Democrats Boxer and Kerry to Introduce Climate Legislation in Senate

john-kerry-barbara-boxerIf Democratic Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer are successful Wednesday, they might nudge Senate negotiations on climate change a bit closer to, well, starting. Kerry and Boxer are scheduled to introduce some global warming legislation – the Boxer-Kerry bill – on which they collaborated for some nine months. The Senators hope the bill will sway legislators who are hesitant to act on climate change.

According to a New York Times report, the Boxer-Kerry bill will build largely from legislation already approved in June (after quite a struggle and subsequent restructuring), although the similarities between the two are unknown at this point. (Sources do suggest the bill will seek an aggressive 20 percent emissions target for 2020 while remaining silent on how to divide up emission allowances.)

Kerry reportedly insisted that the bill is a “pollution reduction” bill, not a “cap and trade” proposal. Nonetheless, he is prepared for the bill to undergo substantial restructuring. It is likely Senators will debate issues such as international trade provisions, emissions allowances, renewable energy standards and incentives, agriculture, and energy-intensive manufacturing.

Some opponents to climate change legislation have already voiced their resistance to the bill. Republican and EPW Committee ranking member James Inhofe reportedly said, “No matter the semantic games employed, or the extent to which Democrats wish to hide the truth from the American people, cap and trade will mean more job losses, more pain at the pump, and higher food and electricity prices for consumers.”

If all goes as scheduled, hearings (by which lawmakers may amend the bill) will start sometime next month.

Sarah Harper is a professional writer based in San Francisco, California. Her interests include sustainability, government policy, and international politics. In her free time, Sarah enjoys toying with the idea of holistic health, overanalysis, and plotting world exploration.

3 responses

  1. The Climate Change Bill reads:

    “… nuclear energy supplies consistent, base-load electricity, independent of environmental conditions … nuclear power plants virtually eliminate emissions of greenhouse gases …”

    Yet there’s a compelling reason not to go that route:

    “An astrophysicist from Tufts University has pointed out in his research that even after controlling the greenhouse effect, the earth would warm up due to heat wasted from energy use. The scientist suggests that solution lies in using renewable sources that don’t add extra heat to the planet.”

    Above from: Energy waste causing another global warming / One World South Asia ( waste causing another global warming)


    “… according to a 2006 analysis by the U.S. Department of Energy, General Electric, and the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, offshore wind resources on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts exceed the current electricity generation of the entire U.S. power industry.”

    Above from: Wind Power That Floats / Technology Review (

    Indeed, the Colossal Magnetic Levitation Wind Turbine simply uses Permanent Magnets to reduce friction = operates with wind as slow as 2 MPH = low-center-of-gravity = perfect for offshore = approx. $50 million price tag.

    And so…, use Wind Power to make clean Hydrogen for backup in power plants…

    Here Consider:

    “Most modern generators can switch between gas and fuel oil, and many can switch to coal as well.”

    Above from: Fuel Substitution: Power Plants Currently Switching to Natural Gas / Seeking Alpha (

    1. It is nice that the Senate Cap & Trade bill (in its current form, I can’t keep up with the added pages) is on-line.
      However, that gave me the opportunity to note a very distressing fact: Section 744. INTERNATIONAL OFFSET CREDITS, will provide the global redistribution of wealth that is so desired by the leftists. This is our future being given away to foreign countries where corruption is rampant (well, it’s also rampant in Washington DC, but that is another problem).
      Often, the SO2 (acid rain) cap & trade program of 1992 is held up as an example of sucess, and yes it has worked. However, that plan was debated on the floor of congress for 6-weeks. It did not permit international offsets.
      This international plan for GHGs will be rife with corruption.
      Also, like the House version, will 300 pages be added to the bill at 2am on the day that it is voted on and passed by the Senate?
      Get a grip folks, we are being had.

Leave a Reply