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.

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.