U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski gave her annual address to the Alaska Legislature today, and she sort of talked about climate change. She touted the benefits of renewable energy (and said Alaska should emulate Iceland), but not in the context of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Then she talked about climate change, but only in the context of supporting more research into it. It was all kind of vague, too.
This was a little puzzling because Murkowski has been a champion of federal regulation of carbon emissions, and the one of our three federal lawmakers that's been most receptive and active on the issue (with Sen. Ted Stevens coming in second). Maybe it had something to do with the audience.
After her speech, Murkowski had a little press conference, and I asked her whether she expected to see some kind of carbon regulation in the next few years and what it would mean for Alaska.
Here's what she said.
First, there's the Warner-Lieberman bill, which will generate a lot of talk in the next few months. It'll probably get debated for a week or two on the Senate floor, then pulled back by the Senate president until the next session. "There is some momentum for it, but it's also extremely controversial."
Second, there's the Bingaman-Specter bill, which Murkowski and Stevens have both signed on to. It's a little less strict than the Warner-Lieberman bill in that it has a "release valve" if the costs of regulating carbon get out of hand, and it has money for adapting to climate change (lots for Alaska).
Bingaman and Warner aren't exactly united on this whole thing, and there's tension there.
Among lawmakers, some want to keep the (relatively strict) Warner plan intact, while others argue it would be too onerous. Some say passing a bill while Bush is president would make it more acceptable to industry. But then again, Bush might just veto any of the bills.
To wrap up, Murkowski said she didn't think anything would pass this year.
She didn't talk about what either proposal would mean for Alaska, but I think she just forgot, and I didn't follow up.
Here she is with a 63-pound king.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
wow. that's a big fish.
Post a Comment