After months of deliberations, Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (DMA) have unveiled climate change legislation that they hope will be the vehicle for broader Senate negotiations and eventual melding with a bill that recently passed the House by several votes.

Kerry and Boxer said they have no pretensions that their bill will be the final product as both called it a starting point in an effort to gain the support of moderates and conservatives from both parties.

The Senate bill is fashioned in large part off H.R. 2454, legislation narrowly approved in June by the House. Senate Democratic aides say they expect the legislation to divert from the House bill’s 17 percent emissions reduction target for 2020 and go with a more aggressive 20 percent reduction. The bill is silent on exactly how the Senate should divide up emission allowances.

Several Democratic senators working outside of the Boxer-Kerry camp said the bill will need a lot of work and that their ideas would be worked into the legislation at a later date. They did not expect the Boxer-Kerry bill to include language adopted in the House that attempts to assist energy-intensive manufacturing industries, including steel, pulp, paper, and cement.
However, Boxer and Kerry are reportedly not dismissive of potentially including House language on manufacturing.

Other senators noted their concerns on issues related to agriculture, offsets, and energy intensive industries were not addressed in the initial draft.

A number of organizations and groups have come out against the House and Senate climate legislation, saying it will threaten American families with higher energy prices, job losses and other long-term damage to the nation’s economy. Critics claim the legislation would also result in higher food and transportation costs and force more of the nation’s ailing manufacturing base overseas, causing additional ripples through the economy.

Some groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say they do not oppose efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions, but warned that the House-approved legislation is highly flawed and will seriously hurt the economy.

Meanwhile, the global consulting firm, CRA International, warned Alaska will take a big hit if Congress passes a climate bill similar to the House bill, which passed by a 219-212 margin. According to the CRA study, Alaska stands to lose as many as 13,000 jobs and the average household could see its annual expenses increase by as much as $3,890.

The study shows that nearly 7,700 jobs in Alaska would be wiped out by 2015. By 2030, 13,000 jobs would be lost. The state’s economic growth would be slowed by the House bill as the estimated gross state product would decline by 0.7 percent in 2015 and by 2.6 percent in 2030, CRA said.

The economic toll of the bill would also lead to a reduction in Alaska state revenue from tax receipts. Tax revenues would shrink by $150 million in 2015 and by $270 million in 2030.

The CRA analysis concluded that the House bill would result in at least 2 million job losses nationwide and would lead to a 1.3 percent decline in the national gross domestic product in 2030.

The Obama administration has concluded that the bill would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, equivalent to hiking personal income taxes by 15%. The Department of Treasury analysis revealed that at the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year. Other estimates range as high as $3,000 a year.

A study by the National Black Chamber of Commerce showed the bill would cut employment by 1.5 to 3.6 million people.

Return to newsletter headlines