Views and debates on climate change policy
Home | Panelists | Staff Blog | RSS

Post Carbon

Burr, Chambliss introduce energy bill focused on natural gas, nuclear

While Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) struggle to build momentum for their climate and energy bill, two Republican senators on Thursday said they have offered an alternative focused on natural gas and nuclear power.

The bill likely faces an uphill battle for Democratic votes. Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said they had already sought out reaction from the nuclear industry, but had not begun trying to build support from other Senators.

Chambliss and Burr their bill chucks the idea of a cap-and-trade system to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. "We believe a bill that has climate as part of it probably doesn't move in the United States Senate," Burr said.

Instead, they said they want to reduce dependence on imported oil by giving truck manufacturers tax incentives to produce 18-wheelers that burn natural gas. If manufacturers switch over, the senators said, that would induce investments in the infrastructure needed to deliver natural gas to fueling stations around the country.

In addition, they said they would try to encourage the growth of nuclear power in the U.S. by increasing funding for loan guarantees. They would also have the federal government pay for the costs that nuclear plants incur while going through the lengthy permitting process.

"If we're paying for it, you think that it's probably going to be" faster? Burr said, referring to the federal permitting process.

The two also said they envision a new system of regional nuclear-waste storage sites, and a network of new facilities that would re-process spent fuel to make it less harmful.

By

David A. Fahrenthold

 |  June 24, 2010; 4:59 PM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Will Obama meeting next week break climate bill logjam? | Next: Issa report questions administration's spill response

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



=== http://www.smalltrade.net ===


Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16
New era cap $15
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25


==== http://www.smalltrade.net ====

Posted by: itkonlyyou154 | July 1, 2010 9:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

=== http://www.smalltrade.net ===


Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16
New era cap $15
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25


==== http://www.smalltrade.net ====

Posted by: itkonlyyou154 | July 1, 2010 9:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

=== http://www.smalltrade.net ===


Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16
New era cap $15
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25


==== http://www.smalltrade.net ====

Posted by: itkonlyyou154 | July 1, 2010 9:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

=== http://www.smalltrade.net ===


Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16
New era cap $15
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25


==== http://www.smalltrade.net ====

Posted by: itkonlyyou154 | July 1, 2010 9:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

=== http://www.smalltrade.net ===


Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16
New era cap $15
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25


==== http://www.smalltrade.net ====

Posted by: itkonlyyou154 | July 1, 2010 9:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

=== http://www.smalltrade.net ===


Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16
New era cap $15
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25


==== http://www.smalltrade.net ====

Posted by: itkonlyyou154 | July 1, 2010 9:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

=== http://www.smalltrade.net ===


Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16
New era cap $15
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25


==== http://www.smalltrade.net ====

Posted by: itkonlyyou154 | July 1, 2010 9:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

This does make more sense. This is a practical solution to energy whether the climate is warming or cooling.

Recent articles point out that scientists are studying the sun very closely due to declining magnetism, sunspots and the unexpected behavior during the last solar minimum.

If the Livingston and Penn 1992 study trend continues to hold that sunspots will disappear by 2015, it is very possible that a low cloud cover will occur over the northern hemisphere causing global dimming. Solar technology will be ineffective in that case.

Connections among cosmic rays, cosmic dust, the sun's magnetism, solar wind, cloud cover and the climate are being studied but the conclusions that may improve current climate models.

The models for warming may hold true for megacity heat islands, but reducing heat in these cities will not be helped by taxing people in Colorado, Wyoming, Indiana and Mississippi where the carbon dioxide/oxygen balance is more in equilibrium. Creating a carbon market in Chicago will not decrease the temperatures in these cities either. Restructuring cities, buildings and transportation is a local problem. It may be a shared problem with other big cities across the globe but the solutions are still local.

Solar and wind will not reduce the carbon footprint of airplanes expelling incomplete combustion products all across the atmosphere. High speed rail could help with that.

Nuclear can help with lessening a dependence on oil.

Posted by: Independent109 | June 27, 2010 12:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Finally, a sensible energy bill...one that focuses on providing energy rather than the Obama approach of destroying the companies that produce energy.

Posted by: JCM-51 | June 26, 2010 11:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment

One proposal involves finding better energy sources using known, proven technologies which are more abundant to us than oil. It will actually require doing something, and its success or failure will be apparent.

The other proposal involves taxing "evil corporations" because all Americans should feel guilty for breathing. Rather than changing energy consumption or availability, we will shuffle imaginary "carbon credits" and money around, while ultimately the same types and amounts of fuel will be burned. Its success or failure will be measured solely by the spin politicians put on it.

Which proposal makes more sense?

Which one do you think our current congress and president will choose?

Posted by: jeff20 | June 26, 2010 10:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Post a Comment


 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company