Nuclear power provisions added to Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman’s (D-Conn.) global warming bill have led to an erosion of support from at least three key Democratic supporters.
Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) all said in interviews today that they will not vote for the McCain-Lieberman climate change legislation next week should it include $600 million in incentives for the construction of three new nuclear power plants. McCain and Lieberman added the provision to their mandatory cap-and-trade plan last month with the hope it would spur additional support for a measure that garnered 43 votes the last time it came up on the Senate floor in October 2003.
“I wish they hadn’t put that in there,” Cantwell said. While questioning whether any lawmaker would be enticed by the nuclear language, Cantwell added, “I think you might lose some people in the process.”
Said Boxer, “I would oppose the building of new nuclear power plants. You’re trading one problem for another.” Feinstein said she planned to raise the issue in discussions this week with McCain and Lieberman.
Senate floor debate on global warming amendments is expected next week as the chamber proceeds through a comprehensive energy bill. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said today that he remains in negotiations with the panel’s chairman, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), on a potential amendment with less aggressive limits on greenhouse gases than McCain-Lieberman.
And Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said she will cosponsor an amendment with Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) that steers clear of mandatory greenhouse gas cuts in favor of providing financial incentives for new technology that reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
McCain’s office did not return calls for comment on the prospect of losing key constituents on their climate bill. Several environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and U.S. PIRG, are urging McCain and Lieberman to offer the 2003 version of their bill rather than the package that contains the nuclear language.
The National Wildlife Federation will take either option. “We’d prefer a plan without nuclear, absolutely, but it’s time for the U.S. Senate to step up and say we cut global warming pollution,” said Jeremy Symons, head of the National Wildlife Federation’s climate change program.
Loading...