Lieberman-Warner, With a Wheeze Not a Bang

By June 6, 2008Global Warming

Seems like an accurate summary of the state of play with S. 3036, the Lieberman-Warner climate bill, in today’s Washington Post story, “Senate Democrats May Pull Climate Bill.” Quoted is Don Stewart, communications director for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

We are going to have Democrats voting to end debate on what they call the most important issue facing the planet and Republicans voting to continue debate on it.


  • National Center for Public Policy Research, citing a new poll: “The survey found 64% of likely voters in Outer South states (North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee) oppose spending more for gasoline to reduce U.S. emissions. 74% of likely voters from the region oppose spending more for electricity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” The news release says Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) is out of step with her constituents; she’s a sponsor of Lieberman-Warner. (UPDATE: Similar poll in the Mountain States with Baucus as a target.) (UPDATE: Senator Byrd [D-WV] in step with his constituents, survey shows.)


  • The Lieberman-Warner bill expands Davis-Bacon’s prevailing wage mandates to a wide variety of projects — non-federal construction projects, that is — yet another way in which the legislation makes energy more expensive.  James Sherk at the Heritage Foundation has an analysis. But did you know that S. 3036 had Davis-Bacon provisions in it? News to us. It’s almost as if people didn’t want the bill to be really, fully debated.


  • And prize for most Orwellian statement this week in the public discussion of alleged man-made global warming goes to Van Jones, the founder of Green For All.  In an interview with “Grist,” the environmental site, Mr. Jones comes up with this claim: “There may be some solutions we haven’t thought of before. We want what we call ‘cap, collect, and invest’ to be the main policy here. We want a cap on carbon. We think it’s a human-rights issue to cap carbon. Then we say collect.” It’s a human-rights issue to cap carbon. OK. And it’s a human rights issue to collect the proceeds from the private sector and redistribute it.

UPDATE (8:55 a.m.): CQ Politics: “Both parties had said they welcomed a wide-ranging debate on the measure (S3036), but it never materialized, in part because the Senate’s ongoing clash over judicial nominations ate up precious floor time and drained the patience of senators.”

Leave a Reply