• Yesterday was day two of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's markup process for the Kerry-Boxer bill. Republicans once again boycotted the proceedings, although they made a couple of cameo appearances. The markup continues today — you can see it on C-Span. And, Greenwire is now reporting that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has given EPW Chairwoman Barbara Boxer "the green  light" to move ahead without the GOP. Reid reportedly told Boxer to advance global warming legislation on Tuesday, November 10,  if Republicans have not ended their boycott by then.
• At the same time, three strange bedfellows — Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) announced they would work on a "dual track" to create a climate bill that would get 60 Senate votes. Our Tony Kriendler says the three have given "new life to a bipartisan process."
• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is making tentative gestures of support in the general direction of a climate bill. The Chamber, which has been slammed by the media and abandoned by some of its own members since saying we need a "Scopes monkey trial" on climate science, said today that it "supports most of the principles outlined" in that Kerry-Graham-Lieberman proposal. Details are still fuzzy, but Tony Kreindler says: "We're delighted to see the Chamber recognize that there's a bipartisan path forward to a cap on emissions. If they support it, that would be truly a first." Indeed, we at EDF would all be thrilled if the Chamber's new tone were followed up with real action.
• A new group launched today "to support action to limit greenhouse gases and counter the U.S. Chamber of Commerce." American Businesses for Clean Energy includes high profile companies — including some who quit the Chamber because of its stance on climate change. Members include utilities — New Jersey's Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. (PSEG), Florida's FPL Group Inc. (FPL) and New Mexico's PNM Resources (PNM) — as retailer Gap Inc. and Colorado ski resort operator Aspen Skiing Co. More from the Wall Street Journal.
• And New York University School of Law's Institute for Policy Integrity released a new poll of 144 economists. It found a whopping "94% believe the U.S. should join climate agreements to limit global warming," and that "significant benefits from curbing greenhouse-gas emissions would justify the costs of action."

We gave the measure qualified praise today, saying it gives the Senate an opportunity to craft a consensus approach that delivers low-cost emissions reductions with environmental credibility — but also cautioning that the bill needs more work to guarantee that offsets are environmentally effective.

Here's the statement from our senior policy manager, John Mimikakis:

Offsets are contentious, but they are essential to effective climate policy. Senator Stabenow deserves praise for trying to find the middle ground and move climate legislation forward.

We have a number of concerns with the bill that we’d like to see addressed as the legislation moves forward. Offsets need to be measured as rigorously as any other emissions reduction. Otherwise there will be little faith in what offset developers are selling and no certainty that we’re achieving pollution reduction goals.

We look forward to working with Senator Stabenow and other members of the Senate to build on the legislation introduced today.

Think for a moment about the speech you’d expect to hear from an environmental leader on the eve of Copenhagen.

Now forget it.   This is not going to be that speech.

You might expect someone in my position to call for – to demand – a final international agreement to solve the climate crisis before Copenhagen delegates go home for Christmas.   I will not.

You might expect me to assert that the greatest threat to our planet will come about if New Year’s Day 2010 arrives without a new treaty.   It will not.

And that signing a final treaty is the only way Copenhagen can be successful.  It is not.

Let me explain.

Continue reading his full remarks.

One of our favorite arguments came from our own Fred Krupp, president of EDF, who focused on the recent study from the EPA that confirms the low cost of the bill.

After conducting some serious qualitative analysis, the EPA found that the Senate bill is just as affordable as the House bill passed earlier this year. For the bargain price of $3 to $4 a month, the average American can look forward to a robust economy powered by new green jobs, energy independence (or at least a huge step in that direction) and a cleaner environment for his or her child and grandchild.  Here's Fred's written testimony [PDF].

Nat Keohane, EDF's director of economic policy and analysis, also provided some great testimony on Wednesday. He detailed the impacts of the cap and trade legislation and also advocated on behalf of consumers — he made the point that energy savings need to find their way into the average American’s pocket rather than into the large coffers of utility company executives. Here's Nat's written testimony [PDF].

These hearings are further proof of the Senate’s growing momentum to further the climate debate. Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) is pushing for the committee to begin considering amendents to her bill as early as next Tuesday. Although certain Republicans are balking at the fast pace, Boxer is confident that the bill has been thoroughly analyzed: More than 50 witnesses have been asked to submit their comments on the bill and Senate staffers have been scouring the 923-page document since its release.

“This draft is an important starting point for Senators to negotiate effective climate legislation that can win 60 votes,” said Environmental Defense Fund Legislative Director Elizabeth Thompson.

The discussion draft released today by Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer and Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry would put a mandatory cap on U.S. global warming pollution and give the private sector the flexibility to pursue the most affordable emissions reduction opportunities.

The draft calls for reducing U.S. emissions by 20 percent from 1990 levels in 2020, slightly more than the reductions called for in the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act. The bill is silent on how emissions permits would be allocated, leaving room for negotiations as the bill moves forward in the Senate.

“We look forward to working with Chairmen Boxer and Kerry and their colleagues to pass a bill that’s environmentally effective and economically smart,” Thompson said.

Joe Romm talks about their "passionate intensity" in a blog post today. His key points:

[T]he entire conservative messaging apparatus is full-throated in its opposition to this bill — and they have well-heeled funders, aka the dirty-energy bunch. [...]

But we should be equaling, if not beating, calls to key senators right now. [...]

Reason enough for passage of a bill with emissions targets like Waxman-Markey (preferably stronger) is to give the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen (and beyond) a fighting chance — and not to strangle a global deal in the crib as the deniers and polluters hope to do with their immoral and ultimately self-destructive filibuster.

And to prove his point, this just in from Twitter: The opposition is being extremely vocal towards Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska:

kate_sheppard RT @Populista: Ben Nelson says letters in Nebraska are running 99-1 against #ACES. Says people at parades are shouting "No cap and trade"

You can help fight back by calling your Senators today.

And if Sen. Nelson is your Senator, here are various ways to let him know you support climate action.

Environmental Defense Fund believes that an effective climate solution must include US agricultural offsets. American farmers, foresters, and landowners can provide creditable emissions reductions while earning a new income stream, and we must give them that opportunity.

Fred outlined ways to create credible offsets program that would benefit the entire country – including farmers and taxpayers. He stressed that any program must be science-based and must provide real, measurable, verifiable benefits to the atmosphere.

The highlight of the hearing was a spirited exchange between Fred and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) about gas prices. (In the video of the hearing released by the committee, advance to 89:40 to see the back-and-forth.)

Of course, Fred also heaped praise on the House for passing the American Clean Energy and Security Bill, even as he told Senators they could strengthen that critical legislation even more by improving the offsets provisions.

Here's a link to Fred's full written testimony [PDF].

Our media director, Tony Kreindler, posted a brief post-mortem analysis on Grist that raises an interesting point. He says:

But there's another important part of progress that's less obvious, what a colleague of mine calls "clearing the underbrush" – many in Congress don't focus on the finer details of legislation until it is set for a vote.

In the past few weeks, Senate offices that never before explored the weeds of climate policy took a very deep dive.

The raw numbers bode well for action in the next Congress. But the process itself can't be overlooked, and we won't get quick action in 2009 unless senators and members of the House of Representatives continue to dig into the details and figure out what works, what doesn't, and what it all means for their constituents.

It's encouraging that the House isn't waiting: Just this week, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell announced a series of legislative hearings and Rep. Ed Markey introduced a bill that looks to be the most comprehensive proposal yet in the House.

Given that the sponsors of the Climate Security Act plan to bring up the bill next year, the House looks to be moving, and the presumptive nominees of both parties say they plan to act on climate change, a post-mortem may not even be in order, even one as short as this.

Environmental Defense Fund is having its annual retreat this week, so you won't see new posts in Climate 411 until Monday. Have a great week!

This morning a Senate cloture vote to focus debate on the Climate Security Act and end the filibuster failed to win the necessary 60 votes. As a result, Majority Leader Harry Reid removed the bill from consideration this year.

On the plus side, a majority of senators – 48 to 36 – voted in favor, and six more senators sent written statements of support, bringing the total to 54. While the bill could not survive the continuing delay tactics, it garnered important new momentum that sets the stage for quick action in the next Congress.

From Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp:

The din of Washington politics can't drown out the drumbeat of progress. Old adversaries came aboard and new supporters stood up for action. In the end, we got a stronger vote on a stronger bill than we had three years ago.

Even many opponents of the bill said this week that America needs to cap carbon pollution. The excuses for inaction are running out. With presidential leadership, which was absent in this debate, we're confident that 2009 will be the year Congress finally gets off the sidelines and begins to fight climate change and our country's oil addiction.

Senators John McCain and Barack Obama have made clear their support for a comprehensive cap and trade program to reduce pollution, and both said today they would have voted to continue moving forward with it. The bill's sponsors say they will bring the legislation up again next year.

Cap and trade also is expected to be the centerpiece of a comprehensive climate bill being developed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Chairman John Dingell yesterday announced that he would begin hearings this month on legislative proposals, including the Climate Security Act.

Today's Senate debate on the Climate Security Act included quite a few misstatements of fact. We thought we'd offer corrections of some of the most egregious.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)

• If the bill passes, GDP will be 6 percent less by 2030.

  This is untrue. Economic studies from the Energy Information Administration, Research Triangle Institute, Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratories looked at the impacts of capping greenhouse gas emissions on the U.S. economy. They agree on two things: the U.S. economy is projected to nearly double in size between now and 2030 (and triple by 2050), and the overall impact of climate policy on the U.S. economy will be small. In 2030, the median projected cost of capping greenhouse gas emissions is just 0.58 percent – less than two thirds of one percent. The 0.58 percent difference in GDP is so small, it's like two cars taking different routes from New York to Los Angeles and guessing that one will get there at noon on the third day and the other will get there at 12:35.

• Economy would have 850,000 fewer jobs by 2014.

  The Energy Information Administration looked at job losses from the bill. It found that there would be 65,000 cumulative jobs lost for the entire economy by 2030. For comparison, right now without climate policy, more than half a million jobs are created, and an equal number destroyed, every three months in the manufacturing sector alone.

• The point of this bill is to make energy so expensive that we'll use less of it.

  The goal of the bill is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to head off catastrophic global warming.

Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO)

• The long term trend of the Earth's climate is unclear.

  Utterly untrue. Scientists are in near-universal agreement that the Earth will get progressively warmer unless we greatly reduce our output of greenhouse gas emissions.

Sen. John Thune (R-SD)

• Alternative fuels can't be used for aviation fuel.

  Wrong – in fact, it's already happening. Late last year, Virgin Atlantic became the first airline to fly with biofuel. The Boeing 747-400 flew from London to Amsterdam, carrying in one of its four fuel tanks a 20 percent mix of biofuel derived from coconut and babassu palm oil ("Virgin Atlantic Biofuel Flight" by Chuck Squatriglia, Wired Magazine "Autopia" blog, 2/25/08). And a few weeks ago, Honeywell, JetBlue, Airbus and International Aero Engines formed a partnership to research second generation biomass-derived aviation fuel (see press release [PDF]).

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)

• Prices of gas and electricity will go through the roof.

  Again, wrong. For the average American household, 35 cents out of every dollar of income goes to securing health and safety. But the cost of protecting our families from potentially global warming would amount to just 3/8 of a cent per dollar of household income. We have seen the price of gas and electricity rise in recent years without climate policy. The price of energy isn’t what matters to families, but the size of the bills they pay. The EIA found that – with climate policy – the average increase in household energy costs between 2012 and 2020 would be $3.40 per month over the reference case. In 2020, the EIA found the average increase in energy costs per household to be $2.90 per month. In its analysis of the Climate Security Act EPA's Scenario 10 predicts that household consumption in 2020 would be between $239 and $454 below business as usual (or between -0.23 percent and -0.49 percent lower).

The Senate debate and tomorrow's vote on cloture are crucially important. If you'd like to write to your senator about this, click here.