Download The Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2005 S. 1151

The Climate Stewardship and
Innovation Act of 2005
S. 1151
Tess C. Barton
Environmental Policy
8 December 2005
History of Legislation

Climate Stewardship Act of 2003



Climate Stewardship Act of 2005



Introduced 22 June 2003
Voted down, 43-55
Introduced to Senate 10 February 2005 (S. 342)
Introduced to House 10 February 2005 (H. 579)
Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2005 (S. 1151)


Introduced 26 May 2005
Voted down, 38-60
Specifics of S. 1151










Sponsored by John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT)
Caps emissions of 6 GHGs at 2000 levels by 2010 and 1990 levels
by 2016
Subsidizes development of 3 Nuclear Power Plants
Establishes Flexible Mechanisms (up to 15%)
 Tradable Emissions, Carbon Sequestration, Non-Covered
Entities, Borrowing against future allowances
Establishes a National Greenhouse Gas Database
Establish standards for measurements for emissions
Establishes a Climate Change Credit Corporation- distribution of
funds for assistance
Includes fellowships and grants for research on climate change and
impacts
Incentives for cleaner technologies
Non-compliance results in penalty of 3 times market price of
allowances
Arguments

In favor of S. 1151

Most Environmental NGOs



Environmental Defense, National Resource Defense Council, African
American Environmentalist Association, National Wildlife Federation
Conference of Catholic Bishops
Opposed to S. 1151



Energy Sector
Oil Industry
Some Environmental NGOs- nuclear development

Minnesota Environmental Action Network
Strategies and Philosophies

Strategies




Re-introduction of same Act
Introduction of similar versions in House and Senate on
same day
Introduction of updated Act
Philosophies



Market-based Allocation (Flexible Mechanisms)
State-based Scientism (Government funded research)
Liberal Pluralism (Incorporation of different interests)
Conclusion
Great step toward proactive U.S. climate
policy
 Considers great number of interests
 Poor, Threatened wildlife, Farmers
 Flexible mechanisms- economic
consideration
 Research and educational development
 Nuclear development not necessary
