NH Sens. Yeah and Nay on Global Warming Bill
WASHINGTON – New Hampshire Republican Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu uncharacteristically split their votes Thursday on what some environmental advocates called the most significant vote on global climate change in the Senate’s history.
The measure would have forced industries to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions to 2000 levels by the year 2010. It would also have allowed industries to buy and trade emissions credits to stay within the cap.
Gregg voted for the bill, which was sponsored by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn, and John McCain, R-Ariz, while Sununu voted against it. The bill failed, 43-55.
Some environmental experts have long argued that carbon dioxide is the leading cause of global climate change, commonly called global warming.
Many Republicans, including the Bush administration, have opposed government caps on carbon dioxide emissions on the grounds that it could unfairly harm the fossil fuel industry and damage an already struggling economy. The administration, which openly opposed the bill, prefers industry self-policing. Other opponents have challenged the science behind climate change, saying that there’s no proof any such thing as global warming exists.
U.S. Congressman Charles Bass, R-NH, introduced a bill in the House last month that would also impose a cap-and-trade system on a number of air pollutants emitted by power plants, including carbon dioxide. Gregg helped author a similar bill in the Senate.
And while it was widely believed that Lieberman’s and McCain’s bill would fail, environmentalists nonetheless hailed it as a victory simply because it forced Senators to go on record on carbon dioxide emissions and climate change. The last time the Senate voted on the issue was in 1997, when it voted 95-0 against supporting the controversial Kyoto Protocol.
“We would like to applaud Sen. Gregg for his support on this historic vote,” said Jan Pendlebury, a spokesperson with the New Hampshire office of the National Environmental Trust, an advocacy group that lobbied hard for the bill. “It’s a shame that Sen. Sununu still questions the science on global warming after so many government-funded studies have clearly indicated the association between human activity and increasing atmospheric carbon level.”
In a statement, Sununu said the bill and the strictures it would impose would not be cost- effective and could damage the economy.
“Enormous cost, minimal benefit. That’s the bottom line,” he said. “If we place harsh limits on CO2 emissions, energy costs for every American will go up. Meanwhile, China, Russia, Mexico and other countries are exempt [from the Kyoto Protocol], and when American manufacturing costs rise in order to comply with this bill, those jobs go overseas.”
He also said that climate change data supplied by the United Nations indicated that global temperatures would increases despite the bill’s caps.
In his own statement, Gregg said that the cap-and-trade strategy was economically sound and environmentally necessary to protect New Hampshire’s natural beauty.
“This amendment addresses the emission of greenhouse gases in a responsible and prudent way,” Gregg said. “The ‘cap and trade’ approach utilized in this amendment uses the market forces to achieve the most economical reduction in emissionsá.”
He added: “Without addressing the emissions from utilities, manufacturers and factories, New Hampshire will continue toá be known as the tailpipe of our nation.”
