Tweet
Prospects for Senate passage of climate change legislation this year were already slim, but this development may be the nail in the coffin:
Leading Democratic senators tasked Joe Lieberman on Thursday with finding a compromise measure that would satisfy a diverse caucus split between doing energy-only legislation or a more comprehensive approach to climate change, Democratic aides said.
While the fact that Senator Lieberman lends his name to the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act may relieve some casual observers, he will almost certainly advocate an energy-only approach. As Chris Bowers notes, it is hard to imagine Senator Lieberman pushing for the progressive approach here. For a preview of how he’ll justify his decision to think small, we can look back to his remarks on the subject six months ago:
"I don’t think the Senate has an appetite for another such epic, polarized legislative war this session," said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), who met with Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) on Wednesday to strategize on how to enlist support for a compromise climate bill they are writing.
Now, I’m increasingly convinced that a bill that doesn’t explicitly address climate change is the best path forward this year. As unfortunate as it is, the United States Senate simply is not in the right place to do what needs to be done: put a price on carbon. Even the Kerry-Lieberman effort to lure Republican support by incorporating many Republican ideas into the legislation fell flat, failing to attract a single cosponsor. I’d be happy with a bill that made investments in clean energy and efficiency, while also holding BP accountable and tightening oil industry regulations. I’d be even happier if they moved a bill like that and allowed amendment votes on implementing a Renewable Electricity Standard, banning offshore drilling, making major investments in high speed rail and providing federal grant money to innovative transit solutions.
But that doesn’t appear to be the direction Reid is steering Lieberman:
Lieberman, an independent Democrat from Connecticut, was asked to work with Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to find a compromise.
As David Dayen has repeatedly explained, Bingaman’s ACELA package that passed the Energy and Natural Resources Committee last year is quite possibly worse than the status quo. It is the weakest form of energy-only legislation currently on the table, and it more closely reflects something you’d expect Republicans to put forward than what you’d hope to see from Democrats.
And Max Baucus, as evidenced by his role in the health care debate, is just about the last person you’d want to get input from on something this important. He seems more interested in slow-walking legislation for the sake of the appearance of bipartisanship than actually addressing problems. On top of that, Baucus has never shown an actual interest in or understanding of taking serious action on climate change or energy.
Meanwhile, there are several Senators who actually understand the scope of the problem and have worked for years to address it:
Senator Boxer was squeezed out of negotiations last fall after Republicans in her committee orchestrated a massive temper tantrum and failed to show up for a vote.
Senator Sanders has several good amendments that represent an excellent starting point for discussions.
And Senator Merkley is outlining a proposal today to significantly reduce demand for oil.
It isn’t clear why these three Senators — folks who actually have good ideas on the issue — aren’t being asked to help plot out the path forward.
Putting Joe Lieberman in charge of plotting the path forward, and instructing him to do so with the input of Senators Bingaman and Baucus, is a surefire recipe for screwing up a rare opportunity to move decent legislation. When Lieberman botches this, Senator Reid will share the blame.
57 Comments
The tentacles of oil, still have a lot of squeezing power.
Watering down or backing away from comprehensive climate change legislation isn’t the answer. The GOP will try to filibuster anything and everything Democrats try to pass no matter what. The correct strategy is to come up with something as comprehensive as possible and go all out to get it passed intact, making concessions only after the other side has agreed to do the same and reverting it back if promises to reciprocate are broken (as they will be). Lyndon Johnson is rolling in his grave right now.
Inevitable Lieberman betrayal in 3…2…1…
When the food riots start, I’ve got dibs on Lieberman.
Boxer should have stayed–don’t understand why we always let them bully us. (Or rather, sometimes i forget why Dems welcome Republican behavior like this–they can serve their corporate masters while whining that the Republicans made them do it.)
Another finger in the eye to the DFHs.
OT. Is anyone surprised that we were “surprised” upon “discovering” huge lithium deposits in Afghanistan?
Boxer is an incompetent ditz. She is chairperson of the committee and normally her name would be first on the bill, but she is so incompetent that the Senate leadership, read Harry Reid, gave it to Kerry to manage. That was how Boxer-Kerry became Kerry-Boxer. The whole bill was sidetracked by Obama to make more time for the healthcare debate. That dragged on and on. Originally the idea had been that Kerry-Boxer and the House version Waxman-Markey (which passed in June 2009) would be combined and passed so that Obama could go to the December Copenhagen climate change conference and exercise a leadership role. The failure to push through a unified bill or any Senate bill at all essentially doomed the conference. To be honest, with their offsets and cap and trade approach I doubt that even if a bill had been passed it would have resulted in effective world action for the very simple reason that offsets and cap and trade don’t work. In any case, Kerry then tried working with Lindsey Graham in what was rechristened Kerry-Graham. Working with Graham on anything should have set off all kinds of flashing red lights. If you are reduced to that, you have already failed. And that is what happened. So now Kerry has reached out to Lieberman as a kind of stand in for Graham. On Kerry’s part this shows his desperation. For Lieberman, he likes his ego stroked and there is no better way to emasculate a bill then to have someone like him playing a leading role in it.
Lieberman is leading because the best way to make money selling something is if you are just waiting for the best price. Somebody that wanted to stand up and do the right thing is not going to get any of the lobbyist cash.
Why is LIEberman in charge of anything besides cleaning the Congressional toilets?
More of FDL’s realistic pragmatism. Whats the cultural genecide of a few island nations? The US just isnt in the right place at the moment.
The TLDR version: Hope for crumbs, and like it.
Its the progressive democratic motto.
You seem have the same mistake belief that many here have been disabused of in the last in the last 18 months — that the Democrats in Congress and the White House really want to do ANYTHING to help the American People.
No fair! I saw him first!
Any citations to buttress your argument?
I keep wondering what “could have been” if Congress had passed legislation proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders without all the garbage to appease corporations and the wealthy elite.
Looks like the Democrats are starting to throw up their hands in defeat. Time to find representatives for the people instead of Democrats and Republicans.
Putting a price on carbon would only enrich the like of BP, Goldman Sachs, et al, while causing energy prices to skyrocket for average Americans.
BP along with Enron, wrote the cap and trade legislation nearly 15 years ago. BP would welcome this ‘punishment’ from Obama.
It isn’t clear why these three Senators — folks who actually have good ideas on the issue — aren’t being asked to help plot out the path forward.
Putting Joe Lieberman in charge of plotting the path forward, and instructing him to do so with the input of Senators Bingaman and Baucus, is a surefire recipe for screwing up a rare opportunity to move decent legislation. When Lieberman botches this, Senator Reid will share the blame.
Actually it is quite clear. These are the guys who will deliver to Obama exactly what Obama really wants – as Baucus and Lieberman did for HIR. Obama then can claim that he’s powerless over Lieberman and was forced into signing whatever Lieberman delivers. Of course as we saw with Lincoln/Halter, Obama’s claims of impotence are lies and he really supports the likes of Lincoln/Lieberman and he secretly buddies up with Baucus to cut deals with corporate lobbyists. Obama is all for delivering “reform” just his brand of reform is actually worse than the status quo as he works to enrich his corporate lobbyist pals.
Isn’t there a more direct solution to address the climate issues besides cap and trade? Does it really address the issue if we continue on the same path with fossil fuels? If we could find a way to reach the moon, certainly we can figure out better energy sources…or change the messaging to the tipping point in better energy consumption in this country.
Don’t you think that there are people and companies working to develop alternatives to petroleum? This transition will not happen suddenly. Raising the price of energy and taxing American household $700 to $2,200 dollars a year to line the pockets of BP (one of the original authors of the cap and trade bill) Goldman Sachs, et al hardly seems to be in the best interest of working families. Gas will be $8 a gallon, it will cost more for granny to run her AC and cars will still need gas.
There are alternatives – see Denmark’s sustainable energy policies. I don’t think the “transition” will happen suddenly, but certainly we could have changed direction 30 YEARS AGO when former President Carter talked about our unsustainable energy policies. If the ONLY way we can change the behaviors of Americans is with $8/gallon gas, then so be it.
I thought we voted for a Democratic Congress and President, not a nonpartisan compromise, wimpy collection of lawmakers and an administration that checks with Rahm to find out which lobbyist will supply the biggest payoff above and below the table.
The implementation of a cap and trade program is viewed by many as a way to use the market to achieve these reductions. However, over-reliance on a cap-and-trade program to solve climate change raises a number of concerns, particularly in terms of the monitoring, evaluation, and verification of carbon credits in a global market. Unfortunately, the federal cap and trade proposals put forth so far would create a system that poses almost identical challenges as those in the mortgage-lending industry.
Our nation is currently facing an historic financial crisis that can provide us with a cautionary tale about a cap and trade program. The subprime mortgage meltdown occurred when banks bundled together high-risk and lower-risk mortgages into packages that were then bought, re-bundled and resold many times over, creating promised revenues that were increasingly difficult to track. When it became clear that a significant portion of the loans were bad, the whole system began to unravel. This affected everyone in the banking and investment system connected to these bundled mortgages, including average Americans with savings accounts and retirement savings, and turned a sub-prime mortgage problem into a system-wide credit crisis.
As carbon traders develop derivatives products, which are based on promises to deliver carbon credits at a future date for a specified price, a real risk of “subprime carbon” (carbon assets that fail to deliver, called “junk carbon” by traders) emerges. Given the potentially huge size of the carbon trading market, and the increasing complexity of carbon derivatives, the risk of subprime carbon contagion is a real possibility, particularly if the current credit crisis fails to spur fundamental regulation of the financial market.
http://www.foe.org/subprime-carbon
If $8 a gallon gas and windmill mandates could force the invention of pixie dust energy we would have seen it in Europe after decades of precisely this failed system — which Obama told us on at least eight occasions he was modeling here after Spain’s disaster — but all it has produced is bankrupt states which are being forced to turn off the spigot, bursting the bubble they created, to avoid collapsing. The mini-boom turned colossal bust.
http://www.foe.org/sites/default/files/Credit_Crisis_and_Climate.pdf
They aren’t wimps or compromisers – they’re delivering exactly what they want to deliver just they try and give themselves cover so they come up with excuses feining weakness.
The only positive message Mr. Lieberman’s involvement sends is to corporations, telling them that their access to natural resources remains unrestricted and with minimal liability.
Why are these Dems still fighting the image they think they acquired in Chicago in 1968. Their base is no more comprised of DFH’s than the Goopers’ is composed of centrists. Foolish, foolish people.
Organizing for America sent out a fundraising email today that makes it clear the Obama White House plans on exploiting the Gulf spill disaster for as much legislative momentum as possible. Captain Kick-Ass has moved on to cap and trade.
What a disgrace:
The BP oil spill in the Gulf Coast is the worst environmental disaster of its kind in our nation’s history. I am returning to the region today to review our efforts and meet with families and business owners affected by the catastrophe.
We are working to hold BP accountable for the damage to the lands and the livelihoods of the Gulf Coast, and we are taking strong precautions to make certain a spill like this never happens again.
But our work will not end with this crisis. That’s one of the reasons why last week I invited lawmakers from both parties to join me at the White House to discuss what it will take to move forward on legislation to promote a new economy powered by green jobs, combat climate change, and end our dependence on foreign oil.
Today, we consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil, but have less than two percent of the world’s oil reserves. Beyond the risks inherent in drilling four miles beneath the surface of the Earth, our dependence on oil means that we will continue to send billions of dollars of our hard-earned wealth to other countries every month — including many in dangerous and unstable regions.
In other words, our continued dependence on fossil fuels will jeopardize our national security. It will smother our planet. And it will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk. We cannot delay any longer, and that is why I am asking for your help.
Please stand with me today in backing clean energy. Adding your name will help Organizing for America create a powerful, public display of support for making this change happen.
The time has come, once and for all, for this nation to fully embrace a new future. That means continuing our unprecedented effort to make everything — from our homes and businesses to our cars and trucks — more energy-efficient. It means rolling back billions of dollars of tax breaks to oil companies so we can prioritize investments in clean energy research and development.
Many businesses support this agenda because shifting to clean energy creates opportunities for entrepreneurship. This is how we will reinvent our economy — and create new companies and new jobs all across the country.
There will be transition costs and a time of adjustment. But if we refuse to heed the warnings from the disaster in the Gulf — we will have missed our best chance to seize the clean-energy future we know America needs to thrive in the years and decades to come.
The House of Representatives has already passed a comprehensive energy and climate bill, and there is currently a plan in the Senate — a plan that was developed with ideas from Democrats and Republicans — that would achieve the same goal. But this is an issue that Washington has long ignored in favor of protecting the status quo.
So I’m asking for your help today to show that the American people are ready for a clean-energy future.
Please add your name to mine:
http://my.barackobama.com/CleanEnergy
Thank you,
President Barack Obama
This ‘transition cost’ is on average, according to the CBO, $700 to $2200 per household per year and a $400 billion boon to carbon traders.
Here is a simplistic explanation on how cap and trade works:
What Is Cap and Trade, and How Can We Implement It Successfully?
It is just ONE of the many solutions we could use to reach a more sustainable energy environment and was used successfully to reduce sulfur emissions by the Clean Air Act of 1990. We need a serious change in direction with our energy policies. Can we afford to listen to those who want to maintain the status quo and “drill, baby, drill” anymore?
Hey, I’m on your side. I think our energy and trade policies are a disaster. I’m just trying to figure out possible scenarios to make things better. You have made good points, and if the only result from a climate change bill is “cap and trade”, then once again, those who suffer most from a bill out of Congress will be “we the people” and those who profit will be the usual suspects.
Has anyone involved in writing this article disclosed any conflicts of interest? Could they be involved in profiting from the implementation of this tax on working families?
Cap and trade is a pusillanimous attempt to extract a small portion of the price the energy industries owe the nation. It is largely symbolic.
Carbon should from the beginning have been priced to include the debt to the the people, the owners of the oil and coal resources. Not only, have we have been giving them away to private corporations since the beginning of the nation, there has been no compensation, no price for destruction of the environment.
FYI the Center for American Progress was founded by John Pdesta, the very same John Podesta employed as a lobbyist by BP. BP along with the now defunct Enron, wrote the cap and trade legislation now being pushed 15 years ago. BP has been lobbying for it vigorously ever since.
I’d prefer we didn’t try to get a climate change bill out of this Senate, for three reasons: one, this Senate sucks; two, I’m a regulations kinda guy, not a cap-and-trade kinda guy, and three, the EPA already has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, as Justice Scalia and the four nominal liberals on the Supreme Court ruled. At this point I’d prefer pressuring the EPA to do its job the way it should.
No. Cap and trade is a huge money making scam for the corporate cronies of this administration. Do you believe that a $700 to $2200 yearly energy tax is symbolic or ‘timid’?
I should have said “mitigate” rather than extract a small portion of the price etc.
Yes.
So an additonal $700 to $2200 enery cost increase per household per years is ‘less painful’ for working families?
No matter how you choose to describe it…it is a scam.
What is the Gulf of Mexico worth? What are the mountain tops of Appalachia worth. And ultimately, what is an atmosphere that will sustain life worth?
$700 – $2200 to continue selfish thoughtless growth and consumption is quite a bargain.
Really. Tell that to the unemployed, the disadvantaged and those on fixed incomes. Watch the rich Obama cronies get richer as the cost of almost everything we purchase rises. Spain, Obama’s model for a ‘green economy’ is in ruin. The price of chasing after windmills while enriching Wall Street and DC denziens will not be insignificant.
The rich will eventually run out of people to plunder. Maybe eventually enough of us will figure out we can’t afford the price of unrestrained gluttony and growth and find a cure the cancer.
But where is the profit in that? The EPA is intended to be the IRS of cap and trade.
I would say that right now a majority of Americans are experiencing neither gluttony or growth. The super rich are in collusion with the government will indeed run out of other people’s money unless we begin to repeal and curb the power and influence currently consolidated in Washington DC.either gluttony or growth. The super rich are in collusion with the government will indeed run out of other people’s money unless we begin to repeal and curb the power and influence currently consolidated in Washington DC.
Government is not the problem. What do you expect of those elected when the prevailing culture worships wealth and selfishness? The dismantling of government power and will to tend the earth and create safety nets by those elected by the libertarians and conservatives is the problem.. There has not been a liberal service oriented majority in 50 years and more.
And tell me how does this legislation stop or mitigate the damage caused by the oil spill? It doesn’t.
Which is why the unemployed, elderly, and disadvantaged need alternative energy sources for their dwellings and we need changes in public transportation to take advantage of different energy sources.
What exactly is your solution for a good climate bill?
Government is the problem. The cronie capitalism and the growth of the federal government to sustain a bloated public sector is bankrupting this country. Private sector opportunities for growth, job creation and economic recovery is being thwarted by this administration for it’s own political and economic gain.
Obama and his cap and trade cronies will talk about ‘shared sacrifice’ and ‘transition costs’ but they will feel NONE of the burden that they will impose on all of us.
Responsible stewardship of our environment need not be embodied in colossal money-making scams that reward the politically powerful and their corporate cronies.
I would like to see an example of a bill written by a true environmentalist which accounts for realities on the ground for getting alternative energy sources up and running and how to transition away from our current reliance on fossil fuels. By the way, when I speak about “realities on the ground”, I’m not referring to the inability of Congress or the White House to effectively get legislation, but instead what “real transformational reform” would look like. Maybe such policies are only coming from other countries.
Consumers increasingly demanding cheaper, cleaner, aletrnative sources of energy to be provided by responsible, responsive companies created by entrepreneurs is the way forward. But the government will not profit…and make no mistake, the government is looking for a new revenue stream, it is NOT looking out for the unemployed, elderly and disadvantaged. Carbon credits do NOT create jobs. Crippling the economy by taxing energy producing companies will not hasten the development of a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Look no further than Spain’s highly touted ‘green economy’ and see where we are headed.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/spains-green-policies-an-economic-disaster/
Read the above link…unless you prefer to believe BP lobbyist, greenwasher and founder of the Center for American Progress, John Podesta, on the wonderful benefits of cap and trade.
Question: How did Bush get 99.9% of the things he wanted?
Answer: Because Democrats wanted it, too.
Question: Why do Democrats make compromises and concessions
that ends up as some POS Right Wing legislation favoring
corporations and ruining our lives?
Answer: Because that’s what Democrats want.
Leiberman is traitor number 1. He enjoys doing damage to America.
Cap and Trade will be another Wall St. bonanza.
It’s a shell game, and Wall St always wins, once again.
That’s all you gotta know to understand that it’s going to be a disaster for the American people and the environment.
Isn’t it apparent by now that everything Obama does is for the
benefit of Wall St and nobody else?
What will MAKE consumers demand cheaper, cleaner, alternative sources of energy as long as oil, gas, and coal companies receive government subsidies allowing them to provide cheaper energy? Even a war in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect oil hasn’t brought about a nationwide revolt to change our policies. If “we the people” are continuing to subsidize energy companies, it should be those which move us toward a better future, not the polluters. These issues need to be addressed.
Should you succeed in doing away with the national government what would you replace it with?
Would you leave protection of the people to the states? Like the people Louisiana will take care of their wetlands, fishing grounds now being destroyed.
The problems in our current federal (and local) government are the result of the people of our culture who worship of wealth and selfishness have elected officials in their own image.
Pajamas Media? Jeez. They’re not exactly for the working man though they think they are.
That’s the group that sent Joe the Plumber on the road to embarass himself.
I think there are more reliable sources about Spain’s economy.
Plus, what is very interesting about Spain vs Ireland is the bond trading.
Ireland basically JUMPED at austerity measures, while Spain continues to resist such measures. Guess who the bond market is rewarding?
Spain.
You can’t listen to rightwing crap that Indie spews. None of it is fact based.
I thought that Indie might be legit based upon some of the statements about alternative energy sources. I will look at statements in the future with a jaundiced eye. Have to say I was suspicious after looking at the link to Pajamas media.
Well, as soon as I saw a link to Pajamas Media, I knew where his heart is.
D**n. Indie fooled me. I thought he/she was just someone sucked in by that radical libertarianism. Oh well at least I got some practice.
Sorry to have spent so much space.
Pretty easy question to answer.
1. Establishment Democrats are pissed off at their progressive base and want to express their contempt.
2. Establishment Democrats don’t give a rat’s ass about climate change.
Just wandered back through. Not sure which argument you are talking about, but while it may not seem a big change to outsiders it is a big deal when the lead name on a bill changes. If you google, you will find that the bill switches from being Boxer-Kerry to Kerry-Boxer when it was rolled out on September 30, 2009. I no longer have the link I had at the time but basically it pointed to Boxer’s poor skills in managing legislation that the lead was given to Kerry. It pretty much goes without saying that a change like this on a major piece of legislation had to be done with the involvement of the Senate leadership.
Cap-and-trade is a sham. “Carbon pricing,’ i.e. carbon taxing, will simply move the global economy to where the taxes are lower. The real solution is an international agreement to cap the oil wells and close up the coal mines.