Climate Progress: An insider's view of climate science, politics, and solutions

How lame are the GOP’s delaying tactics on the climate bill? Even the Washington Post’s editors — no friend of climate action or clean energy — criticized them today in piece titled, “Unhelpful atmosphere,” pointing out that “GOP members want the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to perform a series of modeling runs that would be more extensive than those it has done on similar legislation” and “EPA Associate Administrator David McIntosh said Tuesday that the differences [between the House and Senate bill] wouldn’t even show up in the agency’s computer modeling, leaving little reason to conduct a completely new analysis before committee work commences.”  The editorial noted, “Draft texts of Kerry-Boxer have been publicly available since the end of September, and a more complete version has been out for more than a week. The GOP should be ready to offer amendments, particularly after Ms. Boxer extended the deadline for their submission to Tuesday evening….  Ms. Boxer brought Mr. McIntosh into the room Tuesday to answer just such questions. It would have been constructive if GOP committee members had been there to question him.”

Guest blogger Noreen Nielson, Director for Energy Communications at Progressive Media, shares some further insight on the GOP’s delaying tactics.

As the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee began meeting for markup yesterday on the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, only one Republican member, Sen. George Voinovich, bothered to show. The boycott, carried out by the six other minority members, suggests they are joining in lockstep with the rest of the Party of NO to block any reform that will help rebuild our economy – from clean energy to health care to financial reform.

During this morning’s meeting, Sen. Voinovich, speaking on behalf of the minority party, said they “sincerely” wanted to work with Democrats to pass the Clean Energy Jobs Act. Yet past statements indicate otherwise. (Note: All the below statements were made before the Senate bill was even introduced.)

• Sen. Inhofe’s prediction for the Senate bill following the passage of Waxman-Markey: “It’s dead in the water.’’ [June 30, 2009]

• Sen. David Vitter: “I’m predicting — at least as we speak now — that we can kill any major climate change legislation on the Senate floor…” [July 7, 2009]

• He continued: “I’m very hopeful we’ll be able to block any major climate change bill like that which came out of the House on the Senate floor.”

• Sen. Bond: “I think certain people pushing this bill see me as one of the biggest thorns in their sides. If they don’t now, they will.” [September 28, 2009]

• Sen. Barrasso [and Sen. Inhofe]: “[W]orking together to make sure the Senate doesn’t pass a bill that to me is going to cripple our economy and raise taxes on American families.” [July 15, 2009]

(more…)

We’ve seen how GOP conservatives want to cleanse their party of moderates — see “Honey, I shrunk the GOP, Part 1: Conservatives vow to purge all members who support clean energy or science-based policy.”  Even Lindsay Graham (R-SC), an American Conservative Union “Senate Standout,” among the 20 most conservative U.S. Senators in 2008, is being attacked for even daring to engage in bipartisan efforts to solve our climate and energy security problem (see Teabaggers try to “flush” Graham out of GOP, calling him “traitor” and “RINO” and “wussypants, girly-man, half-a-sissy”; Graham responds, “We’re not going to be the party of angry white guys”).

Well, Senator, not only does Glenn Beck say “I’m going to stick with the angry people,” Mike Pence, chair of House GOP Conference, sides with Beck (see here).

If you need it further proof that there’s a growing purity test for GOP nominees for national office, that the angry people are taking over the party, consider this bombshell from New York:

A moderate Republican whose candidacy for an upstate New York Congressional seat had set off a storm of national conservative opposition, abruptly withdrew on Saturday, emboldening the right at a time when the Republican Party is enmeshed in a debate over how to rebuild itself.

The candidate, Dede Scozzafava, said she was suspending her campaign in the face of collapsing support and evidence that she was heading for a loss in a three-way race on Tuesday involving Douglas L. Hoffman, running on the Conservative Party line, and Bill Owens, a Democrat.

As TP reports, “big tent” and “establishment” Republicans — such as Gingrich, the RNC, and the NRCC — backed Scozzafava whereas “purists” — such as Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, and Bill Kristol — backed Hoffman.

What test did Scozzafava fail:

(more…)

When we last left Sen. Graham (R-SC), far-right-wingers were, as predicted, going after him for his breakthrough partnership with John Kerry (D-MA).   Teabaggers were trying to “flush” Graham out of the GOP, calling him “traitor” and “RINO” and “wussypants, girly-man, half-a-sissy.”  Graham responded, “We’re not going to be the party of angry white guys.”  Now Beck has responded to Graham, as Think Progress explains:

Graham has previously dismissed Beck as an entertainer who is “aligned with cynicism.” “Only in America can you make that much money crying,” Graham said of Beck. When Beck responded by saying Graham’s criticism was the “highest honor” he’s ever received, Graham reiterated his view that Beck “doesn’t represent the Republican Party.”

Thursday, Beck opened his show with a diatribe against Graham.

(more…)

[This is Bill Becker's BS list. Feel free to add your own suggestions.]

If there is any doubt that Washington D.C. is where hyperbole, distortions and silly arguments come home to roost, that doubt disappears as we listen to congressional debate on climate and energy policy. Even some of the statements coming from the Obama team lately inspire a loud “Huh?”

Jon Stewart would win a Nobel Prize for Truth, if one were awarded for diligence in revealing how some members of Congress, not to mention the conservative chattering classes, regularly insult the American people’s intelligence. Unfortunately, he’s only on the air 30 minutes each day.

Also unfortunately – and here’s an inconvenient truth — not all of the American people are informed enough about climate change to know their intelligence has been insulted.  It’s a complicated topic made even more complicated by bogus arguments [and by a status quo media more focused on celebrity funerals and celebrity comments (e.g. Sarah Palin) -- JR].

So, in the spirit of improving the quality of the debate  and with unapologetic imitation of another political satirist on night-time TV, here are today’s Top 10 Bogus Statements (B.S.) in the climate debate, each followed by a reality check.

No. 10 BS: The United States can’t make a firm commitment to reduce greenhouse gases until China and India do.

(more…)

Oil companies, electric utilities and the coal industry have poured more than $250,000 this year into the coffers of the National Republican Congressional Committee, the party’s House fundraising arm that has played a lead role in attacking Democrats who supported climate legislation.

All told, political action committees for various fossil fuel industries have given at least $280,000 to NRCC through the end of June, according to quarterly finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission….

In the 2008 campaign cycle, the oil and gas industry and utilities combined to contribute more than $1.6 million to NRCC, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

So reports Greenwire (subs. req’d) today.  See also “Follow the money: Global warming polluters pay to undermine Waxman-Markey clean energy bill.”

And don’t get me started how stupid the natural gas industry is for using their money to stop a climate bill that will be a boon to their industry (see Game changer 4: Tim Wirth delivers must-read “extreme words” to natural gas execs: “You don’t have the right to sit back and do nothing” about climate change. “We are in very deep trouble, the edge of catastrophe, and you can help”).  I’ll blog on that shortly.

Here are more details on this dirty money, and how the GOP is spending it:

(more…)

Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) plans to unveil a major global warming bill immediately after Congress returns from the August recess, she said today….

Boxer predicted she would have at least one Republican co-sponsor on her bill, though she would not name names.

So E&E News PM (subs. req’d) reported last night.  I see this delay as a sign that she is serious about trying to craft a bill that can garner 60 votes, which will not be easy (see “Epic Battle 3“).  I don’t think the Republican cosponsor will be someone from the committee.  Maybe it will be one of the two Maine senators.

How will all the different pieces by different committees be reconciled?

(more…)

Everybody has assumed we would need 60 votes to pass a climate bill in the Senate.   As one Democratic senator told me recently, the Republicans now filibuster pretty much everything — even bills and amendments supported by most of their members, just to slow the process down as much as possible and minimize the time available for Democrats to achieve any legislative successes.  Such is the GOP’s audacity of nope.

But TPM reports:

Despite opposing cloture on a previous cap and trade bill, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) says that–whether he supports the underlying bill or not–he won’t support a filibuster of climate change legislation this Congress.

“I’m not going to be part of a filibuster on climate change,” Brown told me today. Brown voted against ending debate on the Lieberman-Warner bill in 2007, but he says he did that because the bill had no real chance of making it to the floor, and opposing cloture was his way of expressing his objection to aspects of that legislation.

“I was not blocking the bill from having a hearing on the floor, because it wasn’t gonna get to that,” Brown said. “I wanted to show that I don’t support this bill unless you take care of American manufacturing.”

I consider this a semi-big deal.

(more…)

Okay, I replaced the words “Health Care” with “Climate Change” in the headline borrowed from the second lead story of the Washington Post today.  But the sausage-making-ain’t-pretty message of that story is déjà vu all over again:

The Obama administration, hoping to boost its health-care reform effort with financial concessions from the hospital and pharmaceutical industries, is instead confronting deep dissension on several fronts within Democratic ranks and possible defections among key constituencies….

No single development appeared likely to kill Obama’s signature domestic agenda item, but the relentless barrage of challenges that seemed to hit hourly served to demonstrate why no president since Lyndon B. Johnson has been able to enact large-scale health legislation.

From the outset, Obama has declined to dictate the details of a health-care bill to Congress, but he and his most trusted advisers have worked aggressively to shape its parameters and build political support. At the core of their strategy has been a series of side agreements aimed at extracting revenue, neutralizing potential adversaries and signaling to lawmakers that when the difficult votes come, they will have the political cover of industry support.

Sound familiar?

Passing transformational legislation of any kind is very hard nowadays.  No president has ever been able to pass large-scale climate legislation.  Indeed, no president has been able to pass large-scale environmental legislation of any kind for two decades, since the GOP became the party of anti-conservation.  As I wrote last month (see “The political surprise of the year: Health care reform is tougher than climate action“):

(more…)

Part 1 examined how conservatives vow to purge all members who support clean energy or science-based policy. This is how the GOP shrinks itself.

Here, I’ll look at how, by abandoning clean energy, the GOP is taking the side of the Luddites and leaving this hugely popular issue entirely to the Democrats.  As Mark Mellman, a leading pollster for progressives since 1982, explains in a must-read op-ed in The Hill, “In attacking the clean-energy legislation just passed by the House, Republicans make three critical errors for which they may well pay a political price.”

Mellman is a shrewd analyst — see Mellman on climate messaging: “A strong public consensus has emerged on the reality and severity of global warming, as well as on the need for federal action” — ecoAmerica “could hardly be more wrong.”  His new piece is worth reading in its entirety:

(more…)

Tuesday July 7 at 10 am EDT, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will conduct its first big hearing to explore Waxman-Markey and related legislative proposals to build a clean energy economy and reduce global warming pollution (webcast here). The first panel will feature Energy Secretary Steven Chu and other cabinet officials.  The second panel includes business and environmental leaders, and a mayor.  The GOP’s star witness testifying against serious climate and clean energy action is Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS).  Daniel J. Weiss and Alexandra Kougentakis of the Center For American Progress Action Fund explain just how pathetic it is that the the Republican Party chose Barbour for this role (in a post first published here).  I’ll blog later today on what climate inaction would mean for the Mississipi.

Barbour is no run-of-the-mill state official. He just became head of the Republican Governors Association, replacing disgraced Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC). Before he was elected in 2003, Barbour was one of was one of Washington’s most well-connected and powerful lobbyists, notorious for influence peddling for tobacco and big energy companies. He also served as Chairman of the Republican National Committee from 1993-1997.

Barbour has long been an advocate for big polluting companies, and has reaped political and financial benefits from these efforts. His record makes him an obvious choice to speak in opposition to clean energy policies:

BARBOUR AWASH IN BIG OIL, BIG ENERGY CASH

Barbour has long been at the intersection of special interest lobbying, elections, and campaign cash. He represents cash and carry politics at its worst:

(more…)

“There’s got to be something more important than getting reelected,” Perriello said in an interview with POLITICO. “If I lose my seat, and that’s the worst that happens, I could live with that.”

But the 34-year-old believes Democrats will win this fight.

“This is a gift,” Perriello said of the vote. “For the first time in a generation, we have the chance to redefine our energy economy. …This is a great moment for us.”

[Some people have asked me how they could help Members who are being targeted for their vote on Waxman-Markey.  The EDF Fund (click here) has started running "Thank You" ads like the one above.  There's always the League of Conservation Voters.  And you can learn more about Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA) by clicking here.]

The Politico has a good profile of Rep. Perriello:  “Climate vote threatens some Democrats’ careers.”  Sadly, the conservatives are so desperate to stop any national move toward clean energy and climate action, they are going after all vulnerable members who voted to give future generations a chance at sustainable prosperity:

• The GOP is targeting their own members in a purge (see “Honey, I shrunk the GOP, Part “).
• The GOP is trying to run TV ads so outrageous against Dems like Perriello that at least one media outlet refuses to run their falsehoods.

The opening quotes from Perriello make clear that he understands the health and well-being of the next 50 generations is more important than short-term political considerations.  At the same time, he gets that the future is clean energy, even in Southern Virginia.  So “rather than ducking the issue, he’s embracing what may have been the toughest vote of his young political career.”  Here is the powerful statement he released on the vote:

(more…)

Who do you think will be the GOP’s presidential nominee in 2012?

“If I had to guess, we just saw the opening statement of the 2012 campaign.”

That’s conservative pundit Bill Kristol, calling into Fox News after the only governor who can see Russia when she stands on a really, really tall building announced she is quitting her job in a few weeks.

And why not?  Top GOP contenders for 2012 are dropping like adulterous, love-sick flies — and let’s not forget “Eruptions of know-nothingism from conservative savior Bobby Jindal.”

And let’s certainly not forget this post-election Rassmussen poll about the woman who wears a polar bear pin even though she is working overtime to wipe the species out:  “64% of GOP voters say Palin is their top choice for 2012, 69% say Palin helped McCain.”

So here’s a little Palin primer on energy and climate:

(more…)

Judging by emails and comments, many progressives and enviros seem to be under the misimpression that a much tougher climate bill was politically possible.  I myself was under that misimpression for a while.

Now, in fairness to myself (and others), one serious scenario does exist for a tougher climate bill being politically possible — but that involves a very hands-on Obama, which so far hasn’t been his style for passing legislation (see “Obama can get a better climate bill in 2010“).  Also, his advisors are almost certainly telling him to soft-pedal climate science — a serious mistake, since it essentially gives the deniers free reign to shape half of the debate.  I will blog on that shortly.

Outside the DC beltway, much of what goes on in this town is seen as some form of crass, enigmatic sausage making.  Well, as someone who has lived here for over 15 years, that’s precisely what it is.  And it always bears repeating that given modern conservative ideology, which is 100% anti-conservation, “the country can only contemplate serious environmental legislation when we have the unique constellation of a Democratic president and [large] Democratic majorities in both houses, an occurrence far rarer than a total eclipse of the sun.”

Even then, you must contend with the fact that a key part of this new Democratic majority is built upon votes from districts that are relatively moderate if not conservative, people who voted Democratic not so much because they endorse the progressive platform, but because they finally saw the ever-shrinking Republican Party for what it is — a rigidly-ideological movement hat has no solutions to offer for the many problems facing the country, problems that in fact stem from the few times the public mistakenly handed them the keys to the Hummer.

I would also add that in my one year as an American Physical Society Congressional science fellow advising a conservative Democrat from Florida in 1987-1988 — a pre-Gingrich time that was in theory much more conducive to bipartisanship — I never once saw a single member cast a vote purely for the national interest, except when that vote had no bearing whatsoever on their district.  And even then, every vote was still primarily a political calculation, and if their support wasn’t needed for passage, members almost automatically asked for a pass on any vote that could conceivably get them in any trouble in their district.

So how did we actually get a majority to vote for the first major environmental bill in two decades, a bill that is easily demagogued against politically — see this misleading but brutal GOP ad already whipped up against one Dem –  but whose major environmental benefit is decades in the future?

The Politico explains in “Chaos, arm-twisting gave Pelosi win,” excerpted below:

(more…)

[This post was reprinted from thinkprogress.]

During the floor debate this morning over the historic American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) received a round of applause from GOP colleagues when he claimed that man-made global warming is a “hoax” with “no scientific consensus.” Broun, citing misleading statistics, also claimed that the bill would hurt the poor and “kill jobs:”

BROUN: Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax. There is no scientific consensus. … And who’s going to be hurt most [by ACES] the poor, the people on limited income…the people who can least afford to have their energy taxes raised by MIT says $3100 per family. … This bill must be defeated. We need to be good stewards of our environment, but this is not it, it’s a hoax! … [APPLAUSE.]

Watch it:

Broun’s tired hoax claims aside, Broun’s $3,100 talking point is contradicted by the Congressional Budget Office, which found that that the average cost of the legislation would be only 48-cents a day, the price of a postage stamp, and that “households in the lowest income quintile would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020.” A report by the Center for American Progress and the University of Massachusetts also found that the bill would create 1.7 million new jobs, including 59,000 new jobs in Broun’s homestate of Georgia.

- Ben Bergmann