Tweet
BREAKING out! Small spines on Democratic Senators! Having said "yes" to virtually every demand to water down the climate bill, the Democrats most in favor of the climate bill are finally beginning to say "no." And not a moment too soon, as Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) prepare to release their bill within the next two weeks.
Rumor has a climate bill being written during spring recess and introduced in mid-April. Lots of meetings have taken place over the last few weeks. Senate leaders huddled on Tuesday and Senate leaders huddled more on Wednesday, with bland official statements of "progress being made." Although rounding up all the leaks, spins, and flat-out falsehoods on the climate bill is a daunting job, some truths have begun to emerge.
1. Timing and Politics:
After healthcare reform, financial regulation bill is in the batter’s box. On deck: climate or immigration? Early reports of Charles Schumer (D-NY) arm wrestling Kerry for priority seem to have dissipated. It’s smart politics to take up climate first. The politics of the climate bill are as regional as they are ideological. Pass a potentially controversial climate bill now so that people have time to forget, or get outraged by the next big thing, 
over the next six months. And in the fall, a big push on immigration will energize Latino and other voters while exposing the teabagging right’s hard white underbelly of xenophobia and racism.
Last Tuesday, Senator Tom Udall and 21 other Senators petitioned Reid to move forward on the climate bill. The fact that the letter was written is mildly interesting. The fact that the letter was signed by a number of moderates and fence-sitters is arguably more interesting. Mark Begich (D-AK), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), and Jon Tester (D-MT), all considered "fence sitters," signed. (All descriptions of Senators are taken from the E&E list (2 pg pdf).)
2. Senators Say No to Republican Demands, Part I: Showdown in the Arctic Averted
A couple of weeks ago Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) floated the idea of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Reaction was immediate: a nonstarter, said Lieberman. (I’ve previously speculated that Murkowski made her demand so that her fallback position — a vast expansion of Arctic offshore drilling — would appear reasonable in contrast. Keep that in mind as you read on.)
3. Senators Say No to Republican Demands, Part II: No to Offshore Oil Expansion?
Last Tuesday, a group of ten coastal state Senators who support the climate bill warned that they would oppose a climate bill if it greatly expands offshore drilling. The ten Senators in need of carrots are both Senators from Oregon, Wyden and Merkley; Bill Nelson of Florida; and representing the northeast, Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD.), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Ted Kaufman (D-DE), and Jack Reed (D-RI).
Finally, Democrats show spine instead of acting like doormats for Republican ideas of clean coal and more drilling!
The Sierra Club’s new leader, Michael Brune, is helping the Senators flex their spines by warning the Senate that the Club might pull its support if the final bill contains unaccpeptable provisions, such as expansion of offshore drilling and gutting of the Clean Air Act’s authority.
4. Structure and Substance of the Bill
Cap and trade is dead, reads the NYT’s eulogy. (Just like healthcare reform died in January?) The final bill may incorporate elements of the Cantwell-Collins cap and dividend CLEAR plan in which permits are auctioned off (not given away) and partial rebates given back to consumers. For that consumer-friendly approach, AARP has announced its support for CLEAR.
Per anonymous sources at Reuters, last Friday night’s news dump contained details: free permits, $10 billion to encourage "clean coal" (note that this is actually a fairly cheap unicorn to chase), and replacement of the renewable energy standard with a clean (renewable plus nuclear) energy standard.
And today, Politico leaks more details: a carbon tariff, which midwestern Democrats consider essential (but Obama opposed last year), a carbon tax on gasoline (which Graham says won’t hurt consumers because they’ll get those CLEARish rebates), and preemption of California and other states’ emissions standards.
It must be emphasized, especially with anonymous sources, that these details may or may not be accurate when the final bill is unveiled. Today, Climatewire reports that permits won’t be free — instead, the food fight over allocations is just beginning, and is expected to go down to the wire. Either Reuters or Climatewire is right on permits/allocations, but not both.
5. So will a bill be passed this year? Consult the Magic 8 ball ————>
Who’dathunk that passing healthcare reform would be so good for the orthopedic health of Democratic Senators?
32 Comments
Hope for change?
Spines for Democrats? LMAO! Like brains for Republicans, it’s really unlikely.
Between the brainless Republicans and the spineless Democrats it would appear that political power in the US is held by a vast amoeba.
there is something i like about considering the fed, goldman sachs, bankers, corporations, etc. as a vast amoeba.
wapo front page cant read its own poll, which has the HCR bill at 48-49 approve disapprove.
text of story has it 46-50.
what is wrong with these people??
DATA!
2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Obama is handling [ITEM]? Do you approve/disapprove strongly or somewhat?
3/26/10 – Summary Table*
——– Approve ——– ——- Disapprove —— No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion
a. Health care 48 33 15 49 6 43 3
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_032810.html?hpid=topnews
STORY TEXT!
Overall, 46 percent of those polled said they support the changes in the new law; 50 percent oppose them. That is virtually identical to the pre-vote split on the proposals and similar to the divide that has existed since last summer, when the country became sharply polarized over the president’s most ambitious domestic initiative.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/28/AR2010032804094.html?hpid=topnews
“clean” coal is clean in name only. there’s no such thing as clean coal.
nuclear power is the most dangerous of all as the waste lives on forever and emits radioactivity that can’t be contained.
My problem with Clean Coal as a concept isn’t the GHG emissions, rather its the toxic fly ash residue. There are technology being developed that will take care of the CO2, but the fly ash is polluting local communities especially poor ones.
oh, and about those spines, if they pass a climate bill that resembles the health insurance company enrichment bill, the only spine grown will be the one where they’re further emboldened to stand up united with large corporations at the expense of the ordinary citizens squashed under their feet.
Agreed. Based on the past performance of the so-called “liberals” in the Senate, this bill will end up being a giant subsidy for Exxon. With free black-tar cones for kids everywhere. And higher taxes on clean energy sources to pay for it all. With Dennis Kucinich and Alan Grayson leading the charge in the House.
This is something I detest:
So the number one priority in setting up climate change legislation is … election-year politics?!!
Oh Christ There IS No Hope.
Wasn’t climate change a big enough issue that the details of addressing it can’t be left subject to the need to produce 30-second TV sound bites?
Is nothing a higher priority than getting Democrats elected, anyway?
I doubt very very much that the Democrats will do anything on climate change, and if they do, it will probably create worse problems. Between the election year and their corporate sponsors, we’d probably get “health care reform II”. And we don’t need any more “reform” like that.
Very good point on policy vs politics. One would hope that our leaders are picking their battles based on the needs of the country, not politics. In my opinion — which is, I believe, shared by Senator Kerry — the climate bill should be highest priority because we have to address carbon emissions now; the fact that it’s also smart politics to take it up before immigration reform is secondary.
As far as the substance of the bill, we all fear that it’ll be a giveaway to nukes, offshore drilling, and the chimera of clean coal in the interest of getting Repub votes, so the idea that 10 Dems would say no! to drilling is a pleasant surprise.
If it doesn’t garnish the bottom line of the Fortune 500 forget about it.
OT, Obama has made a surprise visit to Afghanistan.
Obama went to Afghanistan to open new branch offices for Goldman Sachs, Wellpoint, and Merck. That’s his job, isn’t it?
Spines try souls! The Planet though doesn’t really give a shit and is going to do what it does. Nature is remorseless to species that violate it’s laws. The animals can be excused they’re dumb beasts and don’t know any better we on the other hand are guilty of malice of forethought in this regard. The Seas will rise and the ice will melt, methane and CO2 do what they do to the atmosphere and what’s coming is going to be on a biblical scale when it hits. The planet cannot carry 9 bil. people and continue to pour these greenhouse gases into the atmosphere no matter what the Chinese, Indians or Exxon Mobil think. Hell is going to be paid for our denial and non-action that I can guarantee u.
pretty safe guarantee considering the Earth’s geological record suggests several mass extinction events throughout history….the problem is these events occurred without regard for the levels greenhouse gases in atmosphere and will continue to do so. a better argument to consider would be the impact on health of the population (i.e. increased incidence of asthma, skin cancer, etc.) still a price to pay – just at a less dramatic level.
The Democrats always talk tough before they give away the farm.
I know young evangelicals, and 20-somethings for whom climate is a very real issue and a far bigger priority than immigration. They’ve grown up in a world of rapid species extinction and in listening to them, it sure has seemed to me that Katrina prompted the emergence of a new, blurry political consciousness that played out in 2008 with the election of Barak Obama.
I live Out West.
Water is a huge, huge issue.
Water is a climate issue.
It affects orchardists, ranchers, crop farmers, and every aspect of the food supply — including (obviously) fisheries.
Both immigration and climate change affect the food supply.
But of those two problems, climate change is fundamental to crop productivity: where, and how successfully, can you grow food?
Immigration is secondary.
The Senate Democrats are making this too difficult for themselves. If they take the regulatory route– cap and trade (or even cap and dividend)– they’re not going to get past the inevitable Republican filibuster. However, If they used a carbon tax shift bill (as carbon tax ramps up, reduce payroll taxes dollar for dollar), they can get it through this summer.
1. as a revenue measure, it can be passed by a filibuster-proof reconciliation bill (the House HCR bill was last year’s reconciliation bill, next month’s budget resolution can authorize a new one for this year),
2. as a revenue-neutral tax shift, Republicans can vote for it without violating the “taxpayer’s protection pledge” they’ve all signed,
3. a 16 page bipartisan carbon tax shift bill was introduced in the House last year… just dust off it and pass it.
H.R.2380 – Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act of 2009
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce social security payroll taxes and to reduce the reliance of the United States economy on carbon-based energy sources.
that’s a massive tax on the unemployed – hansen’s tax and dividend gets the $$$ back to the public and is progressive (higher use of energy = more tax cost, but everyone gets the same dividend).
what problem are you trying to solve with this carbon tax plan? Sure as heck isn’t going to be climate change since the level of the required tax would be beyond what is politically sustainable. Cap and Trade is the only one that is politically feasible because the cap forces the carbon cost to the equilibrium level. Adding $10 or $15 per tonne of CO2 ain’t going to achieve jack. CO2 price has to exceed $30 before either fuel switching or technology adoption starts making economic sense. I can’t see a carbon tax on industry that would exceed $10/tonne, any more than that would not be politically sustainable.
I believe that the K-G-L bill will have a floor of $10/ton and a ceiling of $30/ton, indexed to inflation; however, that’s just my educated guess, and the bill could change between now and next month.
I disagree. If the payroll tax was going down as the carbon tax was going up, you could increase up the carbon tax pretty high and it’d pretty much be a wash in household income. $15/per ton carbon tax would raise $80 billion a year (per 2008 Baker Institute study), that’s about one-eighth of total Social Security FICA taxes. Ao carbon taxes could rise has high as $120/per ton before we run out of Social Security payroll taxes to rebate (I guess we’d go to the $200 billion in Medicare FICA taxes next).
RLMiller- Can you clarify for me? My two California Senators are not included in your 10 who will oppose an expansion of offshore drilling. Does that mean that they are open to an expansion or that they are not in need of carrots? Also, do you know where Boxer and Feinstein stand on allowing this bill to overrule California’s own clean air standards?
SBRose (wavin’ at you from the next county down), I haven’t heard anything specific from either one on these specific points. I assume, just from their general stances, that Boxer will fight for what the planet needs; DiFi, not so much. DiFi has already taken not-so-good stands on use of Cal desert lands (solar/tortoises/ORV’rs) and water, which MAY play into a climate bill. The Cal emission standards are said to be a deal-breaker for both Levin (D-MI) and Boxer, on opposite sides, so I don’t know how that will play out. AKA “Reply hazy, ask again later!”
Thanks for the update RLMiller! Good to see some coastal senators opposing including offshore drilling in the bill. Michael Brune is a breath of fresh air at the Sierra Club, I hope he brings some of Rainforest Action Network’s sense of urgency and tactics with him.
Pre-emption of state limits would be a setback though. It seems like bad politics too. If California and other states can reduce their pollution faster than the overall national standard, coal states wouldn’t have to reduce their emissions as much.
By the way, the Reuters piece said “some free permits” and I think they would just be for power companies facing the earlier emissions standards, so I don’t think it necessarily contradicts Climatewire.
Thanks RLMiller- Greetings to Ventura County!.
Oops- hit reply too soon. Re: Boxer and DiFi- pretty much what I thought but I haven’t kept up with the Climate Change Bill.
“sounds a lot like Jane Hamsher’s veal pen critique: some validity, but also some starry eyed idealism that doesn’t stand a chance” RLMiller on calling out our corporate controlled world. comments at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/26/851260/-Reading-tea-leaves-on-a-climate-bill:-Senators-growing-spines
If you want starry-eyed idealism, it’s Democrats with a spine.
Actually Liberman should not be identified as (I-CT). He should be identified as (Me-CT).
It all looks very meaningful until you look at that lettering across the deck. Let’s see: T-I-T-A-N-I-C… yep, like I said…
CO2 regulation could be a good thing if the buck didn’t end up being passed to consumers. But I don’t see a single private enterprise anywhere swallowing a cost deemed for the public good. What happens to pollution from China or India? It will make US attempts to clean its self up pointless. And I don’t see how you can put tarifs on goods and service coming in from unregulated countries without causing a major political/economic fuss. I think if consumers want it and don’t mind paying for it (clean production/energy) then fine, but those that don’t want it shouldn’t have to pay for it. Heck, just thinking this all becomes very strange when most of the wind/solar panels subsidized by us end up being made in China and sold back to us. Thats CRAZY! Maybe we need a Jones Act for wind and solar panels, “Keep our Subsidy Money HOME!”