S.3036 - Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 Sponsor: Barbara Boxer / 110th Congress

Title
110th Congress - A bill to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other purposes. hidemore...
Summary
A bill to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other purposes. (by CRS)
Status
The bill has passed through committee and has been put on a legislative calendar.
Widget - share this info
Vote Date:
June 06, 2008
Motion:
Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Boxer Amdt. No. 4825
Location:
Senate
Result:
Fail
  • 48 Yes Votes100%
  • 36 No Votes75%
  • 16 Not Voting33.3333333333%
Showing contributions
Jan 2001-Oct 2008 Senate

Interests who did want this bill to become law (such as Aluminum mining/processing and Churches, clergy & religious organizations) gave an average of:

  • $309,373 to each legislator voting Yes
    100%
  • $296,480 to each legislator voting No
    95.8325998837%

Interests who did not want this bill to become law (such as Air freight and Air transport unions) gave an average of:

  • $120,186 to each legislator voting Yes
    38.8480700965%
  • $246,246 to each legislator voting No
    79.5952623027%

Contribution data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org)

Comments RSS feed

A good first step? by Peter Volberding, Jun 4, 2008 (2:26am)

The Climate Security Act of 2008 (S. 3036, but formerly S. 2191) has become the poster-child for convoluted and amended legislation. Through its many incarnations, the bill has changed significantly in some areas, especially regarding the (sometimes controversial) cap-and-trade policy. It is clear that, in an effort to become better stewards of the environment, the government must take a leading role in reducing carbon emissions. However, how strong of a role should that be? The constant compromising between environmental groups, government bodies, and private enterprise has resulted in a strange mix of legislation. As a result, environmental groups and businesses are split whether they oppose or support it—ultimately coming down to whether or not they benefit. The most interesting case is utilities, where coal-heavy producers (like Duke Energy) are disadvantaged to those with more alternative and nuclear energy (such as PG&E or FPL). Thus, the bill has become watered-down and corrupted, causing many groups (like Greenpeace) to call for the “fix it or ditch it” strategy—either the legislation is restored to full strength, or it should be axed and rewritten completely. In the end, this is the strongest piece of environmental legislation to make it through the process, and is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. The question now: is some legislation better than none, or should something as important as the environment never be compromised?

Reply to this comment
Reply to this comment close
[ Tags ]
[ Tags ] close
[ Spam ]
[ Spam ] close