With Climate Change Vote, House Tries To Prod Senate Into Action--Will It Work?
The White House and Democratic leaders in Congress were in top political form on Friday, ushering the Waxman-Markey bill to passage by the narrowest of margins. In so doing, they picked off Democratic fence sitters strategically, to use what leverage they have to pressure Senate moderates into voting for passage as well.
For instance, a number of Democratic reps from states like Indiana, Missouri, and others voted for passage, which could make it harder for skeptical senators like Claire McCaskill and Evan Bayh to filibuster, or vote against it.
They also tailored the bill in such a way that it will be more palatable to Democratic senators from manufacturing states--like Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Sherrod Brown in Ohio--than past climate change bills have been.
But much will also depend on the timeline.
As the 2010 election approaches, members of Congress will become less and less willing to take risky votes, and Democratic leaders will become less and less willing to put them in a position to do so. At the same time, the Senate isn't anywhere near ready to vote on a climate change bill, so if they want to get it done, they'll likely have to hurry.
That seems to be what the President wants. "I'll use just the workout metaphor, and that is, you know, when you start training again and you're pushing your body a little bit harder, sometimes it hurts," Obama told reporters over the weekend.
But if you keep on at it, after a while your body adjusts. And I think that's what's happening to politics in Washington. Folks have been sitting on the couch for a while, and now they're starting to feel like, hey, you know what, I can run. And that's why we're getting stuff done.That doesn't mean there aren't going to be times where it hurts a little bit.
But he also acknowledged that the pace of progress is in large part up to the Senate--and that's not a body known for swift legislating.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Waxman-Markey is a very bad bill, presumably because that's what Blue Dog Dems wanted and because the Senate isn't interested in real climate change legislation.
Better to have NO congressional action rather than a law that strips the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. And why do we need to throw in giveaways to energy corporations?
I suppose the Obama administration will be content with the appearance of progress. But it ain't progress when you go backwards.
June 29, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but this is wrong. While far from perfect, the bill is a dramatic improvement over the status quo from the perspective of greenhouse gas abatement -- which is why nearly all environmental groups (including Sierra Club, NRDC, EDF, and many others) are strongly supporting it. Some level of "giveaways" are inevitable if you want a bill on this devilishly hard problem to pass. Allowances under the Acid Rain program were almost all given away for free; this bill relies much more heavily on auctions. The Clean Air and Clean Water Acts relied heavily on grandfathering. You could have a lovely bill with no transition program, and no political log-rolling provisions -- but that bill would never have a chance of getting enacted, until decades hence, when it will be too late.
June 29, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Denmark has put the Obama Administration on the Copenhagen clock.
And, RM is right.
Obama claims he wants Congress to legislate CO2 emissions control standards, rather than have the EPA decide the numbers by fiat. But, he will kick that can down the road, too.
@Radical Square: Puhleeze. "Cost-benefit analysis" was the focal point of Carlin's "suppressed" report that Smokey Joe Barton got all righteous about last Friday.
July 1, 2009 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is unrealistic to think that senators from the industrial heartland, largely dependent on coal-fired power plants, are going to vote against the real tangible economic interests of their constituents in pursuit of fanciful notions of preventing climate change. The conservative democrats and the republicans understand that this bill will have no real impact on global warming -- even by the EPA's own estimates -- but that it would have real economic impacts with respect to energy prices, creating obstacles to the continued operation of heavy industry. Solar power and windmills are antiquated technologies that are simply incapable of providing the reliable, 99%+ available, high density energy that is necessary for running an industrial civilization. Fortunately, most of the world understands this.
June 29, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, you sound like a real defeatist. Wind and solar antiquated? Maybe some of the older types (eg solar thermal and old school Dutch windmills) but not what's being developed today. So we just give in and keep spewing coal?
No doubt ACES is FAR from ideal, but this is America people, things happen slowly and incrementally. Of course, we probably don't have much time to make a big impact on emissions but I don't see a realistic alternative.
And all this complaining about the economic costs of doing something about global warming makes me sick. A primary reason the US became the wealthiest nation is because of decades of unimpeded pollution from our factories. Its long past time for us to take responsibility for our actions and start paying back on all those environmental externalities. That's what the world understands.
June 30, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd encourage the skeptics over the man-made climate change to think of the sky in Beijing.
The current consumption of dirty, noxious energy reminds me of human smoking habit.
June 30, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The chances that climate change leg will get through the Senate this year is slim and none. And none is packing his bags.
If scientists say we are transforming the climate at an unsustainable rate, I'll accept that as the default position, 'cause I'm no climatologist. I am a skeptic though. And would just like to see some open mindedness, skeptical open-mindedness toward dissenters along with an honest discussion of the latest data.
This stuff is rarely black or white. My guess is that this bill won't hold up very well to a cost-benefit analysis. And getting Senators to essentially tax their constituents in exchange for little tangible gain will be an uphill battle to say the least.
June 30, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL Slim is packing!
June 30, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink