TPMDC
Moderate Dems: Climate Change Bill in 2010? Fuggedaboutit
Share
Send to a friend!
It's no secret that conservative Democrats from coal, oil, and manufacturing states have long been wary about capping greenhouse gas emissions, but in the wake of the health care slog, they're letting their leadership and the White House know they want cap-and-trade off the table in 2010. Stand-alone energy legislation might stand a chance, but nothing nearly as ambitious as a bill the House passed in July to create an economy wide market for global warming emissions.
And there's at least some signs leadership is listening.
"At this point I'd like to see a complete bill but we have to be realistic," Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) said last week.
If the Senate fails to act on climate change this Congress, all of the House's hard work will be swept into the dustbin, and Democrats will have to start largely from scratch in 2011.
During the presidential campaign, but before the economy took a steep downturn, President Obama repeatedly insisted that addressing the threat of climate change was his top domestic priority. But it's likely impossible that he and Senate leadership will be able to keep the Democratic party united to stop a filibuster of cap-and-trade legislation, which means Democrats will have to secure the support of a handful of moderate Republicans--nuclear energy enthusiasts, in particular--if they hope to pass a meaningful bill.
That's what Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) hopes to accomplish. He's working with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to create legislation that can win the support of enough Republicans to overcome any number of procedural hurdles. But the trio isn't speaking in particularly confident terms.
"I can't tell you the method or the means or amount by which we might price carbon," Kerry told reporters during climate treaty negotiations in Copenhagen.
And, as Lieberman implies, Democrats will have to be prepared to offer a host of other concessions. "I don't think the Senate has an appetite for another such epic, polarized legislative war this session," he said.
It's certain to be a tough haul. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), who will get to take a crack at climate legislation as chairman of the Finance Committee, has said recently that the Senate will pass legislation this year. But it's still unclear whether he's correct, and, if he is, whether a bill that can pass the Senate will be able to lower U.S. emissions to the level climate scientists insist it must.
And with health care still on the table, and vulnerable and conservative Democrats hesitant to take another difficult vote ahead of the 2010 elections, there's more than enough reason for pessimism.
Comments (44) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
FreeRider
December 28, 2009 9:42 AM
Anybody who thinks Congress is going to tackle Cap and Trade next year is delusional. The healthcare battle was a yearlong, bloody, divisive fight. There's nothing left in the tank for another round.
Yet, some Democrats honestly think they can bring down this bill and Congress will start over with a new one! HA! I wish they would share their wacky weed with me. It's apparently some very potent stuff.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
matyra
December 28, 2009 10:34 AM in reply to FreeRider
There actually are Republicans who want to enact a climate change bill as well. Don't forget that McCain's tried repeatedly to do something. If HCR didn't create too much bad blood, then its hard to say what will happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
December 28, 2009 10:51 AM in reply to matyra
McCain has flip flopped on several of his long held positions as he tracks to the right to fight off J.D. Hayworth's primary challenge, and he acts out on his resentment over losing the presidency to Obama.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 28, 2009 11:17 AM in reply to matyra
Oh, get real! McCain is not going to go along with ANYTHING this administration does. He has flip-flopped on everything because he sees his #1 job as obstruct Obama.
Last week, Lindsay Graham said he's changed his mind about working on climate change with Kerry because he's upset with the Democrats over healthcare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
December 28, 2009 11:55 AM in reply to FreeRider
The Republicans' goal is to stop Obama from becoming the Democratic version of Ronald Reagan, someone who marks a clear inflection point over the next 30-plus years in the nation's history. They will mindless obstruct anything that Obama wants that is not a war, or a tax cut that falls almost exclusively on millionaires.
Republicans don't want to help the country. They want to advance their own corporate power.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Alex39
December 28, 2009 10:08 AM
Marg bar the bleeping Senate. I'll get back to you tomorrow with a more coherent response, when my forward-looking pragmatism is back in gear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 28, 2009 10:08 AM
Why not push to dump the 60 vote bullshit, rather than caving to every Blue Dog who starts whining?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
December 28, 2009 10:19 AM in reply to Dorn76
There are a lot of people thinking that these days. I think the smart move for Obama is to pick some legislation that is relatively uncontroversial but which would be hard to get through the Senate and then when it fails to get 60 votes, campaign to end the filibuster (or at least restore the rule whereby a filibuster actually causes someone to stand up and read from the phone book instead of this pansy filibuster-lite we're stuck with now).
My personal pick would be finance reform. I'm fairly certain it would get 51 votes and maybe even 55 votes, but no way is it getting Lieberman.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
conniptionfit
December 28, 2009 10:43 AM in reply to Dorn76
Because if they did dump the filibuster, the Dems would have no excuse for not fulfilling the Dem agenda, and that would make the lobbyists VERY mad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 28, 2009 11:18 AM in reply to Dorn76
Co-sign.
It has happen and it has to happen this session, while we still have 60 votes.
That's the irony. If we had less than 60, it would simply look like an ugly, naked power-grab. The fact that we have 60 and the Senate is still the place good ideas go to die demonstrates to all but the the most densely obtuse observers (i.e. Broder and the Cable Asshats) that the filibuster only worked when Republicans had the option of acting like they were sane. The combination of a level of polarization unseen since the Wilson Administration and the filibuster has turned the World's Greatest Deliberative Body into an anchor on a short rope that's pulling down the entire federal government into a California-like abyss.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Former Federal Employee
December 28, 2009 11:40 AM in reply to Dorn76
That 60-vote bullshit is why the Bush tax cuts will sunset in 2011, and why we don't have personal investment accounts in lieu of Social Security.
Yes, it's frustrating. No, incremental legislative achievements may not be enough to prevent or allay the worst effects of anthropogenic climate change. But do you really want to give away our best hope in the minority, where we may find ourselves sooner rather than later?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 28, 2009 12:31 PM in reply to Former Federal Employee
It was undemocratic then, and it's undemocratic now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 28, 2009 1:12 PM in reply to Dorn76
As a nasty practical matter, if we lose both the White House and both houses of Congress to people as insane as the Republicans are now (and that's considerably more insane even than they were under the reign of Emperor Cheneytine), the country will deserve to get what it voted for, just as it does now.
Even while the Democrats were blocking Bush craziness, they were still trying to show some restraint. The Republicans are now on track for a 100% increase in the number of times the filibuster rules were invoked over the next largest number (also by Republicans under a Democratic president).
As an institutional matter, the filibuster is simply incompatible with the level of polarization and, frankly, insanity, we're seeing now. Government has to be able to govern or we're on the road to collapse and, ultimately, tyranny, when people get desperate and disgusted enough.
I say this as someone who was very much on your side of this argument recently as a couple or three months ago. Watching the Republicans operate this year, combined with watching how a much smaller minority has used ill-advised constitutional provisins to turn a rich state that represents 1/7th of the entire national economy into a shambling joke has finally turned me around.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 28, 2009 2:11 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Stop with your darn logic!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lorne Guyland
December 28, 2009 12:44 PM in reply to Dorn76
Changing the rules takes 51 votes (or at least 50-plus-veep, though I'm not sure if that applies to rules changes). Given the enormous potential power the filibuster confers on each and every Senator, and the apparent feeling on each Senator's part that he (occasionally she) should be Dictator of the World, it's gonna take a herculean effort to make that happen, and even more to make it stick in the future.
It's very difficult to see a majority of politicians voting to strip themselves of political leverage. Of course it's the obvious right thing to do, but when has that mattered?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Docb
December 28, 2009 10:13 AM
Please do not divert their attention- they have proven they can not walk and chew at the same time!
Make them complete HC reform first!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jolly ranchero
December 28, 2009 10:28 AM
which means Democrats will have to secure the support of a handful of moderate Republicans
Also equally likely: I date Megan Fox, I win the Lottery...twice, and perhaps ponies break out all over America.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Venerable Rinpoche
December 28, 2009 10:35 AM
I wouldn't call them moderates. They're to the right of Richard Nixon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
okwassup
December 28, 2009 10:43 AM
Several family and friends over the holiday weekend mentioned how they can't make heads or tails of where health care reform is right now, and what it could mean for them in the immediate future. So I did some research and spent my Sunday creating a simplified explanation of health care in its current form.
If anyone is interested, you can check it out
HERE: http://okwassup.blogspot.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
December 28, 2009 10:44 AM
If the conservative democrats want to block cap-and-trade, that's fine. We'll see how their constituencies like EPA regulation of carbon instead.
Progressive must not concede an inch -- not a bloody inch - on this issue, because inaction (which means EPA regulation) is worse for the conservative democrats than cap-and-trade legislation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
conniptionfit
December 28, 2009 10:51 AM in reply to QuiteAlarmed
Cap and Trade is already the conceded inch. The progressive stand started at Carbon Tax. Our "Leadership" wants nothing to do with Progressives, except to use us as the wild-eyed left which they side with the conservatives against.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 28, 2009 11:09 AM in reply to conniptionfit
Oh for God's sake. Do you really think there's a meaningful policy difference between the two in terms of outcome, or is there just some ideological imperative to do a top down tax rather than endorse something that would validate the continuing social utility of a market economy?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
December 28, 2009 1:56 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I'd say there is a meaningful policy difference, and cap-and-trade is much better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
QuiteAlarmed
December 28, 2009 1:54 PM in reply to conniptionfit
Cap-and-trade is, and always has been, more progressive than a carbon tax. With cap and trade there is a fixed limit on carbon release from the regulated industries; that's the "cap" part. That means that there is a real limit and there will be real reductions. With a carbon tax, the regulated industry can still release as much carbon as they want; they'll just have to pay a the tax to do it.
In sports terms, cap-and-trade is like the NFL salary cap (which actually contains player salary costs). The carbon tax is like the MLB tax system (which has done nothing to contain player costs).
Cap-and-trade is the better, more progressive solution. That's why President Obama campaigned on cap-and-trade, while Senator McCain campaigned on a carbon tax.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Candide
December 28, 2009 10:46 AM
At least this issue has some leverage for Obama. Let the EPA do its thing and draconically ratchet down carbon emissions. Wait for the "aggrieved" parties to start bribing their Republican hacks and you'll find Mitch McConnell suddenly sponsoring a Cap and Trade bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sailormarlowe
December 28, 2009 10:47 AM
Climate change has been exposed as junk science, doctored data, and snake-oil statistics. Let's move on, to responsible development of resources & energy independence with clean coal, increased oil exploration, and natural gas from Alaska.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Candide
December 28, 2009 10:50 AM in reply to Sailormarlowe
Thank you Sarah for your input.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 28, 2009 11:18 AM in reply to Sailormarlowe
Teabagger alert!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 28, 2009 11:20 AM in reply to ilovebacon
RNC sockpuppet would be my guess. Not enough spittle and bile for it to be a Teabagger.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 28, 2009 11:26 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
You're right--GOP sockpuppet. I like that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
afisher
December 28, 2009 11:36 AM in reply to Sailormarlowe
Sounds like you are all for energy independence as long as the gov't will continue to subsidize the US OIL companies? Clean coal...as we all know there is no such animal! Natural Gas from AK...opps, did you forget that the last govenor of that state was selling that pipeline to Canada. Now for the snakeoil: Fraking is a safe process: except that you overlook that EXXON who just bought a natural gas in TX...with the option to back out if / when fraking is found to be "unsafe"?
So energy independence should be focused on renewable energy sources...but that would cost Big Oil to give up their grip on energy so in essence, just one more problem to be left to the next generation, who I am sure they will really thank you for the "heel dragging"! HNY!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
December 29, 2009 12:56 AM in reply to Sailormarlowe
Bet you still believe the tobacco companies also.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EastWest
December 28, 2009 11:03 AM
We're going to see the same kind of strong, sternly worded leadership on climate change that we saw on HCR. In other words, the Democrats will cave in to Speaker Snowe and Joe the Lieberman, the pollution industry will make out like a bandit, the American people - and the rest of the world along with them - will be completely screwed, and Obama will declare "Mission Accomplished".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
December 28, 2009 11:07 AM
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zephyrus
December 28, 2009 11:20 AM in reply to shooter242
Actually, shooter, the voters already gave the EPA the authority to regulate pollutants such as CO2.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
December 28, 2009 11:26 AM in reply to shooter242
Awwww, Concern Dog is concerned about our precious freedoms. That's sweet.
And yet, he was so utterly unconcerned when the Authoritarian Right was bugging American citizens on U.S. soil without a warrant, arresting U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and claiming the right to detain them indefinitely in solitary confinement, in military custody and on U.S. soil without arraignment access to counsel, or right to habeus corpus, and maintaining secret prisons over seas. How odd. Most perplexing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
December 28, 2009 12:11 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Typical right-wing hypocrisy. I expect no less.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 28, 2009 11:17 AM
Lieberman and even Lindsey Graham are for a climate change bill.
But I think the winner is immigration reform. Force the GOP to show their xenophobia and boost immigrant votes for Dems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
December 28, 2009 12:06 PM
Once this Health Care bill is passed, there will be no political will for anything that does not create a job. If cap and trade can create a million jobs before the election next year, it'll pass. If it can't create enough jobs, in the appropriate time and be sold as such, then it won't pass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
December 28, 2009 12:24 PM
No cap and trade is fine. It seems liberals were trying to be decent by acknowledging that rarest of creatures, a conservative idea that worked. A straight carbon tax seems simpler but if a market based cap and trade works too, then fine. Now conservatives have demonized it as "cap and tax", attacking their own idea. Again, fine.
We should be married to the idea of reducing emissions, not to a specific means, which is all cap and trade is. Let's put the onus on the skittish caucus to come up with a better idea.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Forrest
December 28, 2009 12:27 PM
"I don't think the Senate has an appetite for another such epic, polarized legislative war this session,"
Screw you Joe!
Senators are supposed to be the leaders of our country, yes?
Good leaders do what needs to be done, regardless of their 'appetites'. They do the right thing, whether it's easy or it's hard.
We need energy reform. We need immigration reform. We need campaign finance reform. We need financial system reform.
If the Senate doesn't have the stomach to tackle more than one serious issue per session, then we need new Senators with stronger stomachs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
December 29, 2009 2:08 AM
Memo to conservadems, Blue Dogs and the WH: The laws of physics do not compromise, they do not cut deals, they do not meet with you in private. They do not have lobbyists. They do not contribute to campaigns. They do not require 60 votes, or 51, or 40. A stirring speech will not make them go away. They do not respect "the art of the possible." They do not respect "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." They are what they are, they do not negotiate, and we toy with them, cutting backroom deals all the while, paying off this constituency and that, at our collective peril.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 29, 2009 8:55 AM
It sure is cold today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
December 31, 2009 12:42 AM in reply to Silence
It's cold where I live, therefore the climate can't be changing, and even if it is, human activity has nothing to do with it. QED.
Now I know why Republicans don't want science taught in schools.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?