webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Lieberman-Warner cli sec 2007

cap and trade

MERRI OK

---

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Climate_Security_Act_of_2007

America's Climate Security Act of 2007 was a global warming bill that was considered by the United States Senate to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted in the United States.[1] Also known as the Lieberman–Warner bill, bill number S. 2191, the legislation was introduced by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) on October 18, 2007. The bill was approved by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in December 2007, and was debated in the Senate during the week of June 2. 

The bill would create a national cap-and-trade scheme for greenhouse gas emissions, in which polluters would mostly be allocated right-to-emit credits based on how much greenhouse gas they currently emit.[2] The cap would get tighter over time, until by 2050, emissions would be reduced to 63% below 2005 levels. Several environmental groups expressed their encouragement at the progress in legislation on the global warming issue while at the same time expressing disappointment that the bill did not reduce emissions enough. On June 6, 2008, the bill was killed by Senate Republicans over worries that it would damage the economy.[3]

Bill summary

Bill progress

Subcommittee passage

On November 5, 2007, the Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions approved the measure, and recommended it to the full Committee on Environment and Public Works. During the subcommittee hearing, Sen. Bernard Sanders tried unsuccessfully to modify substantial portions of the bill, with only one proposed amendment accepted. He had attempted to "strengthen the auction of pollution allocations, lower the cap on emissions, earmark subsidies for renewable energies, demand accountability from the auto industry, and diminish industry's capacity to stall simply by buying carbon offsets."[7]

Approval in Environment and Public Works Committee

Warner joined Democrats and Lieberman in approving the legislation on December 5, 2007, following a day of debate in the Environment and Public Works Committee.[8] According to one report, Republican Sens. Jim Inhofe (Okla.) and Larry Craig (Idaho) offered 150 amendments to the act.[9] In addition, The Mercury News reported that opponents "failed to amend the bill with a provision that would end the emissions caps unless China – about to become the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases – adopted similar restrictions within 10 years." Inhofe said the bill would cost 2.3 million jobs during the next 10 years.[10] The committee approved the legislation by an 11–8 vote.

On the Senate floor

On June 2, 2008, the bill's first day on the Senate floor, a cloture vote to override a possible filibuster passed 74–14. The remainder of the day was devoted to debating the start and length of the debate, for which Republicans wished to allot the maximum 30 hours before amendments could begin to be introduced.[11]

The days before the vote had been marked by parliamentary maneuvers and bitter accusations over divergent estimates of the bill's future costs. On June 4, a group of GOP senators asked that the clerk of the Senate read the entire 491-page bill aloud, an extremely rare request. That took more than 10 hours.

On June 6, 2008, the bill, which had bipartisan support, fell a dozen votes short of the 60-vote threshold it needed to overcome a GOP filibuster and move to final consideration. The 48–36 vote for the climate bill came after bitter debate in which opponents charged that it would damage the U.S. economy and drive up gasoline and other energy prices. Democratic supporters of the measure accused Republicans of spreading misinformation about it.

The legislation collapsed for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the poor timing of debating a bill predicted to increase energy costs while much of the country is focused on$4-a-gallon gas. On top of that, a number of industrial state Democrats like Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio were uncomfortable with the strong emissions caps that would have created a new regime of regulations for coal, auto and other manufacturing industries. Republicans, for the most part, held firm against a bill they said would cost billions in regulations while pushing the cost of gas higher.Seven Republicans, mostly moderates, voted for the procedural motion on the legislation while four Democrats voted against it.

Amendments

Amendments sponsored by Republican Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.) address two common criticisms of the Climate Security Act: that it fails to include a way to offset increased costs for American citizens, and that it allows for the use of carbon offsets.[12]

Reaction

An October 25, 2007 editorial in the Los Angeles Times [artl? op-ed? by?] stated, "Cap-and-trade is... an extremely complex mechanism that presents irresistible opportunities for cheating and profiteering that would deeply compromise its effectiveness... Congress should be focusing on simple carbon taxes that would assess polluters for the cost of their environmental damage and offset the resulting economic loss by lowering other taxes... Currently, about a quarter of the credits would be auctioned and the rest given away. Passing out free carbon allowances that are potentially worth billions of dollars makes it almost inevitable that politicians will unfairly divvy up the spoils among their supporters. If credits are allocated based on historical emissions, those who have polluted the most in the past end up being rewarded while green projects get little or nothing. All the credits should instead be auctioned, thus leveling the playing field..."[13]

On January 8, 2008, the Washington Post editorialized, "The Lieberman-Warner measure, an amalgamation of several other climate-change bills worked on in the Senate last year, deserves a vigorous debate. The implications it would have for the economy and the American people demand it. Such a discussion, combined with the action and debate over the House–Senate energy bill signed by President Bush last month, would demonstrate a level of urgency and engagement in Congress that has not been matched at the White House. The president's thinking on global warming has evolved over time, but he still balks at legally binding limits on carbon dioxide emissions, either through international agreements or the Lieberman-Warner bill. That shouldn't stop Congress from pushing ahead with legislation that would signal that the United States is ready to be an active part of the response to climate change." ^[14]

In a June 1 article in the Washington Post, CEO of Duke Energy, Jim Rogers, stated "This is just a money grab. Only the mafia could create an organization that would skim money off the top the way this legislation would skim money off the top."[15]

Some groups and lawmakers remained skeptical that the bill would do enough to curb emissions. A representative of the Union of Concerned Scientists said the bill was a "strong foundation" but, expressed a desire for tougher measures:

If we are to have a fighting chance to avoid the worst effects of climate change, the United States has to cut emissions by 80 percent from current levels by the middle of the century.[10]

President Bush issued a statement on June 2 pledging to veto the bill, stating that it is too strong, and "potentially a mere floor" for carbon emissions reductions.[16]

On CNN on June 3, Van Jones, green jobs advocate, represented the environmental community's stance on the bill, saying "We like it, but we don't love it...it underestimates the inventiveness and innovation of the American people"[17]

Economic impact

The Energy Information Administration forecasts real Gross Domestic Product to be between 0 and 1% lower in 2030 as compared with the reference scenario.[18][19]

References

===

CRA BS study 1700$/family/yr

inhofe cost claim in wiki: Inhofe said the bill would cost 2.3 million jobs during the next 10 years.[10

[[NYT  Senate Panel Passes Bill to Limit Greenhouse Gases

By John M. Broder

Dec. 6, 2007

WASHINGTON, Dec. 5 — A Senate committee approved a broad bill on Wednesday night to address climate change, a major step toward passage of a measure that would for the first time slow and then reverse emissions of the gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet.

The Environment and Public Works Committee split largely along party lines on the bill, which calls for a roughly 70 percent cut from 2005 levels by 2050 in the production of carbon dioxide and other climate-altering pollutants.

...]]

Case Study: Koch Organizations Instrumental in Dissemination of ACCF/NAM Claims

The Koch web is playing a role in promoting studies that exaggerate the costs of climate policy. In 2008, the Koch-web-funded American Council on Capital Formation (ACCF) teamed up with the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) to sponsor and disseminate a study of the economic impact of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.Every step of the way, Koch-funded anti-clean energy groups played a key role in moving the NAM/ACCF study in the media and at the grassroots level.

---

Boxer support

---

“API has been a member of at least five organizations that have promoted disinformation about fossil-fuel products to consumers, including the Global Climate Coalition, Partnership for a Better Energy Future, Coalition for American Jobs, Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth, and Alliance for Climate Strategies.

---

---

morano?

October 17, 2008

LCVs Environmental Scorecard Marred by Partisan Politics, Inhofe Says
Inhofe Fought LCV Agenda Which Would Have Driven Up Costs On Oklahoma Families

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, today commented on the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) 2008 National Environmental Scorecard. One of the three votes used by the LCV to score Senators was on the Lieberman-Warner bill (S. 2191). The Lieberman-Warner bill would have increased household costs for every family of 4 in Oklahoma by $3,298. Because of the rising cost of home heating and electricity, the average increase per U.S. household will be$1,740 per year by 2020, according to Charles River Associates. Further, Lieberman-Warner would increased costs at the pump. Read more about the high cost of Lieberman-Warner on Oklahoma.

"The LCV is one of the most liberal partisan special-interest groups that make up the Democratic Party," Senator Inhofe said. "It should come as no surprise that I and many fellow Republicans have never received high marks from thisWashington, D.C., liberal special-interest group. LCV simply measures the greenness of politicians by how many federal laws they impose on the American people.

"I released a report in September that details how LCV is a funding arm of the Democratic Party. LCV takes donations given to ‘save the environment' and uses them to fund ads for Democratic candidates such as Ben Lujan from New Mexico. LCV, similar to other groups highlighted in my comprehensive funding report,disguises itself as an environmental group dedicated to saving the environment, yet it is simply an extension of the Democratic political party.

"LCV erroneously claimed that thefailed Lieberman-Warner global warming cap-and-trade bill of June 2008 saw its ‘debate cut short' by opponents. In reality, Senators who opposed the doomed bill were eager for the debate to continue while the bill's sponsors wanted the bill to die a quick death [Reid manuever?] .The fact is, Lieberman-Warner would have driven up costs on American families and would have put thousands of Americans out of work.

"In addition, LCV claimed that 54 U.S. Senators ‘supported taking action' with thefailed cap-and-trade climate tax bill. LCV should check its math, as nearly 30% of Senate Democrats opposed the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill. In the end, Senator Boxer only had at most 35 Democratic Senators willing to vote for final passage on the largest tax bill in U.S. history. TheBoxer Climate Tax Bill was so thoroughly disowned by Democratic Leadership that proponents of climate taxes will now be forced to start from scratch next year."

Related Links:

The High Cost of Lieberman-Warner on Oklahoma Families

We Don't Need a :{Climate Tax on the Poor:(style="background-color:#ffff66ff"):}: (Senator Inhofe, The Wall Street Journal)

[Inhofe Report Exposes Environmental Groups as ‘Massive Democratic Political Machines' - September 25, 2008](http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=9A6B3E3D-802A-23AD-4B28-ACE55E0CC516 "http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=9A6B3E3D-802A-23AD-4B28-ACE55E0CC516

blocked::http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=9A6B3E3D-802A-23AD-4B28-ACE")

[Weblink to Inhofe's full 2008 report: Political Activity of Environmental Groups and their Supporting Foundations](http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=142d595f-411a-4057-b495-029a095fe25f "http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=142d595f-411a-4057-b495-029a095fe25f

blocked::http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=142d595f-411a-4057-b495-029a095fe25f

http://epw.senate.gov/pu")

[Follow up to Report:  Defenders of Wildlife's Partisan & Misleading Ads on Aerial Wolf Hunt - October 15, 2008](http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=0269a868-802a-23ad-46c9-95deeefa13d6 "http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=0269a868-802a-23ad-46c9-95deeefa13d6

blocked::http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=0269a868-802a-23ad-46c9-95deeefa13d6

http://e")

[INHOFE DISMISSES LCV'S ATTACK AS "WASHINGTON POLITICS AT ITS WORST" - September 9, 2007](http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=869C4169-802A-23AD-4F5F-6BA3C37FDFE6 "http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=869C4169-802A-23AD-4F5F-6BA3C37FDFE6

blocked::http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=869C4169-802A-23AD-4F5F-6BA")

[Boxer's Math Does Not Add Up: Letter Reveals 10 Democratic Senators Opposed Climate Tax Bill  - June 6, 2008](http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5F9C951D-802A-23AD-4C15-0D6261356020 "http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5F9C951D-802A-23AD-4C15-0D6261356020

blocked::http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5F9C951D-802A-23AD-4C15-0D6261356020

http://e")

[Inhofe: Dems Running on Empty -Oped in Human Events - June 16 , 2008](http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=91BCFE7A-802A-23AD-409F-F852F0C562E9 "http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=91BCFE7A-802A-23AD-409F-F852F0C562E9

blocked::http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=91BCFE7A-802A-23AD-409F-F852F0C562E9

http:/")

---

  1. ### America's *Climate Security Act* of 2007 - Wikipedia, the free **...

en.wikipedia.org/.../America's_ClimateSecurityAct_of_200...‎

Contents

  [hide] 

Wikipedia

The America's Climate Security Act of 2007 was a global warming bill that was considered ... Also known as the Lieberman-Warner bill, bill number S. 2191, the  ...

Bill Summary - ‎Bill Progress - ‎Reaction - ‎Economic Impact

  1. ### Lieberman*-*Warner Climate Security Act* of 2008 (2008; 110th **...*

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/**bill**s/110/s3036‎

GovTrack

May 20, 2008 - A bill to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to ... S. 3036 (110th): Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008.

  1. ### Why the :(style="background-color:#ffffffff"):}:*Climate Bill*:{ Failed - :(style="background-color:#ffffffff"):}::{TIME

content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1812836,00.html

pooley

  1. When the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act — the strongest global warming bill ever to make it to the Senate floor — died last Friday after a nasty, brutish and short debate, most environmental groups found reason to be cheerful. "We have taken comprehensive global warming legislation farther than it has ever gone before," National Resources Defense Council president Frances Beinecke wrote on her blog. "A national limit on global warming pollution is inevitable."

The inevitability argument goes like this: Most Americans want action on climate change, and many important figures from the business, religious and national security communities have stepped forward with urgent calls as well. The Supreme Court has ruled that the EPA can regulate carbon emissions, and the presidential candidates favor a mandatory cap. So it's just a matter of time before Congress gets the job done, right?

Inevitability is a nice talking point — it signifies confidence and momentum — but, alas, it isn't true. In Washington, nothing is inevitable except the humidity. In the early 1990s, people liked to say it was just a matter of time before Congress passed health care reform, and here we are 15 years later, still waiting. If we're still waiting for serious climate legislation even 10 years from now, our chance to avert catastrophe will be gone.

I'm not suggesting that climate legislation is beyond reach. In fact, I agree with Beinecke and others who think it's likely that President Obama or McCain will take action. Presidential leadership was the missing ingredient in the bill that just crashed and burned, but getting a good bill through Congress is no sure thing even when the President is engaged. And calling climate legislation inevitable is risky because it implies that the current tactics are working just fine and that a cap on carbon will be achieved as part of the natural course of events in Washington, without a titanic struggle or a new approach or the active involvement of the American public. Some of the best political minds in the field — Al Gore, for one — believe that getting this done is going to require both a massive change in the way Washington does business and the active intervention of a large, loud citizen army. Neither of those developments is inevitable.

To be fair, no one ever called Lieberman-Warner itself inevitable. Sponsored by Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Republican John Warner of Virginia,and taken to the floor by DemocratBarbara Boxer of California, the liberal chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the bill was never given much chance of passage. Its carbon-reduction targets were tougher than the business community wanted, but not as tough as many greens demanded. And it was complicated, even bloated — it would have raised $6.7 trillion over 40 years by auctioning global warming pollution permits, using great gobs of that money to buy off various interest groups. But it was significant just the same, because its six-month-long journey from environment and public works committee to Senate floor helped force some reluctant Senators to begin thinking seriously about the issue. Boxer calls the result "a road map [for] the next President, so he knows where are the consensus areas and where are the difficult areas."

It would have taken a truly great floor debate to begin resolving some of those difficult areas — a half dozen thorny deal-breakers (how to contain costs, what to do about China) that need to be figured out before any such bill can pass. But not much of that table setting took place last week, because the debate never made it past the partisan bickering and economic fear mongering. Lieberman-Warner was strangled in its crib, because moderate Democrats weren't ready to go this far, because Boxer and the enviros weren't willing to compromise on their core issues, and because the opponents of global warming legislation remain strong, even though their favorite old tactic, denying the science of global warming, has been all but abandoned.

Just about every Senator who spoke last week, Democrat and Republican alike, wanted to be on record saying that climate change is real and must be dealt with. But far too few were willing to debate the solutions to the crisis, because the opposition has found a new, well-fortified position. It argues that the U.S. can't adopt a cap on carbon emissions (at least not this one) because it would drive up energy prices and wreck the economy.

In fact, the Republican leadership spent last week trying to create not just a new litmus test for climate action but a new third rail for American politics: It wants any climate bill that causes the slightest increase in energy prices to be seen as a non-starter. " [this ploy worked against Kyoto and several times since?] 

Lieberman-Warner, like any cap-and-trade bill, would increase the cost of energy derived from fossil fuels while giving clean, alternative energies an enormous boost. In other words, it would drive up gasoline prices and coal-powered electricity rates in the short term (though by smaller amounts than the doomsayers were claiming last week) while delivering far greater energy savings over the long term — by unleashing a clean energy economy that creates jobs and helps free the U.S from dependence on foreign oil.

That's a deal worth taking: a two-cent-per gallon increase in gasoline prices each year between now and 2030, according to an EPA report, in return for deep reductions in gasoline consumption. But with gasoline at $4 a gallon and rising, this was a terrible time to ask panicky voters to think about such a deal. And the Republican leaders were only too happy to exploit the high cost of energy. A G.O.P. strategy memo made public by Democratic leader Harry Reid summarized it this way: "The goal is for a theme (example: climate bill equals higher gas prices) each day, and the focus is much more on making political points than in amending the bill... or affecting policy."

Republican leader Mitch McConnell had an amendment ready that would suspend the bill if it caused gasoline prices to rise by any amount. If that amendment ever went to a vote, it would force the bill's supporters to come out in favor of higher gas prices, and the Republican TV attack ads would produce themselves. No wonder moderate Dems wanted Reid to ditch the bill. At a meeting of Senate Democratic legislative directors, on Monday, June 2 — the day the Senate took up the bill — staffers were howling that Reid and Boxer were leading their bosses into the Valley of Death, forcing debate on a bill that didn't have the votes to pass, one that Republicans would soon be calling the "Boxer Climate Tax Bill" and "the largest tax increase in history" even though it offered nearly $1 trillion in tax cuts to help people pay for rising energy costs.

Reid brought the bill to the floor despite the exquisitely bad timing because climate change is his top domestic priority and because the issue won't be any easier to debate when a gallon of gasoline costs $5 or $6. Barack Obama was busy clinching the nomination and didn't show up for the debate (neither, for that matter, did John McCain). So, for the first couple of days of the fiasco, as the Republicans deployed parliamentary delay tactics and trotted out bogus studies that "proved" the bill would wreck the economy, the story line seemed to be this: What excuse would Reid use to get this bill off the floor?

Then McConnell overplayed his hand, forcing four beleaguered Senate clerks to read the entire 492-page climate bill into the record on Wednesday night — an eight-hour ordeal that unfolded as a wild electrical storm crashed through the Washington area. Twisters touched down here and there, rain lashed the hot streets in wicked sheets, and giant lightning bolts arced through the sky near the Capitol dome. Scientists caution that no single storm can be linked to climate change, but if ever there was heavy weather sent down by angry climate Gods, this must have been it. "It should give Senators pause," said Reid, and then he filed for a procedural vote to break the Republican filibuster. He had found his way out of the Valley of Death. "  McConnell sent flowers to the clerks who had to read the bill aloud," says one Democratic policy adviser. "But Reid should have sent flowers to McConnell."

The Republicans had reason to want the debate over as well. They had managed to line up in a circular firing squad, since a number of G.O.P. senators, including Mel Martinez of Florida, Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, and the party's standard-bearer, John McCain, support the cap-and-trade approach if not this bill in all its details. And some Republicans find themselves in tough reelection battles in states where voters take the climate crisis very seriously — John Sununu of New Hampshire, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Gordon Smith of Oregon — and don't like being associated with delay tactics.

When Reid's procedural vote finally came, on Friday morning, 48 Senators voted to move ahead with the debate, and 36 voted against. Boxer was happy to claim that a total of 54 were in favor of moving ahead — because six absent Senators, including Obama, McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Ted Kennedy, had written letters saying they would have voted in favor had they been present. Fifty-four would have been significant— the first time a majority of Senators voted for climate action. But 48 is the number in the Congressional Record, and it only got that high because 10 moderate Democrats who would have voted against the bill cut a deal with Reid: nine of them voted for the procedural motion to help their party save face, then they published a letter explaining why they didn't support the bill.

That detail was overlooked in the cheerful post-vote statements of the green groups. But that's not surprising; it's their job to be optimistic and keep pushing and pushing and pushing. So they pointed to a hopeful sign: 10 Senators who had never before supported cap-and-trade legislation voted for Reid's attempt to move the bill forward. That was good news by any measure. But it would be a stretch to call it a sign of inevitability. This is a war, and in war, the outcome is never preordained.

  1. Any action should not raise the cost of gasoline or energy to American families," said Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, the longtime leader of the denial-and-delay crowd, and his words were echoed by many others. That's an impossible standard to meet, and if the Republicans succeed in establishing it, Congress may never get this done.
  2. Jun 9, 2008 - When the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act — the strongest global warming bill ever to make it to the Senate floor — died last Friday  ...
  3. ### Bill* Summary & Status - 110th Congress (2007 - 2008) - S.2191 **...*

hdl.loc.gov › THOMAS Home › Bills, Resolutions‎

Library of Congress

Latest Title: Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007. Sponsor: Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] (introduced 10/18/2007) Cosponsors (11) Related Bills: S.

  1. ### (Historical): The *Climate Security Act*, aka the *Lieberman*-*Warner* Bill

www.nrdc.org/.../liebwarner.asp‎

Natural Resources Defen...

NRDC: In June 2008, the U.S. Senate had a historic opportunity to pass the Climate Security Act (commonly called the Lieberman-Warner bill) and address the ...

  1. [PDF]

The Economics of America's *Climate Security Act* of 2007: (S.2191 **...

www.inhofe.senate.gov/download/?id=a38e431a-1bd7...‎

Jim Inhofe

May 14, 2008 - America's Climate Security Act (Lieberman-Warner), is enacted into law. Such policy will require a complete economic overhaul with  ...

  1. [PDF]

Lieberman*-*Warner Climate Security Act* - S. 2191 Summary of **...*

www.c2es.org/docUploads/Pew-S2191-Summary-12-05-2007.pdf‎

Dec 5, 2007 - The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (L-W CSA) would establish a cap-and-trade program within the. United States requiring a 70% ...

  1. ### Legistlative Analysis | *Climate* Change | US EPA

www.epa.gov/climatechange/EPAactivitie...‎

United States Environme...

Legislation: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454). Analysis: The Effects ... Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 (March 2008)  ...

  1. ### The *Lieberman*-*Warner* America's *Climate Security Act*: A **...

nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/climate/.../the-...‎

Nicholas Institute for Envir...

Aug 2, 2007 - On August 2, 2007 Senator Lieberman and John Warner (R-VA) introduced a framework for Lieberman-Warner America's Climate Security Act ...

---