Washington (CNN) -- Two leading senators on Wednesday introduced a sweeping energy and climate change bill intended to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and reshape the energy sector for the 21st century.

Sens. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, and Joe Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut who sits with the Democratic caucus, said the proposal offered a broad-based approach that would end the nation's dependence on foreign oil while keeping U.S. industry competitive.

"The American Power Act will finally change our nation's energy policy from a national weakness into a national strength," Kerry said in a prepared statement.

According to supporting documents provided by Kerry and Lieberman, the bill addresses a range of energy issues including expanded nuclear power production, incentives for the coal industry to seek cleaner methods, money to develop alternative energy sources and programs to help U.S. industry in the transition to a low-carbon system.

On climate change, the 987-page bill seeks escalating reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in coming decades that match the levels set as goals by the Obama administration and contained in a separate House energy bill passed last year. For example, the proposal calls for emissions reductions from 2005 levels of 17 percent by 2020, 42 percent by 2030 and 83 percent by 2050, the documents said.

The proposal includes a tax on greenhouse gas emissions above allowable limits, but delays the charge on industrial emitters until 2016. In addition, it includes incentive programs for industries and sectors to shift away from fossil fuels and high emissions, including $6 billion a year for transportation infrastructure to increase efficiency and decrease oil consumption.

Responding to critics who claim energy reform means increased costs and taxes, Kerry and Lieberman said energy bill discounts and direct rebates would give back to consumers two-thirds of revenue raised by the proposal that isn't dedicated to deficit reduction. Additional tax cuts and an energy refund program would help Americans "who may be disproportionately affected by potential increases in energy prices," according to the supporting documents.

In addition, the Kerry-Lieberman proposal includes expanded offshore oil drilling as part of a strategy to increase domestic production. However, provisions strengthening the ability of states to prevent more drilling off their coasts were added in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Although few expect the Senate to pass the bill before November's midterm congressional elections, its introduction was intended to keep up pressure for progress on addressing America's long-term energy needs while complying with global efforts to deal with climate change.

A Republican backer of the measure, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, withdrew last week from taking part in Wednesday's announcement because of what he called political gamesmanship by Senate Democrats in stating they would seek approval of an immigration reform bill before the energy measure.

"The problems created by the historic oil spill in the Gulf, along with the uncertainty of immigration politics, have made it extremely difficult for transformational legislation in the area of energy and climate to garner bipartisan support at this time," Graham said in a statement Wednesday.

President Obama, however, said he wants the Senate to pass the bill this year because the issue is too important for further delay.

"Now is the time for America to take control of our energy future and jump-start American innovation in clean energy technology that will allow us to create jobs, compete, and win in the global economy," Obama said in a statement.

The Kerry-Lieberman proposal includes expanded offshore oil drilling as part of a strategy to increase domestic production. However, provisions strengthening the ability of states to prevent more drilling off their coasts were added in the wake of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Environmentalists offered mixed praise for the measure, calling it a good start while insisting it needed to go further in some areas.

"The core carbon pollution limits in the bill, covering all major pollution sources, are a solid foundation for Senate legislation," Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "These emission limits, which will get tighter every year, will drive investments in clean energy that create jobs, cut pollution, and end our addiction to oil from dangerous locations, both offshore and overseas," Beinecke said in a statement.

"The bill would be more effective if its overall pollution limits were backed up by minimum performance standards for the largest polluters," Beinecke said.

She also called for a moratorium on any new offshore drilling until the causes of the Gulf Coast spill are determined and addressed, and rejected financial incentives in the bill for states that allow more offshore drilling.

I am tempted to say that it is too late for America but eh.

so are we gonna die?

Lately it seems as though "Comprehensive" means "expensive, unwanted, and inneficient."
Also, Obama's urgency isn't because he views the issue itself as urgent, but he knows the Democrats are going to lose a huge portion of Congress this year.

That could be enough to crush any effectiveness.



Cutting energy usage and moving to cleaner forms of energy is obviously expensive, but it is the only responsible option and it has enormous benefits for current generations as well. (Feel free to ask about them if you want to hear some.)

Because they constitute government intervention and negative effects on wealth, it's obvious they are impopular, that does not mean it's not necessary.

I agree that the efficiency of this proposal could be endangered by the decision not to fine industrials. However, it would probably deter moderate Republicans to fine them directly.

Yes, he needs high amounts of political control and it could well be that he'll lose a workable majority in Congress. Which will lead to him being regarded as an ineffective ruler (which would be true, but chiefly because of the goppies).

Well, Obama himself probably has something effective in mind, but most of the people who he owes favors too will most likely make him use an approach that will alienate many people.
I'm all for protecting the environment, but I think that this will piss off a lot of the wrong people.

Same old "can't please everyone" problem.

Yes, it was folly of him to promise he would not allow any lobbyists, he has alienated quite a few with that.



But but when I'm in power I will please socialists and capitalists and libertarians and fascists and and and...

Yes, you'll always have to live with having an opposition that might kick you out one day.

Though the Thai army seems rather dogged to kick the opposition out, instead.

It was folly of him to promise that mostly because he will have to allow lobbyists. An American politician with no lobbyist support isn't going anywhere.

The red shirts are criminals.

I have no clue, actually all parties appear to be populist and I am completely not into Thai politics.

Yeah, I hear the red shirts are planning another one and this time it would be populist. AS IF!