UPDATE 1-Sen. Kerry hints at changes in U.S. climate bill

Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:02pm EDT

* Kerry: no fuels tax in bill, may not have linked fee

* Fuel fee was supposed to be linked to carbon price (Adds quote from Kerry spokeswoman, paragraph 7)

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON, April 20 (Reuters) - U.S. Senator John Kerry, leading the drive for compromise climate change legislation, said on Tuesday his proposal would not contain any sort of motor fuels tax and could scrap an oil sector "fee" that has been discussed.

In recent weeks, government and industry sources have said the bill that Kerry and Senators Joseph Lieberman and Lindsey Graham plan to unveil next Monday would contain a "linked fee" in the transportation sector.

Such a fee, they said, would be linked to a mechanism for pricing carbon dioxide pollution permits in the electric power sector as part of a global warming bill.

Any new tax or fee could be a lightning rod for opposition from Republican and Democratic senators, especially those running for re-election this year and at a time when domestic gasoline prices are rising in a difficult economy.

Speaking to reporters, Kerry said: "There is not even a linked fee. There's not a tax, there's nothing similar."

Pressed for clarification about the fee, Kerry added, "Certainly not the way it was described previously, nothing like that." The Massachusetts Democrat refused to elaborate.

Kerry spokeswoman Whitney Smith told Reuters there was "progress" toward a compromise bill and that senators drafting legislation were "coming up with ways to tackle emissions sector by sector that haven't been tried before." She did not elaborate.

On Friday, a spokesman for Graham, a South Carolina Republican, issued a statement saying the senator "does not support a gas tax and the bill he is working on does not include gas tax." But the aide did not address whether a fee would be in the bill.

The bill authored by Kerry, Graham and Lieberman aims to reduce U.S. smokestack emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for global warming.

Expressing frustration with political opposition to such an effort, Kerry said, "They'll say anything, they'll lie and they'll distort."

The question of a new tax or fee being included in a climate bill has been a controversial issue because many Republicans have long dismissed climate control legislation as nothing more than a new tax on consumers, who would face higher energy prices when more expensive alternative energy like wind and solar power replace dirty-burning coal and oil.

Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, when asked about Kerry's upcoming bill, said: "There could be pieces in the bill we like, pieces we don't like. We don't like a national energy tax."

In an attempt to lure some additional Republican support for a climate bill, Kerry, Graham and Lieberman have been talking about expanding the nuclear power industry and offering new incentives for oil drilling off some U.S. coasts. (Reporting by Richard Cowan; Editing by Peter Cooney)

Bonds News
Bonds
Markets
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (4)
JohnFarmer wrote:
Maybe Kerry should think about sponsoring the financing of the next generation nuclear reactor like the one which he cut funding to right before it was going to prove its commercial viability. I thought it was quite ironic when said in this article, “they’ll say anything, they’ll lie and they’ll distort..” when referring to those who oppose renewable power.

On the Senate floor in 1994 old Kerry said this about EBR-II (a next generation nuclear reactor successfully built and demonstrated at Idaho National Laboratories) “An Expensive pork-barrel that poses serious environmental and proliferation risks”

I don’t see how a reactor that can run on U238 and produces a minuscule amount of a ceramic waste product that will lose all of its radioactive in less than 400 years can be called environmentally unfriendly.

Also, any nuclear engineer will tell you that proliferation does not become easier with an Integral Fast Reactor in fact it becomes harder because the fuel is in a closed loop that is producing to many gamma emissions to be easily handled especially in a highly technical separation process.

Old John Kerry also complained about the reactors safety when it was already proven that under the worst case scenarios even beyond Chernobyl where all personnel where killed the reactor would automatically shuts its self down.

If John would have supported the spending of just a few billion more back in 94 we would have hade a sizeable fleet of these reactors up and running. So John who is the real liar?

Thanks for nothing Mr. Kerry,

Jfarmer9

Apr 20, 2010 10:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
BrianJDonovan wrote:
Linked regional GHG cap-and-trade programs may be a better idea.

http://donovanlawgroup.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/regional-greenhouse-gas-cap-and-trade-programs-may-be-the-solution/

Apr 21, 2010 9:19am EDT  --  Report as abuse
CTF wrote:
The big change I’d like to see is the inclusion of a revenue-neutral carbon tax. It’s absolutely the best way to reduce gg emissions; it avoids the evasion and market manipulation of cap and trade while reducing emissions, incentivizes “green” R&D AND returns the revenue to families already struggling under the weight of the current economic downturn. I certainly hope that Congress pays attention and at least includes a carbon tax in the discussion.

Apr 21, 2010 9:31pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.
See All Comments »