Editorials Say Senate Climate Bill Good Move in Right Direction

The New York Times, in an editorial published today, said the Senate was "paralyzed by partisanship" and "hobbled by indifferent leadership" in its efforts to sort through a new energy and climate bill. Wrote the Times: "You don't have to look far for proof that this country must cut its dependence on fossil fuels and develop cleaner sources of energy. It can be found in the oil-slicked Gulf of Mexico. It can be found in China's aggressive efforts to win the global competition for green technologies and green jobs. And, most urgently, it can be found in the inexorable math of accumulating greenhouse gas emissions."

The Times said the latest offering from Sens. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., and Joseph I. Lieberman, I-Conn., represented "a good but far from perfect bill…that would at least point the country in the right direction. For the first time, it would set a price on carbon emissions that are now dumped without penalty into the atmosphere. A price signal is an essential prerequisite for reducing emissions and for shifting American industry to cleaner, less polluting sources of energy."

The Christian Science Monitor, in its editorial on energy published today, wrote: "Carbon-spewing industries that want market certainty for energy prices but also seek loopholes in energy bills cannot have it both ways. In case global warming is all too real, the stakes are too high to play the kind of risky political games normally played in Washington. If anything, the Kerry-Lieberman bill needs stiffer, more certain measures."

The Economist, in its editorial published today, noted that while the legislation carries the name "The American Power Act," its title alone obscures an important fact: "It is still a cap-and-trade bill that seeks to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 17 percent on 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent by 2050. Many Republican senators still consider this a job-killing energy tax. Messrs Kerry and Lieberman have tried to be generous, and aides called the bill an invitation to further negotiation. But any change that can win one vote may lose another."