Yeah, there is basically no way that the president can pass his climate change agenda through the Senate. None. I don’t even know if he can muster 50 votes for it. Probably not. But, if he can quietly round up 50 votes, I suggest that this is the issue that should be used to attack the filibuster. If Obama wants to really expend his political capital, addressing climate change is the issue he should expend it on.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
36 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Why climate change? As much as I disagree with what a lot of liberals in the House are proposing due to it not making much sense–such as Lynch’s amendment to regulate derivatives–I think financial reform legislation would be the best thing to use :
Why climate change over financial regulations? Half of this country thinks climate change is something Al Gore made up for shits and gigs…and for money, even though there’s really no money to be made in climate change unless you oppose it.
Damn!! I agree with you!! and seriously .. I do
because it’s an actual emergency.
Yes, yes it is, but how can he be successful?
I think O is probably the only one in this country who can sway public opinion on this, but how can he get people in Congress?
I mean, the usual suspects are the enemies here (Landrieu, Lincoln, Conrad, Nelson, probably Lieberman just because he is a douche), but then you have to add Byrd, Dorgan, possibly Webb, Rockefeller, Baucus (is Montana rich with coal and natural gas?), and even Feingold (he said he will oppose ANY legislation that will hurt the middle class even slightly).
I think he’ll have a much easier time using financial reform to get this filibuster nonsense under control.
My reasoning is obvious, but concerning climate change, the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the EPA has every right to tax and regulate CO2. Why even pass legislation if we can impose a carbon tax? I’m not sure how this would be done, or what it would look like, but a carbon tax is infinitely better than cap and trade both economically and environmentally. Krugman necessitates that cap and trade can be just as good as a carbon tax, but I don’t buy it. He’s looking at what will happen in theory, not in practice. While cap and trade is better than nothing, a carbon tax if at all possible is what we should be aiming towards. If the EPA can administer one, why even go through Congress?
While cap and trade is better than nothing, a carbon tax if at all possible is what we should be aiming towards. If the EPA can administer one, why even go through Congress?
2013 or 2017 ring a bell? If the EPA does it now. That means the Republicans, should they win back the WH anytime soon, can go in the opposite direction just as easily. If you put it into law, it’s a bit hard(but granted not much .. since laws are often ignored anyway)
Yeah, I guess you’re right, but just look at labor laws. The evidence is all over the place that the Bush administration completely ignored labor laws in this country ( http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/mar2009/labr-m26.shtml ).
Who’s to say we’ll even get a law with substantial teeth? If the health care debate is of any evidence, or even the House bill which has ridiculously low goals in their climate bill, we’re not going to get anything substantial or of worth. Unlike with health care where I support slower reform if it’s the best we can get, climate change requires swift and radical action…now!
I think the best route is to impose a carbon tax now, and then come back when we have a more science-oriented Congress.
This country further pisses me off. Look at Germany. Their conservatives know what’s up; I like Angela Merkel a lot, and would even consider voting for her despite her not being nearly as liberal as I’d like. Why are ours so stubborn?
And what kind of worthwhile bill would he get through given those numbers you mention. We see what happened with health care and that had more supportive members in the Senate then the Climate change bill does presently.
The repair of the structural defects in the financial system is an actual emergency. The pinsetters are setting up the same pattern again; it is only a matter of time before failure to change the structural defects drives the rest of us into unemployment and foreclosure.
And fixing the structural defects of the financial system might make getting the investments in a sustainable economy a lot easier.
If fact until the first island nations have to totally relocated, climate change will not be perceived as a emergency. In fact the failure to see it as an emergency is what sank the Copenhagen talks. If climate change was seen as an emergency, Republicans wouldn’t see political benefit in opposing a climate change bill by pretending that a climate change emergency doesn’t exist.
Most people think that until we eliminate the debt overhang resulting from the financial meltdown, we are in an emergency. Unfortunately, the demagogues are using this mood to try to kill Social Security and Medicare.
.
Just reading the opening sentence of Politico’s article:
“Bruised by the health care debate and worried about what 2010 will bring, moderate Senate Democrats …”
Just a reminder: “The best defence is a good offence.” What a third world nation is doing about investment in tomorrow?
BEIJING (AFP) – China on Saturday unveiled what it billed as the fastest rail link in the world — a train connecting the modern cities of Guangzhou and Wuhan at an average speed of 350 kilometres (217 miles) an hour.
The super-high-speed train reduces the 1,069 kilometre journey to a three hour ride and cuts the previous journey time by more than seven and a half hours.
Work on the project began in 2005 as part of plans to expand a high-speed network aimed at eventually linking Guangzhou, a business hub in southern China near Hong Kong, with the capital Beijing.
Beijing has an ambitious rail development programme aimed at increasing the national network from the current 86,000 kilometres to 120,000 kilometres, making it the most extensive rail system outside the United States.
In September, officials said they planned to build 42 high-speed lines by 2012 in a massive system overhaul as part of efforts to spur economic growth amid the global downturn.
VIDEO – China launches world’s fastest train with speed of 350km/hr
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."We all know that’s not realistic here. If people are in the way of a project, China just relocates them. Look how that would work here. Lawsuits. You name it. It would drag on for years.
I disagree. I have high hopes that Cali will build a high speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Francisco in the next ten years.
Not so sure about that. There are still plenty of old railroad right of ways available for reusing. The real problem is that the highway/car/airline lobbies have the power and the rest of us just roll over for whatever they want. Apparently China is not all scared of being seen as “going backward” the way Americans are.
the other day saying that flying from Copenhagen back to the US was like going from a modern, technologically advanced country to a third-world country.
TF is usually full of BS and I tend to ignore what he has to say. But I saw that interview and he was certainly correct on that point.
He also had a good article the other day. I know, surprise:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/opinion/23friedman.html?_r=2
He’s one of the smartest guys on the other side of the fence from us. Worth reading, from time to time.
been on the side of a meaningful climate and energy policies for a long time. it’s about the only area where he makes sense.
Unless he’s going to push through Kyoto, getting votes for the current climate change bill is pretty moot since China blew up the Copenhagen talks.
It would be much better to pull this bill, break it into pieces that deal with the financing and stimulation of sustainable technologies. Then handle non-renewable technologies through regulation until they start begging for a cap-and-trade regime. That will keep us out of some of the carbon sequestration and new reactor boondoggles, forcing industry to prove their compliance with regulations and their ROI. And will focus on rapidly deploying decentralized systems, such as solar roofs (they need not supply 100% of required power to impact emissions) to bulidings all over the country.
There was a Clinton era program called 10 million solar roofs. That needs to be restarted. The results would be to drive down the cost of photovoltaics, and if there was a preference for US manufacturers, ramp up a strong sustainable technology industry.
You can try to incentivize the transformation of existing industries to clean up their act, or you can move the customer demand to another technology and have them come begging to be saved. And you probably have the skilled workforce in places like West Virginia who could be diverted to manufacturing sustainable technology.
And for passing these unbundled items, you can attach them to other legislation, such as housing, tax reform, Energy Department appropriations, even DoD appropriations. The other piece is in Transportation, which are better served through Transportation programs than something called a climate change bill.
We are at the point that we should focus on rapidly reducing carbon emissions without calling it climate change legislation. If we develop the technologies domestically to reduce emissions rapidly, we can then increase our exports of them to China and other countries.
It’s time to get away from legislative shibboleths.
.
By Jerome a Paris
There is no silver bullet to either the financial crisis, the economic crisis, the housing crisis, the industrial crisis, the jobs crisis or the energy crisis we’re in right now. But there is one sector of activity which can help in every single one of these: wind power.
China Solar Panel Maker Sets First U.S. Plant
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Wind power is important, but the demand depends on corporate investing. Rooftop solar technology has the advantage of going directly to consumers.
Consumers are much more likely to buy solar in order to save money than investor-owned power companies are likely to invest in multi-year construction projects of large wind farms in the current economic environment. Residential use will drive commercial building use, although for most commercial buildings solar will produce a tiny fraction of required power.
That is, unless you do farmstead wind power, like was used for water pumping prior to 1960.
These also have the advantage of not creating massive blackouts during bad weather.
And yes, we can lose this possibility of a domestic market if we don’t change the way we think about economic feasibility.
I disagree. There’s a company here in the US – forget which one – which makes little tiny windmills that generate enough power for most of a small home or apartment’s needs. I think that will be the next wave – going direct to the consumer for that too. It makes a great compliment to those who have installed solar power, as the wind often comes up at night, at least, in these here parts! š
Got a link?
Last summer and the summer before it I installed solar panels on a few houses, and helped build a passive solar house. Aside from installation, it also called for repair. The one house where we had to repair the solar, he also had someone else build him a wind mill. I’m not sure how tall it was, but he sold power back to the grid almost 24/7.
Yeah, the windmill will probably pay for itself, but it’s going to take a while.
My point is, this windmill was $40,000, and I’d like to know what other alternatives there are for personal housing windmills.
Here’s one – you can find many more.
http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2008/07/30/personal-wind-turbines-now-come-designer-made/
Yeah, most wind setups would require some kind of cooperative behavior for optimum results. In America that only happens if we’re paying some corporate bozos millions to tell us what to do.
No pol could survive if s/he tried to make fossil/nuke energy corps pay their own way without the massive subsidies. So better sources still have to fight an uphill battle despite the trifling incentives currently on offer.
I’m even more pessimistic. I don’t think anything meaningful will happen on climate change until people my age and older are either dead or have stopped voting. That’s another 30-50 years, and by then it will be too late.
The Baby Boomers will be remembered as the Worst Generation.
You’re a late Boomer, aren’t you? I’m an early Boomer; I’m not going to be around in 30 years.
Let me hit you with the early Boomer accomplishments. The Civil Rights movement was split between the Silent Generation (figure that) and early Boomers. Early Boomer women revived feminism on a widespread basis and created the political climate in which discrimination was punished by the courts. Boomers were the shock troops in the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s and took the casualties of a decade of divorces, which freed up the culture’s attitude toward bad marriages and violence against women. Boomers created the first huge mass movement against an American war and took the employment discrimination that went with it. Boomers created the personal computer and exploited the internet. Boomers created the environmental movement as a mass movement, explored world religions, and not a few nutty cults. And questioned pretty much everything.
Boomers who entered college in 1971 and after got distinct orders from their parents not to get themselves killed protesting and to buckle down and get a good job. They cannot be faulted because they did; all revolutions have a counter-revolution.
Now, I don’t totally believe this narrative I laid out because I don’t believe that assigning characteristics to generations is other than a marketing or propaganda ploy. There were a lot of stinkers in the Greatest Generation.
i don’t think he fought hard enough on healthcare, and that, if he had taken it to the insurance companies, was a direct fight.
you expect him to actually get up and FIGHT for Climate CHANGE?
REALLY FIGHT FOR IT, Booman?
and, you think CLIMATE CHANGE, which is a ‘soft’ issue, a complex issue..is something he would be willing to TAKE IT TO THE PEOPLE?
I dunno.
I believe it’s worth fighting for, but I’m an informed voter.
of all the issues you think the President should stand up and ‘ fight’ for, you fix one that’s so ‘ mushy’, BooMan.
I see this scenario:
I like Tarheel’s ideas, but is there a way to incentivize people to eat less meat? I’ve gone vegetarian as of last week for the sake of climate change. Not much will change in my diet as I never bought meat for my house and only ate it out at restaurants anyway. Taking on the Food Industry is going to be just as hard as taking on the Health Industry, though.
I’m not giving him any slack on this issue, just as I’m giving him no slack on civil liberties and trials for detainees. Politics is the art of the possible? Well he better damn well make it so there’s an environment (no pun intended) to discuss this issue like adults. He needs to educate the public on how dire this issue is. That might backfire, as the libertarians will come out of the woodwork claiming global warming is just more ways for the government to control your life, but it’s worth a try. Al Gore is tainted; and I tire of his distortions of the science anyway (not a fan of An Inconvenient Truth).
In my opinion, this also means the left needs to drop their outright opposition to nuclear power.
Nuclear power is fundamentally a nonrenewable power source. There are a lot of interesting ideas out there about how to do nuclear power production without risk of dual use and with using existing nuclear waste instead of newly mined and refined material. Those ideas have not been proved yet, so I would not devote a large amount of public funds to them. If it is real, there is sufficient incentives for investor-owned power companies to explore them. The same is true for carbon sequestration.
My logic is that we rapidly deploy the technology that we have now that is limping along because there is not enough demand for units to drive prices down the technology-price curve.
Much higher prices.
Let Sarah shoot all the cows?
it might be a more worthwhile exercise to try and identify which part[s] of his agenda, if any, he can get through the senate… given it’s current dysfunctional condition ……………………l come up with nothing.
The depressing thing is, I guarantee the less Congress passes, the more widespread the conclusion that it’s Obama’s fault. The notion that the President has quasi-monarchical powers and all failures are executive failures is now too strongly entrenched to counter with anything like fact.
Just bribe Joe Lieberman and attach an anti-abortion amendment.