A cap-and-trade bill for greenhouse emissions has been making its way through the US federal senate for a while now. Key to its chances has been its one Republican cosponsor, Lindsay Graham; his participation, along with Democrat John Kerry and rat Independent Joe Lieberman, allowed its supporters to tag the bill a “tripartisan” compromise.
The chances of the bill passing have virtually vanished, after Graham walked away. Why? Because the bill restricts the expansion of offshore drilling. As David Roberts put it:
Yes, you read that right: He says he’s bailing from the bill because, in the wake of one of the greatest offshore oil drilling disasters of all time, a bill devoted to reducing climate pollution does not expand offshore oil drilling enough. Such is the Bizarro World of the U.S. Senate.
Leaving aside Graham’s publicly stated reasons for walking away, take your pick of alternative theories. Roberts points to the lunatics taking over the Republican asylum; according to this theory, Graham thought he’d be a hero with the party by negotiating a business-friendly bill, only to find out things have changed. Atrios has a more cynical view – that this is just standard Republican tactics since 2009: have one Republican participate in long, tortuous negotiations with the Democratic majority, thus greatly slowing down attempts to pass anything, and then pull the plug.
And then you have the view that the withdrawal is just reflective of American public opinion. Kevin Drum points to a New York Times op-ed, which, in a nutshell, shows that Americans do believe in anthropogenic climate change, and want something done about it. As Drum puts it, however:
So there you have it: the American public believes in global warming and wants the government to do something about it. However, the American public doesn’t want to do anything — carbon taxes or cap-and-trade — that might actually work. But they do want to open the federal goody bag and dole out subsidies and tax breaks to everyone under the sun, presumably because these all sound like pleasant things to do and they’re under the impression that they’re all “free.” Whether they work or not isn’t really on their radar.
While cap-and-trade (or carbon taxation) might fail this time around, it’s not going to go away in the medium term. As discussed previously, the US Environmental Protection Agency has declared CO2 a pollutant under the existing Clean Air Act, and is moving to regulate its emissions directly, a blunt and inefficient way to reduce emissions, but a hell of a negotiating tool for those seeking a better solution. While a few Republican senators are seeking to overturn the EPA regulation through a Congressional resolution, the odds of such a resolution passing the House are zero, and in any case Obama would veto it.
Yeah, cos if there’s anything America needs, its more offshore drilling.
Yeah, cos if there’s anything America needs, its more offshore drilling.
And dare I say – this is the problem with negotiating with idiots on the Right who dont even understand the issue.
So lets run through this” they
1. watered it down to the point that the centrist party loses all support from the green / left (becuase it now IS near useless, or actively makes things worse) and then
2. they decide its too radical, and dumped the Dems with the remnant albatross.
Sound familiar?
And dare I say – this is the problem with negotiating with idiots on the Right who dont even understand the issue.
So lets run through this” they
1. watered it down to the point that the centrist party loses all support from the green / left (becuase it now IS near useless, or actively makes things worse) and then
2. they decide its too radical, and dumped the Dems with the remnant albatross.
Sound familiar?
So, outside of a few republicans trying to stall the EPA from acting on CO2 as a pollutant, the regulatory agency will take action as ordered by the Supreme Court in 2011, hopefully Jan 1? Well that’s something to hang on to I guess. The rest is very depressing.
Equally depressing I see where the two republicans competing to replace Big Arnie as California Guv have spent $100 million between them on their campaigns for party endorsement. And that’s before one of them goes up against a democrat opponent!
So, outside of a few republicans trying to stall the EPA from acting on CO2 as a pollutant, the regulatory agency will take action as ordered by the Supreme Court in 2011, hopefully Jan 1? Well that’s something to hang on to I guess. The rest is very depressing.
Equally depressing I see where the two republicans competing to replace Big Arnie as California Guv have spent $100 million between them on their campaigns for party endorsement. And that’s before one of them goes up against a democrat opponent!
Loved the
rat. Gave me my first giggle for the day.Loved the
rat. Gave me my first giggle for the day.Lefty E @ #2 said:
Lefty E you may dare say that. But I would not be too alarmed. The Right, in both the US and AUS, is in the process of a major meltdown as both the failed parts of its recent policy platform get dustbinned and core elements of its political base dwindles.
The Hard Right is deliberately sabotaging Centrist policy because they are spoiling for a fight. Is the Left up for it?
They want to polarise the community in order to strengthen their grip over the base. This weakens the moderates and strengthens the militants.
Minchin’s Martyrdom Operation has certainly livened up the AUS Right in much the same way as the Tea Party movement has enlivened the US Right.
This means we are entering a period of ideological policy divergence, in contrast to the Great Convergence of the past decade or so.
I don’t think this ideological divergence will last, at least in AUS. The Centre-Left is on solid ground with its core policies. And its political base (aging Baby Boomers, NESBs and single mothers) are a growing demographic.
I suspect that the GREEN vote will slump back down to 10% once the L/NP’s Hard Right is defeated. Most people do not want Bob Brown calling too many shots in Canberra.
THe Right’s revival of WC is political poison. Its denial of AGW is a farce. Its rejection of RSPT is economically irrational.
Nor will Abbott start to grow on people, irrespective of how many IronMan competitions he enters. Rudd-Swan-Gillard are a competent ministerial team in much the same way as Howard-Costello-Downer. The Caucus is united on leadership. The Cabinet is not rocked with scandals. The economy is humming along smoothly.
Most of all, the AUS people are fairly sensible. I estimate that the L/NP will take at least one and probably two more elections until the L/NP’s Hard Right-wing stuffing is knocked out of them. They will lose fairly convincingly in 2010 and again in 2013, if necessary.
Lefty E @ #2 said:
Lefty E you may dare say that. But I would not be too alarmed. The Right, in both the US and AUS, is in the process of a major meltdown as both the failed parts of its recent policy platform get dustbinned and core elements of its political base dwindles.
The Hard Right is deliberately sabotaging Centrist policy because they are spoiling for a fight. Is the Left up for it?
They want to polarise the community in order to strengthen their grip over the base. This weakens the moderates and strengthens the militants.
Minchin’s Martyrdom Operation has certainly livened up the AUS Right in much the same way as the Tea Party movement has enlivened the US Right.
This means we are entering a period of ideological policy divergence, in contrast to the Great Convergence of the past decade or so.
I don’t think this ideological divergence will last, at least in AUS. The Centre-Left is on solid ground with its core policies. And its political base (aging Baby Boomers, NESBs and single mothers) are a growing demographic.
I suspect that the GREEN vote will slump back down to 10% once the L/NP’s Hard Right is defeated. Most people do not want Bob Brown calling too many shots in Canberra.
THe Right’s revival of WC is political poison. Its denial of AGW is a farce. Its rejection of RSPT is economically irrational.
Nor will Abbott start to grow on people, irrespective of how many IronMan competitions he enters. Rudd-Swan-Gillard are a competent ministerial team in much the same way as Howard-Costello-Downer. The Caucus is united on leadership. The Cabinet is not rocked with scandals. The economy is humming along smoothly.
Most of all, the AUS people are fairly sensible. I estimate that the L/NP will take at least one and probably two more elections until the L/NP’s Hard Right-wing stuffing is knocked out of them. They will lose fairly convincingly in 2010 and again in 2013, if necessary.
I don’t have the link readily to hand, but I understand that Obama’s approval of offshore drilling was an offset to make the passage of the climate change bill possible. That was for some Democrat votes BTW. So where are heading in view of the Gulf oil spill is a bit complex, because again there are Democrats who favour going ahead with deep sea drilling with improved safeguards.
The question has been as to whether the Gulf oil spill has been a game changer. I’d think probably, but not in an immediately obvious way. My betting is that there will be a stronger regulation regime more at arms length from the producers and more tightly specified technical regulations, but deep sea extraction will go on.
But Obama did say in one speech, “We have to look at using less of this stuff”. His Australian Ambassador said the other day that he’s not yet focussed on climate change and probably wouldn’t be until next year. When he does he might think about how much the US is importing from the tar sand fields to his north. Also 20-40% of US imports come from Nigeria where Phillip Adams was told
It’s just not reported in the West.
But next year Obama will probably also be facing a less friendly Senate.
I don’t have the link readily to hand, but I understand that Obama’s approval of offshore drilling was an offset to make the passage of the climate change bill possible. That was for some Democrat votes BTW. So where are heading in view of the Gulf oil spill is a bit complex, because again there are Democrats who favour going ahead with deep sea drilling with improved safeguards.
The question has been as to whether the Gulf oil spill has been a game changer. I’d think probably, but not in an immediately obvious way. My betting is that there will be a stronger regulation regime more at arms length from the producers and more tightly specified technical regulations, but deep sea extraction will go on.
But Obama did say in one speech, “We have to look at using less of this stuff”. His Australian Ambassador said the other day that he’s not yet focussed on climate change and probably wouldn’t be until next year. When he does he might think about how much the US is importing from the tar sand fields to his north. Also 20-40% of US imports come from Nigeria where Phillip Adams was told
It’s just not reported in the West.
But next year Obama will probably also be facing a less friendly Senate.
Brian Said:
The trouble with this is that using “less of this stuff” is that it’s nothing like “none of this stuff” and it only takes “some of this stuff” for marine ecology to be toally … err stuffed . As long as quite a bit of the stuff has to be extracted from deep ocean or even transported over deep water, there will be quite a bit of marine ecological risk. Money will need to be spent to mitigate risk.
And while the dominant usage of crude oil is in transport fuels, and also in diesel-driven stationary energy (e.g. Nigeria for example) lots of it is used in polymers — and this isn’t going to be a doddle to replace.
So the problem is quiter a thorny one. Ideally, no oil would be extracted from the deep ocean or transported over water and that would reflect our success in using non-fossil energy to produce most of our transport and stationary energy and perhaps our success in developing algae-based feedstock for polymers and similar.
That’s still some way off though, obviously.
Brian Said:
The trouble with this is that using “less of this stuff” is that it’s nothing like “none of this stuff” and it only takes “some of this stuff” for marine ecology to be toally … err stuffed . As long as quite a bit of the stuff has to be extracted from deep ocean or even transported over deep water, there will be quite a bit of marine ecological risk. Money will need to be spent to mitigate risk.
And while the dominant usage of crude oil is in transport fuels, and also in diesel-driven stationary energy (e.g. Nigeria for example) lots of it is used in polymers — and this isn’t going to be a doddle to replace.
So the problem is quiter a thorny one. Ideally, no oil would be extracted from the deep ocean or transported over water and that would reflect our success in using non-fossil energy to produce most of our transport and stationary energy and perhaps our success in developing algae-based feedstock for polymers and similar.
That’s still some way off though, obviously.
So one lone RINO in Lindsey Graham = all Republicans? The truth is this bill was NEVER bipartisan at any stage – almost every Republican has opposed it at every point. Graham was always a bi-partisan fig-leaf for the democrats, as he often is.
This bill is wholly produced and owned by the Democrats – no-one else is responsible for its content. They even had a super-majority until this year, so they have could passed anything they wanted.
The thing is, they don’t want to be seen as responsible for their own shitty legislation again – like Obamacare. They want to spread the blame, and for once the other side isn’t buying.
Whatever Graham says, he’s back-pedaled because of the huge backlash from his own side – on a wide variety of issues. Luckily for him he’s not up for re-election this year.
So one lone RINO in Lindsey Graham = all Republicans? The truth is this bill was NEVER bipartisan at any stage – almost every Republican has opposed it at every point. Graham was always a bi-partisan fig-leaf for the democrats, as he often is.
This bill is wholly produced and owned by the Democrats – no-one else is responsible for its content. They even had a super-majority until this year, so they have could passed anything they wanted.
The thing is, they don’t want to be seen as responsible for their own shitty legislation again – like Obamacare. They want to spread the blame, and for once the other side isn’t buying.
Whatever Graham says, he’s back-pedaled because of the huge backlash from his own side – on a wide variety of issues. Luckily for him he’s not up for re-election this year.
Strange that none of the recent discussion on Politico on the timing of the legislative program of immigration versus the warmer bill as issue got mentioned.
Strange that none of the recent discussion on Politico on the timing of the legislative program of immigration versus the warmer bill as issue got mentioned.
USA EPA regulatons will be stalled by legal chalenges in US Courts for years and years rite up to Spreme Court is 000′s of DIFERENT basec legal actions (all with same purpose) , EPA wuld needs to demonstrate to courts CC is a threat to health
Therefore those relying on USA EPA for CC action reely being delusional
Democrats had 60 votes to get a ETS passed in 2009 but Obama wimped it , he suported offshore drilling pblicly and did NOT EVER suport ratification of either Kyoto nor a Kyopto mark 11 as per his OWN written polisy docs…read them
furher OPbama’s offer to World and in Bill is a 17% USA co2 reducton by 2020 , based USA 2005 levels …that equals a 3% cut on 1990 levels , and not 25% on 1990 levels…about time Greens suporters in oz woke up to these facts instead of blinkered listening to his prety words
US politcs is intersted in less Arab oil dependense on Nat security grounds , and not CC
USA EPA regulatons will be stalled by legal chalenges in US Courts for years and years rite up to Spreme Court is 000′s of DIFERENT basec legal actions (all with same purpose) , EPA wuld needs to demonstrate to courts CC is a threat to health
Therefore those relying on USA EPA for CC action reely being delusional
Democrats had 60 votes to get a ETS passed in 2009 but Obama wimped it , he suported offshore drilling pblicly and did NOT EVER suport ratification of either Kyoto nor a Kyopto mark 11 as per his OWN written polisy docs…read them
furher OPbama’s offer to World and in Bill is a 17% USA co2 reducton by 2020 , based USA 2005 levels …that equals a 3% cut on 1990 levels , and not 25% on 1990 levels…about time Greens suporters in oz woke up to these facts instead of blinkered listening to his prety words
US politcs is intersted in less Arab oil dependense on Nat security grounds , and not CC
Jack #5 , reality post
both extremes in oz politcs (Greens aka ‘far left progresives’) and right wing Consevative Liberal wing) presently gaining votes by ‘spin’ and cheap polarising of complex CC and othr issues , and both ‘pretend’ oz is an island in Globilized World
Brian
Obama’s polisy in US electon campaign was to suport offshore drilling & public said so then , so as to win Southern US States especialy Florida….progresives like to forget these inconvenient truths about him However i agree with you tighter reguls will now occur , but not sure of there practicol value to stop these disgrace spills
Jack #5 , reality post
both extremes in oz politcs (Greens aka ‘far left progresives’) and right wing Consevative Liberal wing) presently gaining votes by ‘spin’ and cheap polarising of complex CC and othr issues , and both ‘pretend’ oz is an island in Globilized World
Brian
Obama’s polisy in US electon campaign was to suport offshore drilling & public said so then , so as to win Southern US States especialy Florida….progresives like to forget these inconvenient truths about him However i agree with you tighter reguls will now occur , but not sure of there practicol value to stop these disgrace spills
This will be a REALLY BIG DEAL one day, 50 years from now.
This will be a REALLY BIG DEAL one day, 50 years from now.
Keep in mind that Obama has been doing other things while waiting for ETS to go thru the Senate. One interesting one that directly affected oil consumption was the “clunker buy back” program that was justified in terms of stimulating the economy – the deal was that the $6000 paid for a clunker could only be used to buy energy efficient cars. (Thus stimulating the car industry while lowering the average CO2/car mile.)
Not sure on the limits of what Obama can do without the Senate tick but there is certainly serious investment in clean power and climate action research. It is a shame that Rudd didn’t put more effort into driving climate action instead of waiting for his great big ETS scheme to come on line.
Keep in mind that Obama has been doing other things while waiting for ETS to go thru the Senate. One interesting one that directly affected oil consumption was the “clunker buy back” program that was justified in terms of stimulating the economy – the deal was that the $6000 paid for a clunker could only be used to buy energy efficient cars. (Thus stimulating the car industry while lowering the average CO2/car mile.)
Not sure on the limits of what Obama can do without the Senate tick but there is certainly serious investment in clean power and climate action research. It is a shame that Rudd didn’t put more effort into driving climate action instead of waiting for his great big ETS scheme to come on line.
You are so correct, JohnD. Rudd totally dismissed the importance of environemntal issues’ contribution to his election, and that failure of understanding will very likely lead to his dumping. I can’t think of anything more fitting than if the youth vote leads to Anthony Albanese losing his seat to the Greens. That would be a sweet return for Albanese’s investment of interest in “clean coal” over renewables. Rudd did not act alone.
You are so correct, JohnD. Rudd totally dismissed the importance of environemntal issues’ contribution to his election, and that failure of understanding will very likely lead to his dumping. I can’t think of anything more fitting than if the youth vote leads to Anthony Albanese losing his seat to the Greens. That would be a sweet return for Albanese’s investment of interest in “clean coal” over renewables. Rudd did not act alone.
Dear god, only total bankruptcy will reduce the US’s carbon usage.
Imagine that the US elite (through their bought reperentatives, President, Reps and Senators) actually gor scared about Global Warming, what realistically would their response be?
They’d nuke China (probably) and Australia (definitely, unless it would be cheaper to do it conventionally), etc. To be fair on Oz, the Xth fleet would turn up off our shore and order the Govt to shut down coal burning. After a wait of 30 mins then they would bomb us into the stone age.
China, unless they dramaticaly upgrade their nukes, would be hit with a full scale nuclear hit. With, as Pentagon scientists would argue, the advantage of all the smoke and dust cooling the Earth. Plus taking out a competitor and leaving a lot of ME oil available for them.
What is more realistic, the US goes ‘Green’ or goes ‘Nuke’ .. as in nuclear weapons that is?
They cannot go nuclear power (not enough skills and industrial capacity left), they can’t go alternative (ditto), plus both are crippled by current oil/gas/coal lobbies. But they have the biggest armed forces in the World and a penchant to use them at the drop of a hat, over just about any reason.
Bit of a no-brainer I think.
As for any optimistic dreams about the US changing within our livetimes (that includes those just born today)…forget it.
Dear god, only total bankruptcy will reduce the US’s carbon usage.
Imagine that the US elite (through their bought reperentatives, President, Reps and Senators) actually gor scared about Global Warming, what realistically would their response be?
They’d nuke China (probably) and Australia (definitely, unless it would be cheaper to do it conventionally), etc. To be fair on Oz, the Xth fleet would turn up off our shore and order the Govt to shut down coal burning. After a wait of 30 mins then they would bomb us into the stone age.
China, unless they dramaticaly upgrade their nukes, would be hit with a full scale nuclear hit. With, as Pentagon scientists would argue, the advantage of all the smoke and dust cooling the Earth. Plus taking out a competitor and leaving a lot of ME oil available for them.
What is more realistic, the US goes ‘Green’ or goes ‘Nuke’ .. as in nuclear weapons that is?
They cannot go nuclear power (not enough skills and industrial capacity left), they can’t go alternative (ditto), plus both are crippled by current oil/gas/coal lobbies. But they have the biggest armed forces in the World and a penchant to use them at the drop of a hat, over just about any reason.
Bit of a no-brainer I think.
As for any optimistic dreams about the US changing within our livetimes (that includes those just born today)…forget it.