More on the Kerry-Boxer Climate Bill

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis and more, subscribe to Mother Jones' newsletters.


A few things changed in the proposed Senate climate bill between the leaked drafts I wrote about on Tuesday and the official release yesterday.

Most notable is the drop of any reference to China and India. An earlier draft would have required the head of the Environmental Protection Agency to give a a report to Congress each year on whether China and India have adopted greenhouse gas emissions standards “at least as strict as those standards required under this Act,” and if the administrator determines that China and India have not adopted standards, the administrator would be required to “notify each Member of Congress of his determination, and shall release his determination to the media.”

That’s completely absent from the final version the senators introduced on Wednesday. It’s an interesting development, as the provision was clearly meant to abate fears from some legislators that domestic carbon regulations without an comparable response from other nations would put us at a disadvantage globally.

Also, it’s important to note that the bill is officially Kerry’s—he introduced it “for himself and Mrs. Boxer”—and thus it should be the Kerry-Boxer bill, not the other way around. Boxer’s committee, Environment and Public Works, will be charged with marking up and moving the bill forward, but Kerry’s the name of record on the legislation. The bill is officially titled the “Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act,” or CEJAPA, which doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.

Bradford Plumer has an excellent rundown of all the ways that the Senate bill differs from the House legislation, most of which mirrors the leaked versions.

Reaction to the bill has been mostly positive in the environmental community so far, thanks in large part to the bill’s higher mid-term emissions target of 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and the restoration of the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Some acknowledged, though, that the bill will likely change significantly moving forward, and those tougher provisions might be the first on the chopping block. “I think that’s going to be a struggle,” said Dan Lashof, director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We’re going to be working hard for it.”

Other notable changes include the addition of provisions that would increase the use of natural gas and nuclear power, which was less popular, though seen as a way to attract votes. “I think the other provisions are designed to keep the bill balanced in terms of support across different sectors, and I think that that helps build support,” said Lashof.

“The nuclear stuff seems to me like not the best use of scarce taxpayer dollars, so we’ll keep working to make sure there’s more clean energy,” said Anna Aurilio, Washington director of Environment America. Aurilio was generally positive on the bill, though she also expressed some concerns about natural gas drilling, which the Kerry-Boxer bill also embraces, and its impacts on drinking water.

Also notable are the large blanks in some of the most contentious portions of the bill—on how pollution permits would be allocated and how revenues from the sale of permits would be allocated. The open-ended portions are meant to give the authors space to work with other senators to determine the figures that will get them to 60 votes (though it has also drawn criticism for being too vague).

“It’s a starting point. That appears to be how it’s written, in the best sense,” said Josh Freed, senior policy adviser of the Clean Energy Initiative at Third Way, who works closely with moderate Democrats on this issue. The “wiggle room,” as he put it, “invites engagement from the senators who need to be deeply involved.”

Thank you!

We didn't know what to expect when we told you we needed to raise $400,000 before our fiscal year closed on June 30, and we're thrilled to report that our incredible community of readers contributed some $415,000 to help us keep charging as hard as we can during this crazy year.

You just sent an incredible message: that quality journalism doesn't have to answer to advertisers, billionaires, or hedge funds; that newsrooms can eke out an existence thanks primarily to the generosity of its readers. That's so powerful. Especially during what's been called a "media extinction event" when those looking to make a profit from the news pull back, the Mother Jones community steps in.

The months and years ahead won't be easy. Far from it. But there's no one we'd rather face the big challenges with than you, our committed and passionate readers, and our team of fearless reporters who show up every day.

Thank you!

We didn't know what to expect when we told you we needed to raise $400,000 before our fiscal year closed on June 30, and we're thrilled to report that our incredible community of readers contributed some $415,000 to help us keep charging as hard as we can during this crazy year.

You just sent an incredible message: that quality journalism doesn't have to answer to advertisers, billionaires, or hedge funds; that newsrooms can eke out an existence thanks primarily to the generosity of its readers. That's so powerful. Especially during what's been called a "media extinction event" when those looking to make a profit from the news pull back, the Mother Jones community steps in.

The months and years ahead won't be easy. Far from it. But there's no one we'd rather face the big challenges with than you, our committed and passionate readers, and our team of fearless reporters who show up every day.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

We have a new comment system! We are now using Coral, from Vox Media, for comments on all new articles. We'd love your feedback.