Warming to Legislation

Related Content

Energy & the Environment Policy Briefing

Print

E-Mail

Reprints

Text Size

Latest News

• Rosner & Bennett: Public Backs Obama as a Wartime President
• Potts: Congress Must Not Allow Lobbying Efforts to Block Pro-Consumer Financial Planning Legislation
• HOH’s One-Minute Recess: It Happened One Night
• Obama Touts Bipartisanship as He Signs Jobs Package
• GOP Optimistic It Can Derail Health Bill

Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) has thrown himself into the global warming debate in typical fashion — reaching across the aisle and trying to find the middle. Critics from the left say his bill is too modest and could boost nuclear power, while critics on the right say it is too ambitious and will hurt the economy.

The middle is where the veteran Senator is usually found. He’s left the Democratic Party but still caucuses with the majority. He supports the administration on the Iraq War but is to the left on most other issues, including global warming. In an interview with Roll Call Executive Editor Morton M. Kondracke, he welcomed President Bush to the global warming debate but said the president’s recent proposal would do little.

To critics who say the technology is not available to reduce emissions, Lieberman said American entrepreneurship will respond to new mandates with innovation that will be affordable and pragmatic. He said scientists agree on the cause of warming, and it’s up to Congress to do something about it.

ROLL CALL EXECUTIVE EDITOR MORTON M. KONDRACKE: What do you think the honest chances for a climate change bill passing and getting signed this year are?

SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (ID-CONN.): Possible but difficult. In other words, we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate, and then, obviously, the president has to decide, notwithstanding concerns he will probably have about the bill that he will sign it because he wants to get this started before he leaves office. There’s no question there’s movement. You know [Sen.] John Warner’s [R-Va.] great answer to why, after he opposed McCain-Lieberman twice, he sought to be my ranking [member] on this subcommittee and wanted to do something about global warming, he said two words: science, grandchildren. And I think that’s moving throughout the country and throughout Congress.

Also, most significantly, there has been very significant movement in the business community that has decided, I think, that something is going to happen here. In other words, that eventually there is going to be an American program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and they want to be part of the discussion, part of the solution. And a lot of them have decided that the sooner, the better because they want predictability for the very significant investments they are going to have to make.

So that’s why it’s possible. Why do I think it’s difficult? Because this is a big deal, it’s a big problem, and people are anxious now. It also speaks to more direct and tangible reasons why there are groups lobbying very hard against this. There’s a number who are particularly concerned about what they see as the speed with which we require reduced greenhouse gas emissions. We think it’s quite methodical over a four-decade-plus period of time. And then people are actually worried about the cost of it. The best recent answer we have is Environmental Protection Agency actually put out a report about two weeks ago, and it essentially says that the economy can handle it. There won’t be all that economic hardship because, we think, in a dynamic model there’s something about this that’s going to be great for our economy. Because when we deal with global warming, it necessarily has to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. And this bill, when it passes, will be the biggest American energy-independence program we’ve ever adopted.

ROLL CALL: So, what do you think about what the president’s approach is — having guidelines, granted that the emissions reduction in his approach is far lower than yours is? But he basically says that the technology is not there yet to accomplish your goals.

LIEBERMAN: Well, the people supporting the bill have different reactions to the president. Some are very critical. I mean, I was trying to think of a good turn of phrase like with the moon landing: This is a small step for man, a great leap for mankind. This was actually a very big step for the president, but not a very big step in terms of the global movement, to do something about climate change. I think it was significant because he was obviously recognizing the reality of the problem. He said that, for the first time, that we have to have a goal. I think it’s a very long-term, weak goal. Not only short of what the rest of the world was talking about — stabilize by 2025 — but it’s actually less than the Chinese say they are going to do. He also talked about legislation and created a sort of right and wrong way. Now I think as I look at it, is that our bill is right. He probably doesn’t.