Use Your Inside Voice

It's just a reflection of reality, but I'm wondering why Carol Browner felt the need to say this the very week that Kerry-Boxer got released:

President Obama’s top climate and energy official said Friday that there was virtually no chance Congress would have a climate and energy bill ready for him to sign before negotiations on a global climate treaty begin in December in Copenhagen.

The remarks by the official, Carol M. Browner, during an onstage interview in Washington, were the first definitive statement by the administration that it saw little chance of Congressional passage this fall.

Lawmakers and environmental campaigners have cast similar doubts on the prospect in recent weeks, given the high priority put on health care legislation and the array of hearings that would be needed on the energy initiative, to say nothing of the time needed to reconcile competing versions of it. Climate legislation was introduced in the Senate only Wednesday, a full three months after the House passed its version.

I just think this unnecessarily dampens the prospects for passage.

Another thing Browner could have said is, "We're going to have something available for Copenhagen. The EPA will have rules in place to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and we will have a detailed blueprint for them to do that." Rather than Republicans and climate denialists breathing a sigh of relief, they might think, "Crap, these guys are serious, we'd better at least get our hands on the legislation to make it not so outrageous."

Lisa Murkowski Plans To Melt The World

The Senate is a club bound and determined to do absolutely nothing in the most boisterous and attention-grabbing way possible. It is filled with the kind of people who get angry when told they're a bunch of do-nothings while holding fast to the ideal of doing nothing. Indeed, there are US Senators like Jim Inhofe who plan to lead a delegation to Copenhagen to tell the world proudly that the Senate will do nothing on climate change.

This is what the Administration has to deal with. So, unsurprisingly, faced with the prospect of Copenhagen fracturing, and rather than being left in China's wake as the world's biggest polluter without a strategy to deal with a warming planet, the White House instructed the EPA to come up with some goals under the law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Supreme Court essentially ratified this already. So as a last-ditch attempt to do absolutely nothing, Lisa Murkowski wants to stop the EPA.

WASHINGTON — Environmentalists say they're disappointed in a proposal by Sen. Lisa Murkowski to force the Environmental Protection Agency to hold off for a year on regulating so-called "stationary" emitters of greenhouse gases, such as power plants.

The Alaska Republican's proposal essentially forbids the EPA from working to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and large manufacturers while the Senate continues to work on its own global warming proposal. It would not keep the agency from continuing work on emission standards from mobile sources, such as automobile emissions.

"The Senate is moving so slowly it's disingenuous to say we just need a time out," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. "They want to handcuff the EPA."

Murkowski, the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee, plans to introduce the proposal in an amendment to a spending bill. Her proposal does not have the backing of the EPA, which is currently working to comply with a 2007 Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, which requires the agency to determine whether certain greenhouse gas emissions are harmful to the environment and public health.

Believe it or not, Murkowski is seen as one of the gettable votes in the Senate on climate change.

While the Senate dithers, the courts have consistently ruled, including just this week, that carbon is a pollutant and governmental entities can sue or create regulations to limit those emissions. Only some members of the Senate want to revoke that power, and they plan to use multiple steps to force the hand of the other branches.

It's quite a political system we've got here.

The Political Problem of Climate Change

The President spoke this morning at the UN Summit on Global Climate Change, in an effort to return that issue to the forefront in advance of global talks in Copenhagen.

The renewed emphasis on climate change and reducing carbon dioxide emissions comes at a crucial time: Negotiators are entering the home stretch in a drive to unveil a comprehensive international agreement to curb rising temperatures at a December conference in Copenhagen.

With key divisions remaining among the major industrialized nations, as well as with developing industrial powers and poorer nations, there is concern that negotiations leading up to Copenhagen could be bogging down. Obama administration officials, while admitting the seriousness of the challenges, hold out hope for a deal.

The article goes on to list nine points of contention that Obama and his team will have to deal with if they are to get both a climate change bill through Congress and an agreement in Copenhagen that the Senate can ratify. While Europe is grumbling on the sidelines about American inaction, it's really a function of an undemocratic Senate. I still believe Obama can get something done, but he has to slide anything past the likes of Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson, instead of just being able to implement the agenda he feels is right. I think that Obama will look to highlight the work of EPA rulemakers more than the Senate in vowing to keep to any commitments made in Denmark. Unfortunately, we don't have a political system that attunes itself well to long-term structural environmental changes where the future is unknown. Actually, the system doesn't attune itself well to much these days.

...Obama called the US determined to act in his remarks, but of course the problem is that over 40 Americans are determined to not act, and they happen to be US Senators who can easily blow up the whole thing... Obama's remarks.

...I did not realize that Boxer would release her draft next week. I like the idea of doing it in the shadow of the health care debate, to lessen the attention from the right. She's also raising the cap to 20% below 2020 levels instead of 17%. I'd be shocked to see the Senate bill improve on the House bill's numbers, but I certainly hope that can happen.