That’s the message President Obama floated this week.

When it comes to a choice between jobs and cap-and-trade, jobs are clearly the president’s top priority this year, even though just last week Obama voiced support for cap-and-trade during his State of the Union address.

Obama told a town hall meeting in Nashua, NH, it was time to put plans to create green jobs — by promoting renewable energy projects — on a separate track from capping U.S. GHG emissions. “We may be able to separate these things out. And, it’s conceivable that’s where the Senate ends up,” he told the New Hampshire crowd.

Oddly enough, it was Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC) who was the fastest and loudest to denounce Obama’s apparent willingness to give up on a cap-and-trade bill, according to a report in The New York Times. The White House quickly insisted that cap-and-trade is still a Presidential priority.

However, Graham dismissed Obama’s plan to separate cap-and-trade from an energy policy as “half-assed.” The South Carolina Senator fears an energy-only bill won’t promote nuclear power and expanding off-shore drilling for oil.

Graham doesn’t think environmentalists will support his nuclear power and drilling goals without a cap-and-trade program. That’s why he’s seeking a compromise position.

Once newly elected Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) takes his Senate seat in Washington, D.C., EPA will be calling the shots on turning back the global warming phenomenon, not Congress.

Yes, Brown opposes healthcare legislation, and he’s also opposed to the cap-and-trade bills. The future for both controversial policies that are at the core of President Obama’s legislative agenda is shaky at best. Certainly they won’t survive in their current forms.

Even if the Democrats were able to somehow agree on a cap-and-trade bill and get it to the Senate floor for a vote, Brown represents the key vote needed to kill the bill. The Democrats now have only 59 of the 60 votes they’d need to break a GOP filibuster.

But this doesn’t mean there won’t be GHG regulations. Now, Obama will rely on EPA to do the dirty work of regulating, industry-by-industry, using the Clean Air Act.

What can be particularly troubling about the lack of Senate action on the cap-and-trade bill is that, at least in the Senate, industry lobbyists can greatly influence the final details of the bill. Senators and Representatives are pretty easy to sway when it comes to special interests.

EPA on the other hand has a much stiffer backbone than Congress when it comes to regulating industries.

Other countries certainly lamented Scott’s victory as a signal the U.S. won’t be adopting the tough climate change legislation the international community prefers. But they’re overlooking what EPA can and will do.

However, even when the Democrats held total sway in the Senate before Brown’s election, it seemed doubtful the Senate would act.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is the lone Republican trying to broker a cap-and-trade deal, and so far, he hasn’t won any GOP converts to the cause. He’s even been censured by the South Carolina legislature for his attempt to find a middle ground that would open the way for a resurgence of nuclear power plants in the U.S.

Nuclear power plants are clean in that they don’t release GHGs.

That’s certainly the point of view making headlines in West Virginia following a Legislative Lookahead forum organized by the Associated Press.

The debate is over. It’s just a question of when cap-and-trade legislation to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will be a reality, not if.

The nation’s largest buyer of coal — American Electric Power (AEP) — expects Congress to approve national cap-and-trade legislation.

Addressing the forum, AEP’s environmental manager Tim Mallen says mandatory GHG rules are on their way, “whether it comes this year or next year is not really that big a deal. It’s coming.”

Many in West Virginia are fearful that regulating GHG emissions will reduce coal mining jobs. But the United Mine Workers of America also thinks a cap-and-trade bill is inevitable.

However, West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin (D) wasn’t ready to end the rhetoric. He told the conference that he opposes cap-and-trade as well as upcoming EPA plans to regulate GHG emissions from power plants when a final rule is released this spring.

AEP’s now focused on figuring out how to operate in a carbon-regulated world, as are other power companies.

The first attempt to stop EPA from regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions gets underway when the Senate returns from its Christmas and New Year’s vacation.

To stop EPA, Alaskan Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) is pushing a Senate resolution to stop EPA from implementing its endangerment finding that declared carbon dioxide (CO2) is a dangerous pollutant that needs to be regulated.

She says the real danger is that EPA action will “endanger jobs … and economic growth, and it endangers American competitiveness.” A vote on stopping EPA is expected by Jan. 20 as part of a larger debate over expanding the U.S. debt.

She’s upset that the Obama administration is letting EPA regulate GHGs as a ploy to force the Senate to adopt cap-and-trade legislation. Murkowski opposes cap-and-trade legislation.

Meanwhile, Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and  Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are drafting a climate change bill designed to convince pro-energy Senators to support a GHG cap-and-trade program. In exchange for limiting GHG releases, Kerry and Graham are talking about also expanding:

• offshore oil-and-gas drilling
• federal financing for nuclear power, and
• funding for various clean coal projects.

If Murkowski’s stop-EPA bid fails and the Kerry/Graham compromise bill stalls out, then industry faces GHG regulations from EPA in 2010.

Starting in January, facilities releasing more than 25,000 tons of GHGs a year have to track and monitor these releases. These facilities — more than 13,000 of them — must then file annual GHG emission reports. The first report, for 2010 releases, is due in 2011.

This spring, EPA will issue its first Clean Air Act rules to force large facilities to reduce GHG emissions when they renew or apply for emission permits.

Hardly.

The green push continues unabated, though you’d hardly know that if you read the environmental blogs or if you listen to the lamentations of companies salivating at the commissions they’ll make in the emission trading game.

As Richard Gledhill, head of carbon markets at PricewaterhouseCoopers, told the Wall Street Journal, “It’s very frustrating at this stage that we haven’t got a more-comprehensive agreement.”

But for most companies, the big dud that was Copenhagen merely means EPA and states, not Congress, are in charge of the U.S. effort to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. They’re not waiting around for Congress to come up with a cap-and-trade bill.

California’s leading the way. On its own, it’s going to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Oregon and Washington are planning similar actions to create the GHG emission inventories that will set emission benchmarks to measure reductions from. All three are members of the Western Climate Change Initiative to reduce regional GHG emissions. The Midwest has the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord and in the East, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

And, while the Senate debates cap-and-trade legislation, EPA will be calling the shots to reduce GHG emissions and force companies to reduce their carbon footprints.

EPA’s regulatory action is already underway. On New Year’s Day, facilities with large levels of direct carbon dioxide emissions — more than 25,000 metric tons a year — have to keep records of their 2010 GHG emissions. They start filing these GHG emission release reports with EPA in 2011.

In the spring, EPA will issue final Clean Air Act permitting rules, the so-called tailoring rule, to force facilities to reduce GHG releases when they build new facilities or modify existing plants.

This is in addition to EPA adopting GHG tailpipe emission standards for new cars and trucks.

One consolation: The U.S. retained its right to adopt border tariffs on imports from China and India if those countries fail to take concerted action to reduce their GHG emission levels.

Has the action (or lack of it) in Copenhagen had any effect on your company’s green plans? Share what’s going on in your area.

Have U.S. companies dodged a bullet now that the Copenhagen climate action summit ended without any mandatory agreements? Is it time to forget about going green?

Hardly.

The green push continues unabated, though you’d hardly know that if you read the environmental blogs or if you listen to the lamentations of companies salivating at the commissions they’ll make in the emission trading game.

As Richard Gledhill, head of carbon markets at PricewaterhouseCoopers, told the Wall Street Journal, “It’s very frustrating at this stage that we haven’t got a more-comprehensive agreement.”

But for most companies, the big dud that was Copenhagen merely means EPA and states, not Congress, are in charge of the U.S. effort to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. They’re not waiting around for Congress to come up with a cap-and-trade bill.

California’s leading the way. On its own, it’s going to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Oregon and Washington are planning similar actions to create the GHG emission inventories that will set emission benchmarks to measure reductions from. All three are members of the Western Climate Change Initiative to reduce regional GHG emissions. The Midwest has the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord and in the East, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

And, while the Senate debates cap-and-trade legislation, EPA will be calling the shots to reduce GHG emissions and force companies to reduce their carbon footprints.

EPA’s regulatory action is already underway. On New Year’s Day, facilities with large levels of direct carbon dioxide emissions — more than 25,000 metric tons a year — have to keep records of their 2010 GHG emissions. They start filing these GHG emission release reports with EPA in 2011.

In the spring, EPA will issue final Clean Air Act permitting rules, the so-called tailoring rule, to force facilities to reduce GHG releases when they build new facilities or modify existing plants.

This is in addition to EPA adopting GHG tailpipe emission standards for new cars and trucks.

One consolation: The U.S. retained its right to adopt border tariffs on imports from China and India if those countries fail to take concerted action to reduce their GHG emission levels.

Has the action (or lack of it) in Copenhagen had any effect on your company’s green plans? Share what’s going on in your area.

It’s looking doubtful now because Sen. James Webb (D-VA) is speaking out against pending cap-and-trade legislation, and he says he won’t support it. That’ll make it tough to get the 60 votes needed in the Senate to overcome Republican filibustering.

Webb announced this week he’s no fan of the bill from Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) that calls for a 20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

Webb’s possible defection and “no” vote against the pending cap-and-trade bill seems to offset the Republican’s lone supporter of cap-and-trade, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

The cap-and-trade idea is too complex, would create a costly government bureaucracy and eventually run the coal industry out of business, Webb says.

Plus, the Virginian predicts that the only winners in cap-and-trade will be all the middlemen in the trading game who will make all the money. Webb is not joining the global-warming denier crowd. He just seems to think the cap-and-trade bill won’t get the job done — the job meaning energy security.

Instead of spending all that cap-and-trade money on carbon reductions, Webb has a different idea. He wants the government to spend $10 billion to eventually $100 billion to help prop up the nuclear power industry. To do this, he and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) have proposed their own Clean Energy Act of 2009. Their use of terms like “clean” and “carbon-free” are generally euphemisms for nuclear power.

The Webb/Alexander proposal would also direct taxpayer money to study:

• carbon capture technologies
• non-ethanol biofuels
• electric vehicles and electrical storage
• cost-competitive solar power, and
• technology to reduce nuclear waste generation.

Webb and Alexander do not address greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. They say they hope to get their bill passed separately from the Boxer/Kerry climate change bill.

Note: The Webb/Alexander push to emphasize a nuclear option is echoed in a Graham/Kerry plan to expand nuclear power in the U.S. in exchange for creating the GHG cap-and-trade law.

Will the Democrats ever line up enough votes to get climate change legislation out of the Senate?

It’s looking doubtful now because Sen. James Webb (D-VA) is speaking out against pending cap-and-trade legislation, and he says he won’t support it. That’ll make it tough to get the 60 votes needed in the Senate to overcome Republican filibustering.

Webb announced this week he’s no fan of the bill from Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) that calls for a 20% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

Webb’s possible defection and “no” vote against the pending cap-and-trade bill seems to offset the Republican’s lone supporter of cap-and-trade, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

The cap-and-trade idea is too complex, would create a costly government bureaucracy and eventually run the coal industry out of business, Webb says.

Plus, the Virginian predicts that the only winners in cap-and-trade will be all the middlemen in the trading game who will make all the money. Webb is not joining the global-warming denier crowd. He just seems to think the cap-and-trade bill won’t get the job done — the job meaning energy security.

Instead of spending all that cap-and-trade money on carbon reductions, Webb has a different idea. He wants the government to spend $10 billion to eventually $100 billion to help prop up the nuclear power industry. To do this, he and Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) have proposed their own Clean Energy Act of 2009. Their use of terms like “clean” and “carbon-free” are generally euphemisms for nuclear power.

The Webb/Alexander proposal would also direct taxpayer money to study:

• carbon capture technologies
• non-ethanol biofuels
• electric vehicles and electrical storage
• cost-competitive solar power, and
• technology to reduce nuclear waste generation.

Webb and Alexander do not address greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. They say they hope to get their bill passed separately from the Boxer/Kerry climate change bill.

Note: The Webb/Alexander push to emphasize a nuclear option is echoed in a Graham/Kerry plan to expand nuclear power in the U.S. in exchange for creating the GHG cap-and-trade law.

That’s a question that has most of the GOP and all of the global warming denier crowd scratching their heads and feeling betrayed on a hot emotional issue. Graham supports the Obama administration’s plan to create a cap-and-trade program to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Recently, Graham joined with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) in a New York Times op-ed article to propose a radical compromise that would merge environmental and energy policies under the cap-and-trade banner.

The deal: Graham says the GOP will sign off on a climate change bill that would give environmentalists their holy grail, a GHG cap-and-trade program. In exchange, Kerry says the Democrats will accept expanding nuclear power, increasing oil and gas exploration offshore, and investing in clean coal technologies to capture carbon dioxide releases.

Kerry and Graham also support imposing a border tax on products from developing nations — India and China — if they refuse to match the U.S. effort to reduce GHG emissions.

Graham’s not ignoring business interests. The Kerry/Graham plan would also set maximum and minimum emission credit prices to ease the pain of the transition to low-carbon and clean energy sources like wind, solar and geothermal power.

Graham sees using the cap-and-trade bill as a vehicle to finally formulate a national energy policy that’s primarily designed to reduce American reliance on imported oil.

This story of strange bedfellows is more complicated that simple horse-trading.

It turns out that Graham thinks the planet is in peril due to global warming. As a Washington Post feature points out, Graham thinks it’s high time for the Republicans to stop pretending global warming is a hoax and admit that climate change is a real problem.

There’s a maverick streak in Graham as well. He has worked with Democrats in the past to find compromises on other hot button issues, including immigration reform, judicial nominations, terror trials and health care.

So far, Graham has been all alone in the GOP supporting a compromise on climate change legislation. But he says there are other conservative GOP senators who agree with him.  He says they’re just not ready to openly talk about it right now.

Meanwhile, Graham has been rebuked back home. The Charleston County Republican Party voted to censure the Senator “for many of the positions he has taken that do not represent the wishes of the people of South Carolina.” First on the list: passing a cap-and-trade energy bill.

What do you think about the Kerry/Graham deal? Is it time for Congress to work on a policy that solves an environmental and energy problem? Please share your thoughts in the comments section.

Woah, what is Senator Lindsey Graham up to? And why has this Southern conservative joined hands with Northern liberals to get global warming legislation through the Senate?

That’s a question that has most of the GOP and all of the global warming denier crowd scratching their heads and feeling betrayed on a hot emotional issue. Graham supports the Obama administration’s plan to create a cap-and-trade program to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Recently, Graham joined with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) in a New York Times op-ed article to propose a radical compromise that would merge environmental and energy policies under the cap-and-trade banner.

The deal: Graham says the GOP will sign off on a climate change bill that would give environmentalists their holy grail, a GHG cap-and-trade program. In exchange, Kerry says the Democrats will accept expanding nuclear power, increasing oil and gas exploration offshore, and investing in clean coal technologies to capture carbon dioxide releases.

Kerry and Graham also support imposing a border tax on products from developing nations — India and China — if they refuse to match the U.S. effort to reduce GHG emissions.

Graham’s not ignoring business interests. The Kerry/Graham plan would also set maximum and minimum emission credit prices to ease the pain of the transition to low-carbon and clean energy sources like wind, solar and geothermal power.

Graham sees using the cap-and-trade bill as a vehicle to finally formulate a national energy policy that’s primarily designed to reduce American reliance on imported oil.

This story of strange bedfellows is more complicated that simple horse-trading.

It turns out that Graham thinks the planet is in peril due to global warming. As a Washington Post feature points out, Graham thinks it’s high time for the Republicans to stop pretending global warming is a hoax and admit that climate change is a real problem.

There’s a maverick streak in Graham as well. He has worked with Democrats in the past to find compromises on other hot button issues, including immigration reform, judicial nominations, terror trials and health care.

So far, Graham has been all alone in the GOP supporting a compromise on climate change legislation. But he says there are other conservative GOP senators who agree with him.  He says they’re just not ready to openly talk about it right now.

Meanwhile, Graham has been rebuked back home. The Charleston County Republican Party voted to censure the Senator “for many of the positions he has taken that do not represent the wishes of the people of South Carolina.” First on the list: passing a cap-and-trade energy bill.

What do you think about the Kerry/Graham deal? Is it time for Congress to work on a policy that solves an environmental and energy problem? Please share your thoughts in the comments section.