Updated at 10:02 a.m. on Oct. 28.
If there is a devil in the detailed Kerry-Boxer, we're going to get a lot closer to finding it. Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., has released her chairman's mark, and the Environmental Protection Agency completed its analysis on the bill. And this week, Boxer's committee begins a series of hearings on the bill, with top administration officials set to testify Tuesday.
What's your initial take on the chairman's mark and EPA's analysis? What changes would you like to see and what changes do you expect? How do you think this EPA analysis compares to the agency's report on Waxman-Markey? Do you think the hearings will help trigger substantive discussion on key provisions now lacking in the bill? Or do other committees need to mark it up before certain provisions can be addressed?
The big news of day one of the EPW hearings was Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., along with other moderate Democrats like Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, expressing concerns over the greenhouse gas reduction goal for 2020 and EPA's regulatory authority.
Do you agree with Baucus that 20 percent below 2005 levels is too strict a reduction to meet by 2020? Do you think this target will need to be changed in order to get to 60 votes? What else do you think may need to be changed to get the votes?
Will the economics of climate change continue to dominate the debate Wednesday and Thursday?
-- Amy Harder, NationalJournal.com
12 responses: David Parker, Amy Harder, Carl Pope, Randall Swisher, Thomas Gibson, Margo Thorning, David Holt, William O'Keefe, Jack Gerard, Bill Snape, Frances Beinecke, William O'Keefe
Recent endorsements by key senators, such as John Kerry, D-Mass., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., (in their joint op-ed) and Tom Carper, D-Del., could be early signs nuclear energy is gaining traction as an indispensable part of the recently introduced Senate climate change legislation. Still, lawmakers and experts alike cite obstacles, including high construction costs and lengthy license processes, that the industry will need to overcome.
What obstacles do you think are holding up nuclear development? Should the climate bill include provisions to help revitalize the industry, such as streamlining the process of getting new plants built? And if so, how? Would nuclear provisions help Senate leaders win 60 votes? Alternatively, why do you think nuclear energy should not be an integral part of Kerry-Boxer?
-- Amy Harder, NationalJournal.com
17 responses: Bill Johnson, David Holt, Paul N. Cicio, Mark Cooper, Randall Swisher, David Parker, William O'Keefe, Paul Sullivan, David Kreutzer, Carl Pope, Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., Marvin Fertel, Frank O'Brien-Bernini, Arjun Makhijani, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, Bill Snape, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.
Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., acknowledge their legislation introduced on Sept. 30 has a lot of placeholders, but they nonetheless tout it as a good starting point that will gather steam with input from other committees.
What do you see as its strong points? Weak points? What programs, incentives or industries' interests are missing that should be included or were in the House-passed bill? What are the missing components that should be front and center when other committees mark it up? If there's going to be one issue that serves as this bill's bottleneck, what will it be?
(Updated at 1:03 p.m. on Oct. 14) How do you think this weekend's New York Times op-ed by Kerry and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., changes the landscape for the bill? Environmentalists and industry representatives alike are calling this a game-changer; do you agree? Do you think this means more controversial issues, like offshore drilling and nuclear energy, are more likely to be included in the bill?
-- Amy Harder, NationalJournal.com
16 responses: David Parker, William O'Keefe, Arjun Makhijani, Kevin Knobloch, Jon A. Anda, Larry Schweiger, David Parker, Frances Beinecke, Chuck Gray, Mark Muro, Charles Drevna, Jack Gerard, Frank O'Brien-Bernini, Thomas Gibson, Bill Snape, William O'Keefe
Editor's Note: This week Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, is providing the question and joining in the discussion as the Senate begins consideration of the Kerry-Boxer climate change legislation.
Discussions over how to mitigate climate change's worst effects -- which policies we can and should implement -- have set off one of the most important and most complex debates to take place in Congress.
Only one idea, a carbon cap-and-trading scheme, has received significant attention on Capitol Hill. And yet, serious doubt has been cast on such a system's ability to keep energy affordable and our economy strong while still achieving substantive emission reductions. Other policy options -- a tax on carbon, massive investment in advancing clean energy technology, even geo-engineering -- have largely been ignored.
I recognize that time is short and that action is needed soon. But at what point did we decide cap-and-trade was the most effective way to address climate change? Setting politics aside, are there other approaches capable of achieving the same results at lower cost and with greater regulatory efficiency? Would the debate over climate policy benefit from an attempt to re-evaluate our options?
-- Lisa Murkowski
22 responses: Marvin Odum, Paul N. Cicio, Kevin Knobloch, Steven Stoft, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Mark Muro, Kateri Callahan, Rob Stavins, Thomas J. Pyle, Donna Harman, William O'Keefe, Jennifer Morgan, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Chuck Gray, Dirk Forrister, Kevin Knobloch, Larry Schweiger, Paul Sullivan, Jon A. Anda, Rob Stavins, Robert C. Sisson, William O'Keefe
