Jonathan Cohn, writing at his new must-read blog, has a fascinating piece on the policy implications of the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The gist of his argument is that the public push for clean energy policy — in the form of marches on Washington and calls to Congress — is more subdued than should be expected in the wake of such a devastating environmental catastrophe, and that this dynamic is largely responsible for the Senate’s slim chances of moving comprehensive legislation this year.

While I think this argument has some merit, Cohn leaves out several key considerations.

First, I disagree with Cohn’s characterization of last weekend’s Hands Across the Sand offshore drilling protests. Using turnout estimates of 400 and 450 from two of the 814 protest locations in the United States, he concludes, "[t]hat probably means a few thousand people participated nationwide." He continues, "That’s a perfectly respectable figure in normal times. But with the nation’s worst environmental catastrophe–an oil spill, of all things–in progress? Under those circumstances, the numbers seem a little disappointing."

Those numbers do seem disappointing, but only because they are not accurate. While nationwide numbers have not yet been released, a few minutes of Googling reveals considerably higher turnout numbers. In St. Petersburg, Florida, for example, over 5,000 people turned out for Saturday’s event. Even at an extremely conservative estimate of an average of 50 people per event, the 814 events nationwide would have had over 40,000 people in attendance. Sierra Club pegs the total at tens of thousands. Either way, these numbers are quite impressive for a volunteer-led event that was planned in a matter of weeks, by my standards at least. Dave Rauschkolb, the organizer of Hands Across the Sand, isn’t overly concerned with the raw numbers. To him, the real impact is on a more human level. "Every photograph, every video, every footprint in the sand tells the story of how much Americans care about their coastal heritage," he told me by phone Wednesday evening.

Moving on, Cohn continues (emphasis mine):

We have no shortage of committed environmentalists in this country. But two months after the Deepwater Horizon rig first exploded, where are the marches on Washington? Where are the phone calls lighting up Capitol Hill switchboards? Congressional staffers I’ve contacted tell me constituent contact on climate change has increased in the last few weeks, but only incrementally.

A few points on this.

Read the rest of this entry →

Speaking at a sparsely-attended luncheon in Fairbanks, AK on Friday, Senator Murkowski (R-AL) touted her failed effort to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions as a ‘badge of honor.’ She went on to explain why she considered the maneuver, which went down by a 53-47 margin on June 10th, a qualified success. “We made our point. Forty-seven members of the Senate said they do not want to allow the agency to set climate change policy," she said.

As luck would have it, another institution has plans to ‘set climate change policy’ in the weeks ahead — the United States Senate. And fortunately for Senator Murkowski, as a United States Senator, she has the power to influence that process as it plays out. By all indications, Senator Murkowski should be a leading Republican in these negotiations. In response to the announcement of a new Climate Science Center at the University of Alaska earlier this year, she rightly called the state ‘ground zero for climate change.’ Last September Murkowski told reporters that Congress needs to work on climate change but should take its time considering options. And by all accounts, the Senate has done just that in the past nine months, trying and giving up on a variety of approaches deemed too controversial to attract significant Republican support.

But now there are a several proposals and a handful of standalone measures on the table. A group of seventeen Senators — which includes Senator Murkowski — will be meeting with President Obama Tuesday to discuss a path forward. Majority Leader Reid has indicated he’ll be moving the legislation immediately after July recess.

If Senator Murkowski intends to play a constructive role in this process, her opportunity is now. Robert Dillon, a spokesman for Senator Murkowski, claims she intends to play such a role, citing her support of Senator Lugar’s energy legislation. According to Dillon, Murkowski supports "Sen. Lugar’s latest efforts to address climate." Perhaps sensing the angle I was pursuing, he added, "so any accusation that she opposes dealing with emissions is completely false."

But Dillon also made it clear that Murkowski remains firmly opposed to including a cap on carbon in the legislation. "There’s not 60 votes for cap and trade now nor has there ever been. A great number of Democrats remain opposed to a cap for economic reasons – concerns shared by many Republicans as well," he said. When asked how Senator Murkowski would like to see the Senate move forward on energy reform, Mr. Dillon was quite specific. "Sen. Murkowski believes the Senate should immediately focus on passing standalone oil spill compensation legislation to assist the victims of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Then it should take up the bipartisan energy bill approved by the energy committee last summer, which would address many of the president’s stated goals for a clean energy bill but would not include a cap on carbon." Curiously, he did not mention Senator Lugar’s proposal in response to this question.

The ‘bipartisan energy bill’ Dillon refers to is the American Clean Energy Leadership Act, which, as David Roberts explains, amounts to ‘a minor deviation from the awful energy status quo.’ I followed up with Mr. Dillon, asking if Senator Murkowski considers ACELA sufficient to properly address climate change. I also asked how Senator Murkowski reconciles her self-professed belief in climate change with her refusal to do anything serious to address it. While he didn’t respond to either question directly, he offered this response. "The energy bill would make a real difference in our energy policy without harming the economy. The other proposals introduced this Congress do not strike the appropriate balance between environmental and economic protection. Sen. Murkowski has done more than any other Republican to improve the nation’s energy policy. She’s passed bipartisan energy policy through the committee. But she won’t support bad legislation that threatens the economy and does nothing to improve our energy policy."

It is clear that Senator Murkowski wants the Senate to pursue an extremely limited approach on climate and energy policy. Even in the face of the worst environmental disaster in American history, her opposition to taking serious steps to reduce oil consumption remains unchanged. Senators who claim to be concerned about climate change should take steps to address it in a meaningful way. Senator Murkowski’s refusal to do so puts her credibility on the issue into question. If Senator Murkowski wants to present herself as someone who is actually concerned with addressing climate change, she’ll have to do a lot better than she has so far in her career.

Steve Benen and Greg Sargent have been making an important point lately that hasn’t yet received the attention it deserves: to the extent that Republicans intend to oppose efforts to hold BP accountable this summer and fall, they are extremely vulnerable politically.

Here’s Benen first, commenting on Republican confusion over just what lengths they should go to in their defense of big oil companies:

It’s no doubt tricky — the GOP has been allied with oil companies for years — and considering the party’s rhetoric of late, I’m not sure Republicans have decided exactly what point(s) they want to emphasize.

…

But politically, it’s worth keeping an eye on a potential trend — if Republicans position themselves as the party looking out for BP and the oil industry’s interests, there may be political consequences.

And here’s Sargent, commenting on John Boehner’s confusion on the issue:

His announcement amounts to a tacit acknowledgment that public rage at BP, and the public’s desire that lawmakers hold the company accountable, have left Republicans little maneuvering room. In other words, the insistence on holding BP fully accountable is, and will continue to be, a very potent political issue for Dems.

I was especially pleased to see Politico — which typically doesn’t make smart observations about political situations in which Republicans are vulnerable — pick up on this dynamic yesterday:

Republicans are now struggling with how to show appropriate outrage at Big Oil while sticking to their long-standing pro-drilling, pro-oil-company policies.

I agree with everything above. The situation presents each party with a unique opportunity.

Read the rest of this entry →

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.

I’ve been on the offensive against Senator Graham for the past two days, expressing frustration with his mind-boggling hypocrisy and wholly apparent lack of integrity. I believe his participation in the crafting of climate change legislation was completely disingenuous, and I don’t think he ever actually intended to see it through to completion. His rhetoric throughout the process has been anything but helpful, and it was becoming apparent by mid-March that he was looking for an excuse to bail on the effort, blaming superficial process concerns for his lack of resolve. And as it turned out, that is exactly what happened yesterday. If Democrats have an ounce of sense they’ll never again take anything Senator Graham says at face value.

Now, that doesn’t at all mean that Harry Reid doesn’t share the blame for the Senate’s failure to address the issue this year. Those who blame Senator Reid for his decision to prioritize immigration reform over the climate bill make a number of good points. Senator Reid’s decision does in fact appear to be, as Senator Graham put it, a cynical political ploy designed to shore up his chances to maintain his seat this November. So yes, I think Senator Reid’s decision, which may have been implicitly backed by the Obama administration, was a plainly political move that played no small part in how all of this unfolded.

But that does not at all mean that Senator Graham has no agency in this. David Roberts writes:

It looks like an ass-covering decision by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is about to scuttle efforts to bring a climate/energy bill to the floor this year.

How exactly is Senator Reid responsible for Senator Graham’s decision to reverse course? That decision was Senator Graham’s alone, regardless of how he frames it or who he tries to pin the blame on. Even after rumors began circulating that immigration was being prioritized over climate, Senator Kerry indicated that he still intended to move forward with his bill. And indeed, if Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman had introduced their bill on Monday and managed to cobble together 60 votes, Harry Reid would have brought it to the floor for a vote. I’m quite certain of that. Yes, Senator Reid hurt the cause by making a foolish and politically selfish decision. But Senator Graham was the one who put the nail in the coffin, and he probably would have come up with some other excuse to do so if this hadn’t come along.

Moving on, I’m baffled by Jon Chait’s truly strange argument that Graham is actually in the right here. He writes:

As for bad faith, Graham is a Republican Senator from South Carolina. His highest risk of losing his seat, by far, comes from the prospect of a conservative primary challenger. Indeed, I’d say that prospect is far from remote, and Graham is displaying an unusual willingness to risk his political future. He has little incentive to negotiate on these issues except that he believes it’s the right thing to do. So when Democrats put climate change on the backburner to take up immigration, and do so for obviously political reasons, Graham has every right to be angry. He’s risking his political life to address a vital issue, and Harry Reid is looking to save his seat.

Both of the bolded sections above seem to ignore who Senator Graham is and what he is about. On the claim that Graham’s motivation for working on this bill was entirely pure, I’d love to see some substantiation. Graham may have been working on the bill in order to weaken it at every step in the process, in a role similar to the one Chuck Grassley played as the health care bill moved through the Senate Finance Committee. And indeed, that is what he has been doing throughout the process, all the while taking every opportunity to stick his thumb in the eye of environmentalists, as insult to injury. Republicans frequently pretend to be interested in working on an issue in a bipartisan manner when they are actually just trying to weaken or derail it. This is not a new tactic, and Democrats are going to have to stop falling for it eventually. Or perhaps Senator Graham was trying to bolster his image as somewhat of a maverick who would love to pass bipartisan bills if it weren’t for those hyper-partisan Democrats. As David Dayen notes, this is classic Lindsey Graham:

I think Graham was dying for a reason to kill these bills where he was the “sensible Republican moderate” on them. This has been his pose for some time, to show to Washington that he’s willing to work across the aisle, but to never actually do it.

Based on how this has played out, either of those two scenarios seems far more likely to have been Graham’s motivation than that he simply ‘believes its the right thing to do.’

On Chait’s other point, that Graham ‘has every right to be angry,’ I agree, but with a caveat. Graham would have found an excuse to throw a fit and bail on the effort regardless. Whether it was the use of reconciliation on unrelated legislation, the Constitutionality of healthcare reform, or some other perceived slight, it was becoming pretty clear that Graham was searching for an excuse to take his ball and go home. Graham was going to throw a tantrum no matter what. Harry Reid just made it easier for him by making a selfish blunder at the worst possible moment.

In addition to brewing fights over offshore drilling revenues and a host of other issues, the conflict over whether or not federal climate legislation should pre-empt the Clean Air Act continues to heat up. As it stands, the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. A variety of Senators, ranging from Rockefeller on the Democratic side, to Murkowski (R – Big Oil) on the Republican side, initiated unsuccessful efforts earlier this year to take this authority away.

As part of the grand compromise being crafted by Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman, rumors have been circulating that this authority will be taken away, effectively weakening the strongest environmental law on the books. As recently as earlier this week Senator Graham indicated that the bill would include such a provision.

Several Senators, including 10 industrial-state Democrats as well as Voinovich (R-OH) have indicated that taking this step to weaken the Clean Air Act is necessary for them to support the bill. These Senators are at odds with most environmentalists, who maintain that EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, while not a perfect tool, should be maintained as a backstop regardless. Both the Sierra Club and 1Sky have made it clear that they will oppose any climate legislation that prevents the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

This is the context for the latest grassroots action campaign initiated by CREDO. Seeking clarity on how Senator Kerry plans to deal with this disagreement, CREDO has generated over 700 phone calls to the Senator, asking where he stands. Here is the relevant part of the script callers are using:

The Clean Air Act should not be compromised, rolled back or used as a bargaining chip as part of any deal to bring energy or climate change legislation to the floor of the Senate. Sen. Kerry has long been an environmental champion but he is putting his legacy at risk.

Will Senator Kerry protect the Clean Air Act authority and fight any effort to roll back the Clean Air Act in congress?

CREDO then asked activists who called to let them know how Senator Kerry’s staff responded. CREDO has provided EnviroKnow with a sampling of how activists reported staff responses to this question. Their responses largely indicated that Senator Kerry will not be compromising the Clean Air Act in order to reach a deal on climate legislation. Here are some highlights:

Staffer says there is "no truth to the rumor" that Kerry is poised to compromise.Asked if Senator Kerry supported the clean air act. Person replied, "He’s doing just that" and hung up.

Claims Sen Kerry is trying to strengthen, not weaken, the Clean Air Act.

His aide said "Sen. Kerry wouldn’t do that!" When I said I didn’t want him to use the CAA as a bargaining chip…

I just spoke to one of Senator Kerry’s aides who flatly denied that Sen. Kerry is trying to compromise the Clean Air Act, indeed, he say the senator is trying to strengthen it.

Man who answered says we’re jumping the gun. Says bill has not been released yet and won’t be until Monday. Says Kerry would never do anything to weaken the Clean Air Act.

Person answering phone claims he will not compromise Clean Air Act.

Staffer said Kerry is a big supporter of the environment and he will absolutely not allow the Clean Air Act to be weakened!

Strong statement Kerry will not under any circumstances consider any suggestion to weaken the Clean Air Act or to limit the EPA’s powers under it.

It seems pretty unequivocal: Senator Kerry is not willing to compromise the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. It should be interesting to see how other Senators react to this when the draft language is released on Monday.

I’m not sure what to make of this:

Democratic leaders are pushing ahead with plans to move comprehensive immigration reform legislation this year — even if it means punting on energy legislation until next Congress.

According to Senate Democratic aides, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) agreed during a Tuesday afternoon meeting that a “moral imperative” exists to move immigration reform in 2010. The decision to press ahead on such a controversial issue now — in an election year — comes even though Democrats have had little success attracting GOP support for their initiatives in the 111th Congress. Hispanic Members have been ramping up the pressure on President Barack Obama to force the issue with Congress.

During the meeting, Reid “reiterated his intention to move forward” this year on immigration reform, one aide said, adding that Pelosi agreed it is a top priority, even beyond energy legislation.

“The Speaker did agree that if faced with a choice between energy and immigration, she’d go with immigration,” the aide said.

A few things don’t really make sense here:

1. Senator Reid has been saying about once a month (2/24, 3/22, 4/12) that he plans to move energy/climate legislation this year.
2. Five days ago President Obama called climate legislation a foundational priority that has to be done soon.
3. The bit about Pelosi saying immigration reform is a higher priority than energy is obviously not true: The House already passed climate/energy legislation last June.

Is this another example of politicians promising something they have no intention of delivering or a trial balloon waiting to be popped?

Update — Senator Graham is already pushing back on this:

Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican point man on both immigration and climate control, told reporters that the Senate was not prepared to debate immigration reform this year."I think we ought to take it up next year with the new Congress," Graham said.

Asked why Reid is now pushing it, Graham said, "I think it’s because he is in an election and he has a big Hispanic vote, and they (Democrats) made promises" to revamp immigration laws this year.

It is unclear what would happen to the climate-change legislation if Reid turns to immigration reform, Graham said.

Update 2 — Pelosi aides have begun walking this back:

“The conversation was really about timing, not an either-or kind of thing, but timing,” said the aide, who described the talks as a routine meeting of bicameral leaders.“It is all about what the Senate can move first and pass,” the aide said Wednesday. “Obviously on both of these items – immigration and comprehensive energy and climate legislation — we are waiting on the Senate to act.”

Update 3 — The WSJ pushes the electoral politics angle:

Democrats eyeing the Hispanic voting bloc include Mr. Reid, who faces a tough re-election race in his home state of Nevada, where 15% of voters in 2008 were Hispanic. Democrats running in other states with large Hispanic populations include Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Michael Bennet of Colorado.

You know things are about to get ugly when three Democratic Senators who strongly oppose something are met with this response from their colleague:

“If there’s no drilling, the interior states get no money,” she told reporters in the Capitol. “And there is not going to be any drilling unless there is revenue sharing.”“They [interior states] can have 100 percent of zero, or they can have 65 to 75 percent of something huge. Now let them go figure it out,” she added.

Dorgan, Bingaman and Rockefeller must have known revenue sharing was part of the offshore drilling package being worked out. The question then, is, what is their end game?

Is this an intentional attempt to delay and/or block the process?

Or do they think Senator Landrieu and others who support revenue sharing with the states will give in (hint: they won’t)?

Or are they just making bad noises here so they can get something else added to the bill in return for their dissatisfaction?

Read the rest of this entry →

Maggie Fox of Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection has an opinion piece in Politico in which she repeatedly laments the pessimism many have expressed that the Senate will finally take action on climate change legislation this year:

Even before the Senate starts debating clean energy and climate legislation, the professional pessimists are saying it will never happen.

…

Now the action moves to the Senate. That’s why Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is determined to move legislation forward. And it’s why senators from both sides of the aisle are advancing proposals that can make this the year that the president signs comprehensive climate legislation into law.

Yet the professional pessimists tell a different story.

She goes on to imply that this is driven largely by ‘those who reap benefits from the status quo:’

Those who reap benefits from the status quo are funding a stream of negative forecasting and denials of climate change science. But despite this well-financed effort to block progress, we are closer than ever to some real solutions.

There is some truth to this, but it also glosses over the fact that many of us who would very much like to see the Senate pass climate legislation this year — and follow this sort of thing pretty closely — are also pessimistic of the chances.

A few examples from the past week:

Steve Benen:

As much as I want this bill to pass, and know that we won’t see an opportunity like this again for quite a while, I’m finding it difficult to be optimistic. For one thing, Republicans will be under enormous pressure from their party to oppose any and all climate-related efforts, and they tend to buckle when the heat is on. For another, there’s no guarantee that Midwestern Dems will stick with their party on this, either.And complicating matters further, if the Senate manages to pass a bill, the House leadership may struggle to put together another majority to seal the deal.

Thers at Eschaton:

There really is a very narrow legislative window for the US to do anything constructive about climate change. If I had to bet, I would bet on the window closing and our illustrious Senators and Representatives doing jack shit about this most pressing issue: Glad to be wrong.

Ezra Klein:

Color me skeptical. I think the right wing is just too committed to the idea that taxes are always and everywhere bad (even if they’re rebated) and that global warming is a hoax Al Gore dreamed up to annoy SUV drivers.

I’m not trying to pick on Maggie Fox or the Alliance here, and I understand the need for advocacy organizations to put on their best game face in advance of the big fight. I just think it is important for folks to understand that there are legitimate reasons to be pessimistic about our prospects this year.

So at this point, less than a week in advance of the rollout of the bill, I’m with those those who see reason to be pessimistic: the math just doesn’t look good. I’ll have more on this in the coming days, but the basic situation is that you lose at least five Democratic votes and only have one reasonably certain Republican vote in Senator Graham. So you need to weaken the bill enough to pick up another four Republicans or so, without losing any additional Democratic votes in the process. Now, horse-trading like this in advance of a big vote is customary in Washington. But on this issue, at this time, I’m beginning to think the much-discussed ‘sweet spot’ might not exist.

Here are just a few of the land mines Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman have to watch out for as they try to cobble together 60 votes:

• A coalition of midwestern Democrats want state laws to be pre-empted as part of the deal, but Senator Boxer is opposed to the idea.
• Senators Landrieu, Graham, Webb, Warner and others want coastal states to receive some of the revenues from expanded offshore drilling, but Senators Dorgan, Rockefeller and Bingaman are strongly opposed to the idea.
• Senator Menendez is openly threatening to vote against the bill due to the expansion of offshore drilling.
• Senator Sanders has a host of other concerns, including state pre-emption and undue support for the nuclear power and coal industries, among others.
• It remains to be seen whether any Senators will draw a line in the sand over the issue, but several grassroots environmental organizations are prepared to pull their support if the legislation takes away the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

It is by no means impossible, and through some combination of giveaways to industry and arm twisting they may just get it done this year, but I don’t believe it will happen. Steven Pearlstein gives it a 50% chance and Senator Begich says 60%, but I’ll go out on a limb here and say that, as of now at least, the chance of passing climate legislation in the Senate and getting it reconciled with the House this year are no more than 25%.

In new polling focused primarily on healthcare, WaPo-ABC asked the following question:

Which political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job handling (ITEM)?

Here are the results:

It looks like despite the tea parties, the stimulus, the media’s obsession with process and the so-called ‘government takeover of health care,’ Democrats are still more trusted than Republicans on seven of eight top issues.

Of particular interest, Democrats hold the widest trust advantage (17%) on energy policy, followed by health care (13%), Afghanistan (10%) and the economy (8%). This finding echoes the results of recent Pew polling, which found that clean energy and mass transit investments are far more popular among the American public than nuclear investments and expanded offshore drilling. All of this strikes me as a pretty strong indictment of the Republican approach to energy policy, given the miles of separation between the parties on the issue. While Democrats support investing in clean energy technologies and implementing a strategy to reduce global warming pollution, most Republicans oppose such a strategy and are increasingly confused about the science. At the same time, beltway prognosticators continue celebrating the death of comprehensive climate legislation, despite its consistent popularity.

In light of the huge trust and polling advantage Democrats hold on the issue, you would expect them to forge ahead on their popular policy proposals despite Republican opposition. But that is not how things have played out over the past six months. In November, Democrats moved a bill through the Environment and Public Works Committee despite unprecedented obstructionism and unanimous Republican opposition. By the time the bill was passed through committee though, Democrats had already decided to scrap that bill, opting instead to place their hopes in a tri-partisan approach led by Senators Kerry (D), Graham (R) and Lieberman (I).

What followed has amounted to a months-long campaign of lowered expectations and concessions to industry. Senator Graham has taken every opportunity possible to downplay a comprehensive approach and emphasize how far from previous Democratic proposals the forthcoming legislation would be. In February, President Obama played up pro-polluter ideas favored by Republicans in his State of the Union address. Rather than negotiating with Republican Senators, Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman actually resorted to working with climate change denying industry groups to craft legislation that might attract 60 votes.

The idea behind all of this movement toward a more Republican friendly (read: less effective) approach to addressing climate/energy policy is that if the bill is polluter-friendly enough, it may be able to attract 60 votes. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be working. Senator Collins, who is widely considered one of the more ‘gettable’ Republicans on the issue, continues suggesting Senator Kerry’s efforts be bypassed. And Senator Graham, when he isn’t using disingenuous process complaints to downplay expectations, made it clear on Sunday that he has no interest in being the 60th vote for a climate bill. As of this writing, no Republicans other than Graham have expressed serious support for the effort.

Meanwhile, all of these efforts to attract industry and Republican support are weakening enthusiasm for the effort on the left. Tellingly, when President Obama made the case for increased investments in nuclear power and expanded offshore drilling, Move On found it to be the least popular part of his SOTU, among their liberal membership.

Over the past 10 days, a variety environmentalist groups and liberal Senators have begun to publicly criticize the yet-to-be-released legislation as it takes shape. Here are a few examples:

• 10 coastal state Senators sent a letter last week to Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman, warning that they can not support legislation that greatly expands offshore oil and gas drilling.
• Environmental group 1Sky is imploring Senators Kerry and Reid: Don’t let big polluters rewrite the Clean Air Act.
• Senator Sanders sent a letter Friday to Senator Kerry, citing serious concerns about a variety of polluter-friendly provisions.
• Erich Pica, President of environmental group Friends of the Earth, told Greenwire, "We’re worried they’re the first ones in the room to get a briefing."
• Mike Brune, the new Executive Director of mainstream environmental group the Sierra Club, expressed a variety of concerns last week: "We will go to the mat for defending Clean Air Act authority. We are also concerned about offshore oil drilling, and we will not be able to accept the dramatic giveaway that offshore oil drilling represents."

Senator Lieberman last week brushed off concerns that the bill may lose support from the left, saying "In the end this will be one of those cases where everybody will be a little unhappy." The groups and Senators listed above seem more than a little unhappy to me.

Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman would be wise to keep an eye on their left flank. Weakening the legislation in an attempt to gain industry/republican support will cost them the support of some liberal Senators and environmental groups. And it may do so without even winning them the support of an equal number of conservative Senators. Worse yet, given the new polling showing that Democrats are more trusted than Republicans on energy policy, further concessions to Republicans would likely weaken support for the bill among the American public. Democrats should be emboldened by this polling data, and should take it as a sign that crafting polluter-friendly policies to try to gain the support of Republicans is a losing strategy, both in terms of policy and politics.

Originally published at EnviroKnow.