Yesterday’s blog highlights

Grist breaks down the current climate bill situation and is even cautiously optimistic about Kerry and Lieberman’s abilities to attract some Republican support.

“There are, however, some Republicans who are expected to vote for the bill if it goes to the floor.”

An editorial in the L.A. Times that makes the case for climate legislation is lauded on Climate Progress. The editorial concludes with this poignant message:

“Lawmakers today aren’t seeing the forest for the trees; that will change when the forest has burned or been destroyed by bark beetles, but by then it will be too late.”

E2 explains how the new climate bill will contain a “compromise on offshore drilling” though still maintains targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020.

Treehugger goes over the offshore oil drilling veto provision in the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill set to be released to the public today. The full details are forthcoming but so far we do know that:

  • It requires an Interior Department study to determine which states could be economically and environmentally affected by a spill.
  • Those affected states would then be able to veto drilling by passing a law.
  • Those states that are able to go ahead with drilling will retain 37 percent of the federal revenue generated by that activity.
  • Any state will be allowed to opt out of drilling that would occur in waters within 75 miles of its shore.”
This entry was posted in Climate Change Legislation, News. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

One Comment

  1. James
    Posted May 12, 2010 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    Why is the EDF supporting a bill which guts the Clean Air Act, presents a cap-and-trade scheme without auctioning 100% of the permits, and explicitly supports fossil fuels?

    Why is the EDF not supporting the peer reviewed, much cleaner, much faster, much less expensive plan?

    Can we in good conscience continue to support and recommend the EDF under these conditions?