Who Killed Cap & Trade?

[beachmom]

Let's face it, although KGL is not dead, cap and trade has become less and less popular since 2008. Harvard economist Robert Stavins has a great article (http://www.grist.org/article/2010-03-29-who-killed-cap-and-trade/) that links to a NYT article about this decline:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/science/earth/26climate.html?scp=1&sq=John%20Broder%20Why%20did%20cap-and-trade%20die&st=cse

‘Cap and Trade’ Loses Its Standing as Energy Policy of Choice

WASHINGTON — Less than a year ago, cap and trade was the policy of choice for tackling climate change.

Environmental groups and their foes in industry joined hands to embrace the approach, a market-driven system that sets a ceiling on global warming pollution while allowing companies to trade permits to meet it. President Obama praised it by name in his first budget, and the authors of the House climate and energy bill passed last June largely built their measure around it.

Today, the concept is in wide disrepute, with opponents effectively branding it “cap and tax,” and Tea Party followers using it as a symbol of much of what they say is wrong with Washington.

Mr. Obama dropped all mention of cap and trade from his current budget. And the sponsors of a Senate climate bill likely to be introduced in April, now that Congress is moving past health care, dare not speak its name.

...

Why did cap and trade die? The short answer is that it was done in by the weak economy, the Wall Street meltdown, determined industry opposition and its own complexity.

The whole article is worth looking at. However, Robert Stavins adds another really good point:

Furthermore, the nature of the climate change problem itself helps to explain the relative apathy among the U.S. public. Nearly all of our major environmental laws have been passed in the wake of highly-publicized environmental events or "disasters," ranging from Love Canal to the Cuyahoga River.

But the day after Cleveland's Cuyahoga River caught on fire in 1969, no article in The Cleveland Plain Dealer commented that "the cause was uncertain, because rivers periodically catch on fire from natural causes." On the contrary, it was immediately apparent that the cause was waste dumped into the river by adjacent industries. A direct consequence of the "disaster" was, of course, the Clean Water Act of 1972.

But climate change is distinctly different. Unlike the environmental threats addressed successfully in past legislation, climate change is essentially unobservable. You and I observe the weather, not the climate. Until there is an obvious and sudden event -- such as a loss of part of the Antarctic ice sheet leading to a disastrous sea-level rise -- it's unlikely that public opinion in the United States will provide the bottom-up demand for action that has inspired previous Congressional action on the environment over the past forty years.

I commend Sen. Kerry for continuing to fight for this legislation, however watered down it has become, but I think these basic factors are why it has not been moving in the direction we would have preferred.

[wisteria]

1. Good post, I want to think about it a little more before commenting. n/t

[karynnj]

2. Interesting article

I agree that Cap and trade was done in primarily by "the weak economy, the Wall Street meltdown, determined industry opposition and its own complexity", but I think there were at least one other factor:

The concerted effort of some to lie about the science and the scientists. It is amazing to me that there has been a large negative shift in the percent of people who do not believe the problem is real. This is frustrating for two reasons - one, because it is horrifying that anyone would distort information on something that policies need to be written to address. But a second reason is that it shows that we still do not have a real way with dealing with "the big lie" that you have posted so much on.

Here is a link - that shows that one of the people working on this disinformation was one of the people who led that swiftboat attacks on John Kerry. http://www.esquire.com/features/marc-morano-0410

The sad thing is that, if anything, Kerry did a better job correcting the story in 2004, than people did in countering the "Climategate" smears last year.

More and more, this bill is looking like the health care bill, where it will be tough to carve out 60 votes - especially in the midst of all this disinformation, but they need to at least put a price on carbon to start going in the right direction.

[politicasista]

3. He may need to leave people like

Sens Graham and Lieberman alone. They aren't interested in Climate Change and could care less about the environment. The GOP (and Lieberman) are the party of No, No, No. He needs to continue to reach out to people like Gore, Boxer, other progressive liberals who aren't hated on as much as he is, and real environmentalists like EPA Sec. Jackson, Van Jones, Majora Carter, etc.

The GOP is not for the environment and never will be; so the Senator is being dissed/slammed for playing nice with the GOP and failing to learn anything from the failed bipartisan approach on the health care reform debate.


Found this article linked at the Jack & Jill Politics blog (hat tip to rikyah) http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2010/3/30/72214/5636


on edit, if this is a site tag teams with Firedoglake, poli's bad. :)

[karynnj]

4. He needs 60 votes of people who are in the Senate

He had Gore testify before his committee and years ago sent a message to all 3 million emails he had that gave the link to join the email list Gore was developing. He even had Clinton back his actions. Kerry did work with Boxer and he, by some accounts has her support.

Some of the possible problems are people like Feingold, a true progressive, who has voted against every climate change bill in the last year and a half. I'm sure it has to be more important to Kerry to get something passed that really does lead to something like a 17% decrease in carbon production. I'm sure that when the final bill is put together, Kerry will reach out to the the left, but I am positive that there will be angry denunciations on the left.

The fact is that Kerry has a far better record on the environment than most of the people I listed - including Gore, who is exceptional on climate change but not on other issues. In addition, the Senate passed the Byrd/Hagel resolution 4 months before Kyoto was finished. That resolution stated that they would not confirm a bill that did not include the third world. The Kyoto treaty did not meet this condition and it was not clear that much, if any effort was made to do so. Kerry, at Bali, got language that there would be constraints on the third world - though they would be different.

Now, Kerry could do the same thing - in fact, he could have done that, with Kerry/Boxer or even a more purist version of K/B. When he found it couldn't get sufficient support, he could have pushed to bring it to the floor and let it fail. He could have rallied every environmental group to call their Senators and given impassioned, brilliant speeches. But, where would that leave things - with no bill passing.

Look at the full Sanders' letter, he starts by acknowledging Kerry's tireless efforts and commitment. At this point, especially when the bill is likely not even solidified, I think this is partly an effort to have a force from that side, because there are major forces from the various energy sides. I will at least wait until the bill is out and Kerry has a chance to defend it. This is something that he and Teresa have passionately cared about for decades. I completely trust that he will not make trade offs to be better liked by the energy industry or for the personal satisfaction of having his name on an important bill, I trust that what will motivate him is getting a bill that can best be a first step to genuinely cut carbon - whether or not it hurts his own popularity.

That does not mean I will like the bill. In the current economy, it is not likely that Kerry can get the coal state Senators to vote for the type of bill that the environmental groups - and most of us would love - or even like. As Beachmom pointed out a long time ago, it may be like where Baucus was on health care. We ended up very close to the outline he developed that he thought could get 60 votes. We will need to remember how savagely Baucus was bashed. Here, the real environmental groups, have a real long history with Kerry - that might lead to some trusting that he is well meaning, but others feeling more betrayed. But, when something passes and renewables have incentives beyond what they have, a smart grid is on the drawing board and carbon really is given a price, we will likely be moving in the right direction.

Remember that on climate change, reconciliation can not be used. There was not only no language to enable it, the Johanns amendment specifically prohibited it - and Feingold, Murray, Cantwell, Webb, Warner and several other Democrats voted for it.

This was crossed posted at Daily Kos, but attracted very little attention and none from the people most knowledgeable on the issue. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/30/7444/23084

[politicasista]

6. Good,

but not good enough. People don't want to hear that part. (Notice how many crickets chirped after the facts). IMO, these people aren't interested in the issue. They are criticizing and bashing the Senator instead of going after the favorite liberal progressive darlings that vote the other way on this issue; because this could end up the like health care reform debate.

Working with GOP = Bad, Evil
Working with Dems/Progressive = Excellent, Good

Even though Kerry needs 60 votes, that sounds like it won't be an easy task. After the HCR debate, Pelosi and Obama (the chess player he is!) showed Democrats that you don't need to the GOP (and Brown) to pass a major landmark law.

Sure, it would have been nice to get some GOP support, but they will always vote and stand against everything Kerry, Obama and Dems in general are for.

In fact, Rep. Clyburn said that Reid's deal making cost Dems' the MA Senate seat.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5heK0GKRHfpeoNZMI5Hi0gTGv_rUAD9EOJ4I00

Going to go find the Sanders letter, unfortunately it will be twisted as Sanders vs. Kerry, Graham, Lieberman with Kerry on the bad side here.

[karynnj]

8. Clyburn ignores that if they did not already have a Senate bill

passed with 60 votes, they would have been dead in the water. The entire bill would not have survived reconciliation. In addition, reconciliation is NOT a possibility here. In addition, all the MA people have said that it was not health care or Reid's deals that were most responsible for Brown's win. How would he explain that in early December, after most of Reid's deals, Coakley was initially 30 points ahead. (Clyburn's comment was also stupid as Reid is in a tough election.)

On Climate Change, given that they need 60 votes, even if they could get all the Democrats, they need a Republican. I know that they will not be happy with that answer. You and Clyburn are taking the wrong message from healthcare. I assume that Obama will put his weight behind a climate change bill - but he did NOT even try to put his capital and popularity behind Kerry/Boxer.

This is NOT chess, it is simple math. Not even Obama could find a way to pass this without a Republican. Climate change legislation can NOT pass without a Republican vote. Pelosi did a tremendous job, but she needed to get half the House - and she had 37 extra Democrats - meaning she needed less than 90% of her caucus. Reid needed EVERY SINGLE Democrat. Reid had the by far harder task.

Now, if they are going to give even one Democrat a pass for not being willing to vote for a strong bill - they are simply being hypocritical and stupid, if they blame Kerry for not being able to get a strong bill passed. Kerry was the author of Kerry/Boxer according to Boxer. That is the bill he wanted, but it does not have enough support. That IS the bill working with teh progressives - of whom on this issue Kerry is more one than any other member of the Senate.

[politicasista]

10. It was sorta surprising he said that,

but there must be some political motivation behind it, maybe?

It a joke that Kerry/Boxer didn't have enough support, but the Graham/Lieberman one needs 60?

What is the right answer/message from health care? (haven't engaged much in that issue).

Should Dems follow Obama and just forget about the GOP? Probably unrealistic because they need GOP support, but it seems like it never gets Dems anywhere but a hard way to go (at least for the time being).

The chess comment came from here linked for the other Pro-Obama, Pro-Dem blogs: http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=playing_the_long_game

Not Reid's biggest fan, but ok, he had a harder task than Pelosi. None of my sens voted for HCR.

The final paragraph makes sense and on point. Nothing left to be said.

[beachmom]

5. Climate change will not be passed without Republican votes. Period.

The only reason any semblance of a cap & trade bill isn't dead already is because Kerry formed this "tripartisan" alliance with Graham and Lieberman. The original bill died the day it went out of Boxer's committee on a partisan vote. It was DEAD. God, it's annoying when so called "political experts" on the blogs show how little they have followed what has happened in the Senate.

If the bill becomes unpalatable, then fine, by all means, folks can oppose it. But to say it's because it's stupid to pursue bipartisan solutions is an absurd statement. It was ALWAYS going to have to require bipartisanship. Always, always, always. Climate change ain't health care reform. We already have some definite NAY votes from Democrats. It's not just a partisan issue; it is a regional issue.

[politicasista]

7. Makes sense

Graham and Lieberman seem really sneaky (they are close to McCain) so don't want to see Kerry get screwed by them people. Maybe there is just too much GOP, Anti-Obama rhetoric here.

But you do what you have to do, won't please everyone.

[beachmom]

9. I don't agree with that. McCain will absolutely not support the bill at this time.

He has a right wing primary opponent, is bitter about the prez race, and just seems to have some issues at the moment. But Lieberman actually does have a long stellar environmental record. Graham's agenda is to get money flowing to his state to fund nuclear power plants.

I guess I am over "progressive bloggers" and no longer go to any of those sites. I just don't care what they think anymore. I care about what environmental groups and environmental journalists think. That's it. The truth is we are in a difficult situationin the U.S. Senate. I really don't care if progressives crap on Kerry for working with G & L. He's doing what he has to do. That wasn't really the case with hcr where at least until Brown, there was a possibility of those 60 Dem votes. But that has never been the case for the climate bill.

What I don't have a problem with is if a progressive says they can't back the bill and states why in practical terms. I can respect that point of view. But they CAN'T argue that a better bill was going to pass the U.S. Senate and it's all Kerry's fault that it didn't. The facts don't line up with that. But at this point, even the crappy climate bill doesn't seem to have a chance.

[politicasista]

11. He won't support anything

cause he just is a no person still bitter over losing an historical election.

And it's good to be over those people aka "progressive bloggers".

Been more of a lurker than poster of late, sometimes turning up in GDP, but other blogs (not the rabid ones) are better and civil. Even though JJ&P is a Obama friendly blog, it has a some good findings on there, and a blogger happened to link that post from Kos (cause it had the name "Kerry" and the topic of environment).

[Mass]

12. Lieberman has actually an excellent record on the issue. Graham and McCain, not so much.

This said, there are serious questions concerning the bill, because way too many things have been given up in the hope to get 60 votes, and they clearly have risked votes on the Democratic side (I do not dare say on the left, as Bill Nelson is barely on the left), and on Senator Kerry's natural allies like Sierra Club are started to be worried. The fact that, on these last few weeks, the most important spokeperson for the bill has been Graham is very disturbing.

While you can commend Kerry for having tried, there are serious questions on whether it is time to renounce, or at least to launch the left against the bill so that they can get some additional balance. This said, it is doubtful that Obama is not on board, as shown by his announce today that the White House has a new drilling policy.

By the way, nothing pleases everyone. So, if you wait for it, you do not do anything.

[politicasista]

13. Bingo

Although that doesn't sound like a good sign that the Kerry's natural allies are worried about the issue with Graham being the spokesperson for the bill.

This issue the senator's pet in some way. He sounds like he is devoted to this this cause, ok Lieberman may too be, but Graham sounds like he is in it for attention and profit in SC.

[karynnj]

16. More than pet project, dealing with Climate Change is a responsibility

that both Teresa and John Kerry have passionately taken on. I have no doubt that he is using every ounce of intelligence, skill and influence he has to make a difference on this. The real question is whether enough Senators can be persuaded to do something that in the short term likely could hurt them. At this point, the right has succeeded in demonizing putting a price on carbon far more than they succeeded on health care. Add to that that healthcare is obvious and personal, where it is hard to look outside and see anything "scary" about carbon. (Having 100 year floods often in a decade is a clue that something is happening, but it is really hard to connect that as cause and effect.)

Here is an article - from BET - that in some ways comes closest to how I see Kerry's effort.

http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10003239/resurrecting-a-climate-bill-the-power-of-sen-kerrys-irrational-exuberance/?tag=content

[karynnj]

14. I actually take Obama's announcement as part of the reason that Kerry HAS

not fought as hard as he has in the past on offshore drilling. The fact is Obama's decision here appears - at least in the NYT to be unconditional - although it mentions the bill. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html?hp I really don't understand why he is giving away what should be a bargaining chip. I hope I am wrong, but between this and the SOTU, I don't see Obama as that committed on acting on climate change. It sounds like the part he is strongest on is energy independence - which Kerry linked with addressing climate change, but it is possible to work on energy independence without climate change - as most of the Republicans in 2008 did (some copying Kerry's words on funding both sides).

I don't think it is time for the left to take full action against the bill yet, but I think they are right to get their concerns out as Sanders and the Sierra Club did. Opposition should at wait until it is proposed and we know for sure what the balance is. On some things, there have been leaks of industry proposals - the articles have included that fact and the fact that they may not be what the trio decide on way down in the articles. I wonder if Kerry, who is the logical leader siding with those concerns as he has for decades, is behind the scenes using the threat of not being able to hold the environmental left. The fact is that as the bill starts to include more of what Graham wants, they will have a vested interest in passing it and Kerry and the environmental people need to make their votes conditional on getting as much of provisions to deal with climate change as they can.

What I don't get is why the environmental groups and the left did not show much of any response to the coal state Senators. It would seem that proposing a variation of the Cantwell plan that instead of uniformly - across the country - returning the "dividend", which rewards Washington state because they have clean, reasonably cheep hydro-electric power, give dividends proportional to the cost of energy (or the change in cost due to the changes) in various locations. The justification would be that those returns go to people, who have no real control over the source of their energy and it would benefit those whose energy has become more expensive. It would though preserve the economic incentive for the energy companies to move to cleaner energy. Pushing these at least 14 Senators makes more sense. These are Senators that they do have leverage over because their supporters are likely to support the environmental groups.

Given that the environmental groups know that doing nothing is not an option they can support, the question is how do they impact the balance. Only by helping Kerry get the strongest climate change pieces into the bill will they help. Opposing the entire bill will likely kill it - and I suspect the administration and Congress will simply go with the Bingaman bill that does very little for climate change, but addresses energy independence. That bill, with Obama's support would easily pass - and would be the equivalent of Republican wanted bills that passed under Clinton. I suspect that Kerry might be the only reason that that is not where we are at this moment.

The fact is the cards the environmentalists hold are no better than the cards Kerry holds. To me, it looks like Obama has already made it clear that he favors the increased drilling and nuclear, without any condition that it be part of a comprehensive bill that deals with climate change. There are enough Democrats who agreed with this even under a Republican President that with the Republicans, they could pass it. (I suspect that there are nowhere enough Senators who would filibuster a bill supported by Obama that would do that.) The question is how Kerry and environmental allies can get the leverage to insist that some real pricing of carbon has to be included with it. How many Senators are there who would stand behind insisting that pricing carbon in some real way is what they need to give their vote to this? Consider that a vote against the bill will be considered a bill against the US economy.

If that last paragraph sounds like I am very depressed about the chances - that's true. I really do not see where Kerry gets the support needed when so many Senators, acting in their state's short term interest, are not with him. It also made me remember this article - in BET, politicasista - that spoke of the Kerry's "irrational exuberance" (both words rarely used to describe Kerry) as being what has kept the climate bill alive.

It’s tried to die. Really, it has. But every time legislation to combat climate change rolls over and takes its last breath, Sen. John Kerry jumps in with the defibrillator paddles and some irrational exuberance to keep it alive.

It’s like some crazy Jedi mind trick where if Kerry keeps saying the bill is alive, people will believe it. And it seems to be working. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has been wishy washy on the issue, is now urging Kerry — along with his partners Sens. Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman – to quickly finish up their work on drafting an energy and climate bill

Not only does Kerry believe — as he exclaimed this week in a speech on climate change legislation — that there will be a bill, he insists that it’ll be comprehensive. Meaning, it will include unpopular stuff like putting a price on carbon. And that’s the tricky part.

A bill loaded with goodies like tax credits for clean energy technology would sail through the congressional gauntlet. One that asks legislators to make tough choices about limiting greenhouse gases or pricing carbon is far more difficult, particularly when the Democrats are fearful of big losses in midterm elections.

http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10003239/resurrecting-a-climate-bill-the-power-of-sen-kerrys-irrational-exuberance/?tag=content
The highlighted paragraph is one of the best assessments I have seen that - but the alternative bill is likely worse - it would be the Bingaman bill, with the Offshore drilling added - a republican bill with a few goodies added.

[Mass]

15. I have to disagree with a number of things.

First, I do not know any person involved in the global warming community that thinks it is a good bill, from what is known at this point. The consensus is that it is a bill where too much has been given up and the choice is between those who think it is better than nothing, and those who think it is already not worth fighting for it. And this before the bill is even written.

When I say that the left should act, they have already (Sanders's letter and the publicity in the news IS ACTING. He expressed a negative opinion on the bill. And now is the time, because the balance is tilted toward the right at this point.

I understand the problems that his bill has, but the real issue is whether they need a bill whatever the cost, or whether they are going to fight for a good bill. I dislike the excerpt you list because it is so loaded. tax credits for clean energy technology would be a good thing. Placating coal and oil is not, sadly.

It is fairly clear the bill will not happen, which is why I dont really care what they do, except to be bothered that Graham is using it to look like the good guy. I am done with it at this point. There are more important things to happen than a bad bill.

As for Obama's decisions, Benen sums it up for me

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_03/023128.php
N EXCHANGE FOR WHAT?

[karynnj]

17. I think you misinterpret the excerpt

They are not saying the tax credits are bad - just that they are not sufficient. Kerry has always had tax credits for clean energy as a major component. He was one of the people who added them to the stimulus bill.

I agree that no one in the global warming community is optimistic that the bill will be the type of bill they would be happy with. They were not ecstatic with Kerry/Boxer, which ended up having nowhere near the support needed. Only after the bill is written, will it be possible to see if on balance it does more good than not.

In addition, I think it is hard to criticize Kerry for "giving up" things that Obama has already lent his support to - such as nuclear and drilling. In reality, it is giving up nothing - as without the bill - Obama with mostly Republican support and more Democratic support than in the past can easily get all those things. As I see these as things that will happen, whether in this bill or in the Bingaman bill, the question I will want answers by people who know a lot more than me - is whether the carbon pricing mechanism in the bill is a good one and is likely to induce change away from dirty energy. Without that I doubt they will retain Kerry as a sponsor - as the bill would then just do things he has always been against without doing anything to combat climate change.

Kerry seems to be doing the best he can with the cards he was dealt. You defended the coal state Democrats. Yet you criticize Kerry for "giving up" too much - when it is because of the coal state Democrats that he has to make these concessions or give up. I awould blame Obama for not taking a lead here in pushing those Senators - but given all the issues he has to deal with, it is clear that Obama has not been as strong here as he could have been. Even on things like a smart grid, he has not been a strong proponent of doing this.

I totally agree with the Brenen piece. I really don't understand why Obama made these two concessions when he did. Hopefully, they were done getting firm votes in return.

[Mass]

18. " tax credits for clean energy"

It is not even clear how much tax credit for clean energy is in the bill. All people talk about is subsidies and exemption for coal and oil.

The global warming community was fairly happy with Kerry-Boxer or Waxman Markey. They'd like a better bill but they were far from being as unhappy as they are with this bill. It is not their fault if communication on this bill has been left to industry and Senator Graham. I just wonder to which point Kerry has not already given up.

I never defended the coal senators. I think they are wrong and short-sighted. I think, however, that something must be done to help the workers of these states and of the industrial states. There are other ways to do that than to give subsidies to coal and oil industries.

My only point is that the bill may be too bad to save, and that may be it would be a good thing to scrape it. I am seriously wondering. It is not a criticism of Kerry. It is just my opinion.

[beachmom]

20. The more I think about it, the more I think that the climate bill is dead.

And Obama is just implementing the "popular" aspects of it from his right flank.

Or let me put it to you this way, it is dead for the year 2010. Maybe something will change down the road, and that is why Kerry keeps it alive. "Just in case". But it will not pass this year. I never make predictions, but a climate bill with SOME form of carbon pricing or cap & trade is D-E-A-D in 2010. Not. going. to. happen.

Hope the U.S. Senate proves me wrong . . .

Worst case scenario: some crap Dick Cheneyesque energy bill might pass. But I hope to God Kerry won't be part of something like that.

[karynnj]

21. Sadly, I agree with you

There are just many people who look like nos - to see how you get to 60.

I agree with you, that if there is no carbon pricing, I hope Kerry lets it become Lieberman/Graham and says he can't agree with it. The awkward range is if they have all the Dick Cheneyesque pieces and throw in something with no teeth. I hope in that case that Kerry has the honesty to call it what it is. (The very worst is if they create something very weak and give up the epa's right to regulate CO2)

[wisteria]

23. I am more optomistic than you are. I would consider any bill that mentions climate change,

and security in it a win. I am keeping an open mind and am interested in seeing just how much influence Senator Kerry has in convincing some waivering Senators.

[karynnj]

24. I am not blaming the global warming community - they are going on what they

read - and the final bill could well be as bad as some of the intentional leaks. I don't think Graham has spoken more than Kerry, I think he has said more newsworthy things - though at least once he backtracked on what he said. Kerry has spoken more of the need and the difficulty of pricing carbon. I suspect that the reason he has been less verbal than in the past, is because he has not found a way to get support for anything good enough.

It didn't sound like he had given up in the comments with Sarkozy yesterday. I suspect the overwhelming need to do something to price carbon - or constrain it in some other way, will mean that unless the possibility of doing that ends, he will be in there fighting for it. I assume that the EPA (and Obama) really does not have the will to enforce the type of broad brush regulation measures it can do. So, giving up likely leaves us with the status quo. This is not about Kerry - he can always point to Kerry/Boxer and to the fact that he tried everything he could think of. It is hard to fault his effort. This is about whether we go past a tipping point. Every measure discussed is far short of what is needed, but the longer to taking the first step, the harder it will be. It is the level of danger that makes it hard to say - there's no way anything good will get the votes, so we should drop the effort.

Like you, I do see a big possibility that this will not result in a good bill - that it will end with no bill - and Bingaman's will act as the vehicle - or with a bill that does very little for global warming.

[beachmom]

19. Has everyone read this piece by Dan Froomkin?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/30/with-greg-craig-out-of-th_n_517417.html

It's actually not about climate change, but Guantanamo and other war on terror legal issues, but I actually think the general thrust of the article is relevant to this unveiling of drilling offshore. It's all about pragmatic politics, not doing things on principle. Obama is going for the kill to destroy the GOP. Take away their pet issues and what are they left with? Not much. On principle, it's wrong, but it sounds like classic triangulation to me. It just seems like Pres. Obama and his advisors calculate everything now; when principle (like hcr) they view as long term popular for the Dem Party, they do expend some political capital. But for issues that don't look great politically: following the Constitution on trying terrorists or dealing with climate change, they're going to punt on it, or even go in the Bush/GOP direction. It is possible that Obama has some long game in mind, but I don't see it. And frankly, this is way beyond Kerry's pay. He really isn't going to take on the POTUS. He is, in the end, a loyal soldier.

[karynnj]

22. That is very depressing

The more I hear of Craig, the more impressed I am and the more saddened that Obama pushed him out.

It does look like you could well be right as it looks like Obama is taking the GOP's energy independence issue, rather than the broader issue. I think I was naive, during the election and the time sense, to think when Obama said similar things on energy independence that he was speaking in the same way Kerry did. But, though, energy independence could result from finding alternative energy, it can be (and was for the Republicans in 2008) an issue of its own. Obama seems closer today to the Republicans who saw how well the energy security part of Kerry's broader issue was.

With weak support or opposition from so many Democrats and little (or at most moderate) support from Obama, it is not clear how we get a real comprehensive climate control bill. Especially as no Republicans will vote to give Obama what would be a victory on this.

[wisteria]

25. Many Americans see drilling as the answer to our energy needs.

I am not saying they are right, but it is a simplistic enough idea that it makes sense to people. This drilling will not solve all of our oil needs, but it remains to be seen if it might just help a bit. Of course, for Republicans leaders it will not be enough.
I consider this announcement by the President to be the beginning of the debate on the KGL bill.

[wisteria]

26. The debate here seems to be taking the same shape as HCR.

We will not get everything we want. There will always be a need to compromise to gain the acceptance needed to pass the bill. Will the bill be perfect-no, but it is a beginning that can be tweaked in the future. I for one am not ready to "kill the bill".

[beachmom]

27. Well, one rumor is grounds for killing the bill: it would void all of the state's

laws on reducing CO2 and replace it with weak federal law. That is a kill the bill provision IMO. It would mean stepping two steps back. I am pragamatic like you and understand you can't get everything. But if the bill makes things truly worse, then I won't support it. Of course, this is all rumors at this point. Let's see what's in the bill first.

I agree with you that offshore drilling is popular among Americans (it's why the GOP pushed "drill, baby, drill" and why Obama capitulated a bit on that point during the campaign), but clearly they are not educated on how little it will help us in achieving energy independence, if that is the only goal. Never mind environmental concerns or that more oil means more CO2 pollution; it simply will not achieve the goal of energy independence. Frankly, I don't even know if they will end up drilling in most of these places.