]

Well thank Gia for the GOP! Without somebody to put the brakes on this stupid, expensive and useless scheme, we would be surrendering more money and more power to the government.

Somebody needs to tell the Dems that global warming has been canceled due to natural forces.

[JeffW42]

"U.S. climate bill blocked" is a misleading title. The article is misleading as well. This bill was a failure from the very beginning. There was no chance it was going to pass. Republicans weren't the only ones against this bill. Four democrats voted against moving forward with the bill. Sixteen senators did not vote at all which included 6 more democrats. It should have been entitled "U.S. Climate Bill Pathetic Attempt at Power Grab."

Of course, politicians are very persistent at following the motto "if at first you fail, try, try again."

[suyts]

Right, that's what got us into the ethanol mess. Just doing something without recognizing the impact is ridiculous. Just so you know, RSS and UAH(2 of the 4 major global temp tracking institutions) have released may temp numbers. Again our global temps have dropped. We are now cooler than what we were in 1980. Knowing that anthropogenic CO2 has exponentially increased since 1980 and we are cooler than what we were in 1980, we know that anthropogenic CO2 is NOT a factor in global temp. Stop the lunacy.

[suyts]

What a wonderful scheme. Add trillions of cost to the American people while congress pretends to control our climate. And there are actually people out there that want them to do just that. For those that let other people to do their thinking for them, here's some news that you might have missed.
Global temps are down. http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/. There is no global warming, and hasn't been since Jan 2007. This data refutes any contrived relationship that anthropogenic CO2 has with global temp.
There is NO CONSENSUS among scientists regarding "man-caused" global warming. http://www.petitionproject.org/ 31,000 signatures say there isn't.
The polar bear population is growing. http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section8.htm
And, we have fewer hurricanes now. Not more. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml
It seems that every time some Marxists opens their mouth about some looming environmental catastrophe caused by man's progress, mother nature exposes them to be the scam artists that many of us knew they were already.
This AGW scheme was hatched by Marxists in a wealth redistribution plot contrived to take power away from capitalists and to keep the masses dependent upon the Marxists even for the most basic needs of mankind. For example, energy, from fuel for our transportation of goods and services to energy needed to cool and warm ourselves when needed. Another example is food, the idiotic ethanol from corn idea is a perfect way to lower food supply and increase cost of fuel. Water is next on the hit list. They already have people believing that the H2O molecule can be used up and spent. It can't.
With the exposure of these frauds, maybe we can get on with the business of improving mankind's standard of living and increasing wealth everywhere.

[jemiller0]

All you right-wingers need to open your eyes and quit worrying about whether you'll continue to be able drive your Hummers that you can no longer get rid of because no one is stupid enough to buy them when gas prices are as high as they are. Gas prices need to go higher. It's the only way you lame brains will wake up and realize that we can't go on burning oil forever. I'll put money on the fact that you are probably just a bunch or corporate shills.

[suyts]

All you left-wingers need to realize that people are no longer drinking your green kool-aid. The lies are being exposed. Fact is the left is directly responsible for the lack of energy in this country. Not allowed to drill because of some polar bear fantasy, can't drill off-shore because of a fish fantasy, no coal plants because of the ridiculous CO2 scheme. No new nuke plants even though no deaths, illness or injuries for any nuke accident in the history of the U.S.

[JeffW42]

jemiller0,
How much money do you want to bet? Not only am I not a right-winger, I'm not a corporate shill. BTW, we can go on burning oil for the 200 years. That may not be forever, but technology should easily provide cost effective alternatives by then WITHOUT government subsidies to CORPORATIONS and their SHILLS.

[nextcube]

I wish it was just about some people wanting to drive H2's. Unfortunately, there is more to high energy costs than getting people to stop driving vehicles that you have self-righteously declared inappropriate. The modern world is made possible only by energy, and without affordable energy, we'll be back to the 1950's - if we're lucky - or the 1850's if we're not. Tacking additional artificial costs onto energy - which is used not just to power Hummers and cool John Edwards' house but to drive tractors on farms and heat the homes of the poor - without any real plan for what to do with the money (nothing like a "slush fund" with no clear objectives or points to blow the taxpayer's dough) sounds like a recipe for depression, not just recession. The wealthy don't care how expensive energy becomes; the poor will get assistance programs and the middle class will see their standard of living further eroded. All to lower carbon emissions. Like another poster said, we might as well adapt to whatever the outcome of global cooling, whoops, I meant global warming, whoops, I meant global climate change is, because according to the BELIEVERS nothing we do is likely to make a meaningful difference. All that capping and trading and limiting and sequestering would do...nothing. At enormous cost. To everyone. READ the IPCC report, and hold on to your wallet.