Baucus promises to be major obstacle in passing climate change legislation

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Nov 05, 2009 at 10:13:08 AM MST

Ah, so who's the sole Democrat that voted against the legislation?

Max Baucus.

Not that it's much of a surprise. Baucus raised "concerns" with the bill last month, saying the 20 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 was too lofty a goal. Baucus' statement -- "we cannot afford a first step that takes us further away from a conceivable consensus on climate change" - hints that he'll stall the bill in the Tax and Finance committee, likely convening a "green" "Gang of Six" to gut the bill, or kill it altogether.

Frankly, Baucus should listen to Lindsey Graham, Republican:

The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead. And those countries who follow will pay a price. Those nations who lead in creating the new green economy for the world will make money.

Or retired admiral Dennis McGinn, who reminded Montana's delegation that climate change is a national security issue.

Or the 101 Montana businesses that urged the state's delegation to support "strong climate and energy legislation."

Sadly, Dennis McDonald demonstrates how you can join Baucus in opposing climate change legislation while simultaneously keeping your enviro "cred," from his Facebook page:

Cap and trade has proven to be complex, inefficient, and an obstacle to investment in alternative energy. I think a straightforward carbon emissions tax would be a lot simpler and a more effective way of getting people to invest in alternative energy.

There are bumps in the European cap-and-trade program, but remember, a cap-and-trade system was a key instrument in the enormous success in the reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions that caused acid rain in the 1990s. It works.

And the Waxman-Markey House cap-and-trade bill, with all of its faults, sets the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. That's huge.

Here's a primer on what "cap and trade" is...and, of course, Grist is the place to go on climate and energy news - check out thoughts on carbon tax v cap and trade, thoughts on the House climate change bill, and an appraisal of the Kerry-Boxer bill. Oh yeah, and debunks the hysteria around financial institutions planning to "game" the cap-and-trade bill.

Nike abandons CoC board; Boxer and Kerry unveil climate change legislation

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Sep 30, 2009 at 08:23:39 AM MST

...Nike announced (pdf) that it is resigning from the board of directors because of the group's views on climate change policy. The Chamber was already in a tailspin this week, attempting to reclassify their position on climate policy following the departure of three major utilities.

"Nike believes US businesses must advocate for aggressive climate change legislation and that the United States needs to move rapidly into a sustainable economy to remain competitive and ensure continued economic growth," Nike said in a statement. "As we've stated, we fundamentally disagree with the US Chamber of Commerce on the issue of climate change and their recent action challenging the EPA is inconsistent with our view that climate change is an issue in need of urgent action."

(And wouldn't it be interesting to investigate whether similar splits exist in the Montana CoC?)

Meanwhile, in the wake of members abandoning the organization, the US Chamber of Commerce denies ever questioning the science behind global warming. Surprise! That is, of course, a lie.

Meanwhile, Sens. Kerry and Boxer unveiled their version of cap-and-trade legislation today. Its targeted carbon emissions levels are actually more aggressive than the House Waxman-Markey bill, which implies that some Democratic Senators, at least, learned lessons from how the healthcare reform strategy worked.

The split among the ranks of Chamber of Commerce members, too, makes the battle lines a bit murky. Will the bill pit the monolithic and anachronistic energy industry against the nation's more forward-thinking corporations? Who knows? I thought America's industries might push harder on public insurance in the healthcare debate - certainly our system's reliance on employer-provided insurance is a drag on most sectors of our economy - maybe folks should remember that these problems don't belong to a single economic sector, they belong to us all...

Baucus' chickens ready for bed

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Sep 16, 2009 at 06:30:39 AM MST

Frankly, she's not the only one. Chuck Grassley says he can't support Baucus' bill because he's worried about illegal immigrants and abortion. (And just when did Grassley take the crazy turn?) Mike Enzi doesn't think states should pick up any of the tab for Medicaid expansion, and doesn't like fees imposed on insurance companies to help defray the cost of reform. (Of course, Enzi's admitted his job is to block reform.)  Ron Wyden thinks the subsidies are too low. John Kerry: "It's not going to be the bill we're going to vote on."

More importantly for the bill's future in the Senate Finance Committee, Jay Rockefeller despises the bill and claims "four to six Democrats" in the committee feel the same way. If true, Baucus will need to find four to six committee Republican votes to pass his legislation out of committee.

Nate Silver crunches the numbers and finds that Senator Baucus is the only person who supports his bill. Silver:

But let's be clear -- some of this is Baucus's chickens coming home to roost. When you make a unilateral decision to negotiate with only five other people from a 23-person committee and 100-person Senate, and two of those five people have clear electoral disincentives against supporting any plan that you might come up with, the negotiations are liable to end in failure far more often than not. The flurry of on-the-record statements against Baucus's reform plans -- not "leaks", not trial balloons -- points toward a defective process.

And that may suit Democrats just fine.

Without any Republican support, any health care bill that passes Congress now has a real chance of including effective and progressive reform. It'll be tricky dancing around a Senate filibuster, but it likely be easier than getting something out of the Senate Finance Committee with Republican support.

Clinton = SoS

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 12:53:00 PM MST

Among the myriad immediate reactions comes the utterly expected, from USA Today:

The question for Hillary Rodham Clinton, slated to be named secretary of State on Monday by President-elect Barack Obama, is whether she can forge the sort of close relationship with a former rival that is crucial to giving the nation's top diplomat the credibility to get things done.

Er, can't we put this meme to rest, that Hillary Clinton is an active enemy of Obama? That was the storyline of the DNC for days, whether Clinton and her supporters would derail the process and pull some stunt to steal the nomination. And after that, it was how Clinton might not help Obama get elected, and her supporters might flock to McCain. How did that all turn out?

Sure, Clinton is ambitious and will likely fight to have her ideas and influence prevail in the administration...but...well...isn't that what every cabinet member does?

And here's another thing: Mary Ann Akers points out that John Kerry must be feeling a little disappointed at missing out on the SoS job, but staying in the Senate shouldn't be seen as just a consolation price. Folks, the Senate is where the action over the next four years is going to take place. It's the Senate that's the lynchpin for Obama's agenda. Any senior member in that body is going to put his or her stamp on legislation that decides where we're headed as a nation from here out.