May, 12 2010, 12:50pm EDT

Climate Bill Is a Misnomer: It's a Nuclear Energy-Promoting, Oil Drilling-Championing, Coal Mining-Boosting Gift to Polluters
Statement of Tyson Slocum, Director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program
WASHINGTON
After half a year of delay, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe
Lieberman (I-Conn.) are set to release their nuclear
energy/cap-and-trade bill today. Until we see legislative text, we can
comment only on the broad outline made available yesterday and an
additional summary being circulated among legislative staff.
It's not accurate to call this a climate bill. This is nuclear
energy-promoting, oil drilling-championing, coal mining-boosting
legislation with a weak carbon-pricing mechanism thrown in. What's
worse, it guts the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) current
authority to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air
Act.
Here's our take on what we know is in the new bill:
Nuclear Power Incentives
At its core, this legislation is all about promoting nuclear power
and handing taxpayers the bill. Consider:
- Sections 1101 and 1105 would prioritize the needs of nuclear power
corporations over the rights of citizens to have full, public hearings
about the risks and dangers of locating nuclear power plants in their
communities.
- Section 1102 increases loan guarantees primarily for nuclear power to a
jaw-dropping $54 billion. These loans are a terrible deal for the
taxpayer, especially considering the high risk of default that even the
government acknowledges.
- Section 1103 provides $6 billion in taxpayer-subsidized risk insurance
for 12 new nuclear reactors.
- Section 1121 allows nuclear power plant owners to write off their
depreciation much faster. Section 1121 provides a 10 percent investment
tax credit for new reactors.
- Section 1123 extends the Advanced Energy Project credit to nuclear
reactors.
- Section 1124-6 allows municipal power agencies to derive certain tax,
bond and grant benefits from investing in nuclear power.
Oil
Apparently oblivious to the ongoing disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, the
legislation expands offshore drilling. In fact, all new offshore
drilling, leasing and permitting should be halted.
Section 1202 allows states to keep 37.5 percent of oil and gas
royalty money. That's like saying because more rich people live in
California and New York compared to Mississippi and New Mexico, those
higher-income states should be able to keep more federal dollars raised
from income taxes. Royalty revenue sharing is patently unfair -
especially because the disaster in Gulf shows that an oil spill does not
respect state boundaries.
Coal
Section 1412 establishes a carbon tax paid by ratepayers and collected
by utilities to fund carbon capture and storage (CCS) - with no money
allocated to rooftop solar or energy efficiency investments. Section
1431 will provide valuable emissions allowances for free to coal
utilities pursuing CCS - an untested, risky strategy that benefits the
coal industry and is gobbling up a lion's share of subsidies that
otherwise could go to renewable energy development.
Merchant coal power plants (whose rates are not regulated) will get
roughly 5 percent of the free allowances, which will provide
opportunities for them to gouge consumers.
And while the nuclear and coal industries will receive a lot of
taxpayer money and loan guarantees, Section 1604 states that "voluntary"
renewable energy markets are "efficient and effective programs" and
states that "the policy of the United States is to continue to support
the growth of these markets." This is backward: Renewable energy should
be getting the guarantees, rather than the coal and nuclear industries.
Offsets
The legislation allows entities to "reduce" their domestic greenhouse
gas emissions by purchasing offsets from projects located in the U.S.
and around the world. The recent offset crisis in Europe, where the
offset market collapsed due to fraud, underscores the lack of
accountability and transparency with offsets.
Consumer Protections
Rather than follow President Barack Obama's cap-and-dividend plan, which
would have required polluters to pay and would have distributed 80
percent of the money directly to families through the Making Work Pay
tax credit, or the Cantwell-Collins CLEAR Act, which calls for
distributing monthly checks to households, the Kerry-Lieberman approach
relies on distributing valuable free allowances to utilities from
2013-2029, then requiring that utilities use the money "exclusively for
the benefit of the ratepayers." But Congress won't be defining
"benefit"; rather, 50 different state utility commissions will. Some
will do a great job, but most will allow utilities to structure
expensive energy efficiency programs that benefit shareholders more than
ratepayers.
It appears that Wall Street may not have gotten everything it wanted -
yet. The legislation appears to incorporate elements of S.1399,
sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), which creates an Office
of Carbon Market Oversight at the Commodities Futures Trading Commission
(CFTC), giving the agency authority to regulate spot and futures
emission markets. It requires all entities seeking to trade emissions
derivatives to register and be approved by the CFTC, and all
transactions must be cleared through a CFTC-regulated Carbon Clearing
Organization. This is a good start to ensure that Wall Street plays no
role in gambling on climate policy.
Danger remains, however, in creating carbon trading markets open to
non-energy producers. Strong regulations in place today may be easily
subverted tomorrow, leaving Wall Street positioned to control our
climate future.
Conclusion
The Kerry-Lieberman bill represents a missed opportunity. By meeting
behind closed doors, the lawmakers empowered corporate polluters to play
an oversized role in influencing the legislation to the detriment of
the climate and consumers. President Obama had it right when he
successfully campaigned on a theme of making polluters pay and
delivering benefits directly to households.
We need a bill that does not incentivize failed and dangerous
technologies like nuclear power and does not enrich utilities at the
expense of consumers.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
'Insane This Is Legal': Bettors Make Huge Profits From Suspiciously Timed Wagers on Iran War
"Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year."
Mar 01, 2026
Bettors on the prediction platform Polymarket made a killing with suspiciously timed wagers that the United States would attack Iran by February 28, the day President Donald Trump announced a bombing campaign against the Middle East nation.
Bloomberg reported that six accounts on Polymarket, all newly created this month, "made around $1 million in profit" by betting on the timing of the US attack on Iran. The accounts, according to Bloomberg, "had only ever placed bets on when US strikes might occur," and "some of their shares were purchased, in some cases at roughly a dime apiece, hours before the first explosions were reported in Tehran."
One account with the name Magamyman raked in over $515,000 by betting roughly $87,000 that the "US strikes Iran by February 28, 2026."
The lucrative bets quickly drew scrutiny from lawmakers. US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote on social media that "it’s insane this is legal."
"People around Trump are profiting off war and death," Murphy alleged. "I’m introducing legislation ASAP to ban this."
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) wrote that "prediction markets cannot be a vehicle for profiting off advance knowledge of military action" and demanded "answers, transparency, and oversight."
"Reminder that Donald Trump Jr. sits on Polymarket's advisory board and his firm invested double-digit millions into the platform last year," Levin wrote, referring to the president's eldest son. "The [Justice Department] and [Commodity Futures Trading Commission] both had active investigations into Polymarket that were dropped after Trump took office."
There's no concrete evidence that Trump administration officials or staffers were behind the hugely profitable bets, but the wagers heightened concerns about the possibility of insider trading using increasingly popular prediction market platforms such as Polymarket and Kalshi. Last month, bettors used Polymarket to make big profits on suspiciously timed wagers on when the US would oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Polymarket currently allows users to bet on when Iran will have a new supreme leader, when the US and Iran will reach a ceasefire agreement, and when the US will invade Iran.
The celebrity news tabloid TMZ reported Saturday that "a group at a Washington, DC restaurant was talking openly in the bar area Friday afternoon about a national secret that was about to literally explode hours later—the bombing of Iran."
As journalist David Bernstein noted, that—if true—leaves open the possibility that "these 'insider' bets have been placed by any rich person with good ears in DC."
"Not to mention that for all we know these administration clowns were probably gossiping about it on a text chain with half a dozen people they accidentally invited," Bernstein added. "This is hardly the locked lips brigade we’re dealing with."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Experts Pillory Trump Case for War on Iran: 'Flimsiest Excuse for Initiating a Major Attack' in Decades
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said one analyst.
Mar 01, 2026
Senior Trump administration officials attempted during a briefing with reporters on Saturday to make their case for the joint US-Israeli military assault on Iran that has so far killed hundreds and plunged the Middle East into chaos.
According to experts who listened to the briefing, which was conducted on background, the justification for war was incredibly weak. Daryl Kimball, president of the Arms Control Association, told Laura Rozen of the Diplomatic newsletter that the administration's argument was "the flimsiest excuse for initiating a major attack on another country without congressional authorization, in violation of the UN Charter, in many decades."
During his early Saturday remarks announcing the attacks, President Donald Trump claimed that "imminent threats from the Iranian regime" against "the American people" drove him to act. But Kimball said that administration officials "provided absolutely no evidence" to back that assertion during the briefing.
"What they posed as the threat they were trying to preempt—an attack by Iran against US forces—is so extremely implausible, it is also laughable," said Kimball.
Following the start of Saturday's assault, which Trump explicitly characterized as a war aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government, unnamed administration officials began leaking the claim that Trump feared an Iranian attack on the massive US military buildup in the Middle East, prompting him to greenlight the bombing campaign in coordination with Israel and with a nudge from Saudi Arabia.
Kimball, in a social media post, took members of the US media to task for echoing the administration's narrative. "Reporters need to do more than stenography," he wrote in response to Punchbowl's Jake Sherman.
"The American people were lied to about Iraq. The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Trump and top administration officials also repeated the longstanding claim from US warhawks that Iran is bent on developing a nuclear weapon, something Iranian leaders have publicly denied—including during recent diplomatic talks. Neither US intelligence assessments nor international nuclear watchdogs have produced evidence indicating that Iran is moving rapidly in the direction of nukes, as claimed by the administration.
Rozen noted that some remarks from administration officials during Saturday's briefing "suggested Trump’s negotiators"—a team that included Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff—"may not have had the expertise or experience to understand the Iranian proposal to curb its nuclear program." Rozen reported that one administration official kept misstating the acronym for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog.
Trump administration officials, according to Rozen, seemed astonished that Iranian negotiators would not accept the US offer to provide free nuclear fuel "forever" for Iran's peaceful energy development, viewing the rejection as a suspicious indication that Iran was opposed to a diplomatic resolution—even though, according to Oman's foreign minister, Iran had already made concessions that went well beyond the terms of the 2015 nuclear accord that Trump abandoned during his first stint in the White House.
Experts said it should be obvious—particularly given Trump's decision to ditch the previous nuclear accord—why Iran would not trust the US to stick by such a commitment.
The administration's inability to provide a coherent justification for war tracks with the rapidly shifting narrative preceding Saturday's strikes—an indication, according to some observers, that Trump had made the decision to attack Iran even in the face of diplomatic progress and left officials to try to cobble together a rationale after the fact.
In a lengthy social media post, Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth insisted war was necessary because Iran "refused to make a deal" and because the Iranian government "has targeted and killed Americans," hardly the claim of an imminent threat push by the president and other administration officials.
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, noted in response that the Trump administration has "sidelined anyone who could articulate... a coherent argument, partly because expertise is deep state and woke and partly because they just don't care."
The result is another potentially catastrophic war that runs roughshod over US and international law, puts countless civilians at risk, and threatens to spark a region-wide conflict.
"President Trump, along with his right-wing extremist Israeli ally Benjamin Netanyahu, has begun an illegal, premeditated, and unconstitutional war," US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement on Saturday. "Tragically, Trump is gambling with American lives and treasure to fulfill Netanyahu's decades-long ambition of dragging the United States into armed conflict with Iran."
"The American people were lied to about Vietnam. The American people were lied to about Iraq," Sanders added. "The American people are being lied to again today—and once again, it is ordinary people who will pay the price."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democratic Leaders Face Backlash Over 'Cowardly' Responses to Trump War on Iran
"As we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine."
Mar 01, 2026
The top Democrats in the US Congress, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, faced backlash on Saturday over what critics described as tepid, equivocal responses to President Donald Trump's illegal assault on Iran—and for slowwalking efforts to prevent the war before the bombing began.
While both Democratic leaders chided Trump for failing to seek congressional authorization and not adequately briefing lawmakers on the details of Saturday's attacks, neither offered a full-throated condemnation of a military assault that has killed hundreds so far, including dozens of children, and hurled the Middle East into chaos.
Schumer (D-NY)—who infamously worked to defeat the 2015 nuclear deal that Trump later abandoned during his first White House term, setting the stage for the current crisis—said he "implored" US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to "be straight with Congress and the American people about the objectives of these strikes and what comes next."
"Iran must never be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon," he added, "but the American people do not want another endless and costly war in the Middle East when there are so many problems at home."
Jeffries (D-NY), a beneficiary of AIPAC campaign cash, said in his response to the massive US-Israeli assault that "Iran is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism, and the threat it poses to our allies like Israel and Jordan in the region."
"The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective, and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East," said Jeffries.
The Democratic leaders' responses bolstered the view that their objections to Trump's attack on Iran are based on procedure, not opposition to war.
This is a disgusting and cowardly statement handwringing about process and the need for a briefing.
No you idiot. This war is a horror and a disaster and must be directly opposed. Any Democrat who can’t say that needs to resign and ESPECIALLY the ones in leadership. https://t.co/CdZoEyNkOy
— Krystal Ball (@krystalball) February 28, 2026
Claire Valdez, a New York state assemblymember who is running for Congress, said that "as we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine."
"Democrats should speak clearly and with one voice: no war," Valdez added.
Schumer and Jeffries both committed to swiftly forcing votes on War Powers resolutions in their respective chambers. But reporting last week by Aída Chávez of Capital & Empire indicated that top Democrats worked behind the scenes to slow momentum behind the resolutions, helping ensure they did not come to a vote before Trump launched the war.
"The preferred outcome of many AIPAC-aligned Senate Democrats, according to a senior foreign policy aide to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, is that Trump acts unilaterally, weakening Iran while absorbing the domestic backlash ahead of the midterms," Chávez wrote.
Neither Schumer nor Jeffries backed legislation last year aimed at forestalling US military intervention in Iran.
The top Democrats' responses to Saturday's US-Israeli attacks on Iran, which Trump said would continue "uninterrupted" even after the killing of the nation's supreme leader, contrasted sharply with statements of rank-and-file congressional Democrats—and even some members of leadership—who condemned the president for shredding the Constitution and driving the US into another deadly war that the American public opposes.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has been floated as a possible 2028 challenger to Schumer, said Saturday that "the American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions."
"This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic," said Ocasio-Cortez. "This is a deliberate choice of aggression when diplomacy and security were within reach. Stop lying to the American people. Violence begets violence. We learned this lesson in Iraq. We learned this lesson in Afghanistan. And we are about to learn it again in Iran. Bombs have yet to create enduring democracies in the region, and this will be no different."
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), a vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, was more blunt.
"Congress must stop the bloodshed by immediately reconvening to exert its war powers and stop this deranged president," she said. "But let’s be clear: Warmongering politicians from both parties support this illegal war, and it will take a mass anti-war movement to stop it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


