With each passing day, the environmental issue seems to get more controversial.

New temperature anomalies and statistics, alleged scandals within the scientific community, and the ever-redundant climate bill have defined our policy and stance on the current state of the environment.

But the science and scandal of the issue can only persuade the public. Legislation is the process by which our country will exhibit a change – whether that change is unwanted or supported depends on the conditions.

Although the climate bill is repetitious and consistently insignificant, the concepts implemented within the bill will significantly influence both the public’s financial and environmental future.

Unfortunately, these bills have never found success due to party lines and political squabbling.

Back in 2008, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) and Sen. John Warner (R) failed to get their “Climate Security Act” through Congress. Later in 2009, Rep. Henry Waxman (D) and Rep. Edward Markey’s (D) bill, “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” (i.e. cap-and-trade legislation), was passed through the House, but is currently in limbo within the Senate.

Earlier this year Lieberman decided to give it another go, this time with fellow officials Sen. John Kerry (D) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R). The three put together a brand new climate bill to be released on Earth Day, considering the concept of a carbon tax rather than a cap-and-trade system.

But as the unveiling of the bill neared, Graham decided to disassociate himself from the new legislation just as Kerry and Lieberman began to consider the implementation of the cap-and-trade concept instead.

As The New York Times reported, Graham backed away from the idea of a cap-and-trade system, claiming “cap-and-trade bills in the House and the Senate are going nowhere.” Graham seems to be the only official determined to step aside from the outdated and ridiculed concept of cap-and-trade.

So when news comes out that a new climate bill has entered the Senate, this one headed by Sen. Harry Reid (D), it’s hard to find enthusiasm. Is there any hope left for climate legislation?

While it would seem climate policies have no chance to succeed in the current economic and political climate, with every new bill comes a new twist to appease and rally followers. Unfortunately, Reid’s update to the climate strategy doesn’t include a plan to curb emissions, as with the cap-and-trade system or the carbon tax. But isn’t emission mitigation the foundation of climate policy?

As Mother Jones magazine laid out, Reid’s climate bill focuses on oil spill response measures and departmental funding. The bill eliminates the liability cap for damages in occurrence with the spill and grants $5 billion each year to “spur” development of the natural gas truck fleet, the HomeStar energy-efficient homes program and the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Since the bill obviously focuses on the appropriation of funds rather than on the mitigation of emissions – as the perfect climate bill should do – it should be expected to fail within the Senate. The bill shells out money the country doesn’t have. It was bound to fail.

If this bill reveals anything about our country’s climate strategy, it’s that our climate bill needs to both mitigate emissions and reduce the financial strain of such policy on our public.

While the former requirement is widely accepted as plausible and obvious throughout our legislative bodies, the latter is where all the argument stems from.

This administration has shown that it has no issue with doling out money through entitlements and funding programs, despite the infamous debt opponents consistently point to. And has this concept of appropriation not been the reason for the divide between the conservative and liberal ideologies of our country?

Surely, it has.

Many conservatives would choose to sit back on climate legislation – even if the individual has concern for the relative environment – due to the current financial instability of the country. The bill needs to reduce the financial burden to be successful.

As reported by Reuters, Reid explains: “Unfortunately at this time we don’t have a single Republican on board.”

Where’s the cooperation?

The essential climate bill needs bipartisan involvement. The bill has not and will not succeed if it continues to be presented and built upon one party’s ideals.

The actions of the Democratic Party throughout this past year without Republican support (no matter which party is to blame for the disagreement), has created this incredible divide within our government. From health care legislation to financial reform to unemployment benefits, it seems as if nothing has been passed that is widely accepted throughout the country along political lines.

Essentially, the climate legislation must have bipartisan involvement for it to be ecologically or economically successful.

The economical choices have been made clear throughout the past few years: cap-and-trade or carbon tax. The only issue is that the public doesn’t know which is actually beneficial. Cap-and-trade has been deemed “cap-and-tax” by opponents, and a carbon tax already faces scrutiny with said title.

As much as I hate to debate politics and money over an environmental issue, it’s the language of our government; the only way we can nationalize, and in many ways promote this issue, is through economics.

We have to talk green to be able to walk green.

– Armand Resto is an Oregon State U. sophomore in environmental science.