Breaking from TPM: Reid & Kerry are now saying climate legislation is dead.

[beachmom]

Sens. Reid and Kerry confirm that climate change legislation -- which assumed room temperature about six months ago and has been stinking up the place all summer -- is in fact dead. More soon ...

Some environmental writers have said that a combination of a good energy bill (that included things like energy efficiency) plus the EPA dealing with emissions, well, it's possible to get something done . . .

Still, Sen. John Kerry worked so hard for so long, that this does have to be a bitter disappointment for him personally, as well as a disappointment for those of us in the country aware of the perils of global climate change.

The article is now up, written by Brian Beutler:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/dems-abandon-comprehensive-energy-legislation.php

At a press conference this afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), the Democrats' top climate and energy negotiator, acknowledged officially, and with obvious disappointment, that they lack the votes to pass legislation limiting carbon pollution, and that forthcoming energy legislation will be extremely narrow, in a bid to overcome a GOP filibuster.

"Many of us want to do a thorough comprehensive bill that creates jobs, breaks our addiction to foreign oil, and curbs pollution," Reid said. "Unfortunately at this time we don't have a single Republican to work with in achieving this goal. For me it's terribly disappointing and it's also very dangerous. So the President, Senator Kerry and I and others, large numbers of my caucus will continue to reach out to Republicans and work with environmental and energy committees, communities, to garner the support we need to move forward on a much larger more comprehensive bill."

In the meantime, Reid said, the Senate will proceed imminently with a much smaller bill that will tackle four goals:

It will deal with BP and oil spill liability, invest in the manufacturing of natural gas vehicles, create a jobs program -- formerly called Cash for Caulkers, now called Home Star -- aimed at increasing home efficiency, and put money back in the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Kerry described this as an "admittedly narrow, limited bill," but says he supports Reid's decision "because he's committed to do what we can in the time frame that we have before the August break."

More at the link. Sigh.

[ProSense]

1. That's a crazy headline from TPM. Here is a report from

The Hill.

[beachmom]

2. Well . . . .

Reid is going with the energy only bill. Yeah, sure climate legislation is not dead in the way health care reform wasn't dead in 1994. Kerry will continue to fight for it, but without the votes it won't even be introduced.

Thanks for the other article though. Maybe C-SPAN will show the whole press conference so we can all decide on our own what it means. It's not good news, that's for sure.

[ProSense]

3. I know, but

they always do energy only bills. These don't address the problem. The fact is that the bill has tremendous support, albeit short of what's needed. So they can work on crossing the finish line.

[beachmom]

4. My view is that it if it doesn't get done this year, it's toast for a very long time

short of some event that instantly changes the electorate's mood. With the announcement today, it is my opinion that it will not pass in 2010, and therefore not for a long while. So, I agree with Brian Beutler's assessment.

The indications on Twitter from enviro writers is that it's dead. "Mood grim" says one tweet.

[ProSense]

7. I don't agree.

This is not some bill that has weak support within Congress.

"The indications on Twitter from enviro writers is that it's dead. 'Mood grim' says one tweet."

Unfortunately, that is the problem: the left/enviro groups are all too ready to report the death of the bill, but after the news dies down so do their efforts to drum up support.

[karynnj]

11. The left enviromental groups have always been pretty anemic in their

ability to show any real support. Some in fact seem to almost like speaking of doom.

[beachmom]

17. Well, not all of them. Just Greenpeace, Friends of Earth, etc.

Sierra Club, LCV and many, many others were part of the process until the bitter end.

I will say, though, that there is a lack of on the ground grassroots support. I am not sure why.

[beachmom]

16. I don't want to argue. I think we're all just very disappointed right now. nt

[karynnj]

9. My head agrees with you, my heart hopes that after the election,

especially if all or most of the Tea party candidate fail, that they might be able to at least pass the utilities only cap.

So, let's look at the possibles changes in terms of how they relate to a bill.

Two Republican Senate candidates, Castle and Kirk, voted for Markey's bill - so in terms of JUST THIS, there might not be a shift.

Where are our very likely loses.

We lose:

ND (Dorgan was not with Kerry anyway)
Indiana (Bayh wasn't with us)
Arkansas (Lincoln was a roadblock heading the agriculture committee)
Delaware (but Castle voted for it).

None of those are real loses as far as this bill goes - though obviously it is better to win.
Here are possible loses:
-CO - this would be a real loss - at this point, the convention has not happened, but both of our candidates are behind on Rassmussen (7 and 9 points for Bennett, 2 and 5 for Romanoff vs Norton and Buck respectively. ) Norton is horrible - she headed Bush's Interior Department. Fortunately for Bennett or Romanoff, Buck, who is a tea party guy, might have hurt his chances by saying that people should vote for him because he doesn't wear high heels! http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/07/22/colo-candidate-trips-over-high-heels/ I can't find who is favored here - other than Obama is said to favor Bennett and Clinton, Romanoff. I think we will keep this seat.

- IL - Here, Kirk did vote for Markey's bill and I think we will win.

Unless we really lose big (ie CA, WI, PA, WA ) which I really don't think will happen, we could end up with a Senate - ON THIS ISSUE ONLY - that is possibly slightly better. If we do lose those 4, I take back my comment as we lose 3 strong allies - replaced by antagonists.

But here are possible gains:

If Crist wins in FL, he is better than LeMieux.

There are also some possible Democratic pickups

- Conway in KY seems better than Rockefeller and that is while running - It is a big deal that he says he could accept a version of cap and trade that protects coal. He is running close to Rand Paul.

- Fisher in Ohio is running close to Portman - he seems like he would be a winnable coal state Senator

- Robin Carnahan is also close with Rassmussen showing it as 47 - 45 with Blunt leading as of last week.

(I wish I could think NH is a possible pick up, but nothing I can find supports that)

There is still one other possible loss - Byrd was moving in the right direction - will the new Senator or the Gov, who will likely win?

Looking at this, unless there is a huge earthquake election, we might lose only one real supporter for a non-supporter - CO. It looks like the Republicans have a nasty election there - and we don't - this could be even after the Aug 10 primary.

What about the people already in the Senate. I think there is a real possibility of Kerry being able to get McCain, Graham, Snowe or Collins ... or even his JR Senator to work with him to revive this. Now, I know the New Yorker argued McCain can't move back again to maverick and say he was wrong - I say this is what he has ALWAYS done with some magic amnesia gas for the press. Only by returning to the positions that made him respectable can he regain (or keep) his honor. The others, without the election bearing down, might be movable.

Remember - thi is more my heart than my head speaking, but my head did allow my hands to type this and click "post" - so I think it is possible. A key might be if the story is that much of the tea party was defeated. If Rand and Angle win, this will be dead for a generation.

[beachmom]

18. Nice analysis, Karen! You made me feel better about the make up

in the Senate. No help from Georgia, sadly. Isakson will easily win in November ALTHOUGH he did say once that he didn't want to rule out voting for Kerry's legislation. Unfortunately, this state is run by Erick Erickson. Plus the tea party was founded in Atlanta metro. So my thinking is that Isakson would love to vote for it but can't given the state he represents.

[karynnj]

31. Thanks, it made me fell better as I started down the list

going from a list of the races. I think (at least in the Senate - I don't know much at all about the House seats) that the media generated CW that we could even lose the Senate is over blown. (That said, we all know the damage that media generated hysteria can cause and how little can be behind it from the awful 2006 experience where, while we didn't have front row seats - we were clearly in the orchestra!)

It is interesting that Isakson wouldn't be a complete no - which I would have assumed - if he were not under the pressure of tea party constituents. I remember when he was interested in JK's high speed rail.

Anyway, I will likely not be posting for the next 10 days because we are going to Spain. (so it is not the depressing news that will cause the absence!)

[beachmom]

33. Have a great time!!

[Luftmensch067]

36. Have fun!!!

How exciting!

[karynnj]

5. Not really a surprise - it actually is amazing that Kerry kept it alive

(if it was) this long. He has kind of signaled that in the past when he spoke of what they had done as being needed for future work and when he has recently taken to say that it will in the future be done. It has to make it harder that there were so many ankle biter Democrats, who clearly did not care whether anything is done.

For Reid, this day has to be tough with Conrad, Bayh and Ben Nelson all speaking of ALL the Bush tax cuts having to be renewed. (I assume, though the quote are not specific, that includes the estate tax that helps just 3 tenths of 1% of the country per Sanders yesterday when he spoke against DeMint. (He and Kerry seemed to have a nice animated talk (friendly) during one of the votes - which each putting his arm around the other a few times. )

[MBS]

6. for fuller context, transcript of Kerry's remarks

.. a more hopeful (and stubborn) perspective on the issue.

“Even this morning, Senator Lieberman and I had a meeting with one Republican who has indicated a willingness to begin working towards something. Harry Reid, today, is committed to giving us that opportunity, that open door over the next weeks, days, months, whatever it takes to find those 60 votes.

“The work will continue every single day. In the meantime, as Senator Reid has just said, we have an obligation to the American people, we have an obligation to our country. And that is to respond to the oil spill in the Gulf. And that’s why Senator Reid is going to bring this admittedly narrow, limited bill to the floor because he’s determined to do what we can in the timeframe that we have before the August break that will address some of our energy independence and some of the oil spill issues. “Now let me be crystal clear. As Senator Reid said, this legislation that he has proposed does not replace climate legislation. It does not replace comprehensive energy legislation. Now President Obama called me before this meeting and said point blank that he is committed to working in these next days at a more intensive pace together with Carol Browner and other members of the administration to help bring together the ability to find sixty votes for that comprehensive legislation. And the leader is committed to getting that comprehensive legislation to the floor as soon as possible, whenever that might turn out to be.

“Senator Lieberman and I will continue to work with our colleagues and the stakeholders in order to carve a path to sixty votes for comprehensive legislation that appropriately targets, in an appropriate way, carbon, so that we can send signals to the marketplace and change the direction and create jobs for America and improve our security. The work we’ve done over the last year and a half will remain a foundation for all of this effort.

“I just want to say to all of you on a personal level, that you know I watched Ted Kennedy over 26 years fight to get tough things passed. And in 1970 he began that effort to pass health care reform. We just got it this year. This is not going to take that long. This is not going to take close to that long. I am absolutely confident that as the American people make their voices heard and as our colleagues go home and listen to them we’re going to grow in our ability to pass this.

“I just want to thank those who have brought this issue a long, long way. We have had a remarkable caucus of some twenty Senators plus who have met week after week. And in the 26 years I’ve been here, I have never seen as many Senators from as many different places come together consistently to work to move legislation forward. That effort is going to continue, and I’m grateful to Senator Reid and I’m thankful to the president for their commitment to put this country in the right path.”

God, I admire his persistence and commitment. An inspiring and energizing role model. Keep up the fight, Sen. Kerry!

[ProSense]

8. Thanks

These are very positive points.

[karynnj]

10. Those are beautiful remarks

and they are why we are all still here. He really is an inspiring role model.

[ObamaKerryDem]

12. Totally agree. I so admire Sen. Kerry's incredible resolve on this..

..and so many other issues and am absolutely convinced that he is one of--if not the--best Presidents this country never had..

This saddens me, especially since it's clear that Republican games and propoganda--not to mention the, IMO, BS 60 vote rule in the Senate--is stalling this, though I am glad to hear that Reid is planning to move forward on an alternative bill, though obviously not as strong as this one. I think a lot of people out there need to wake up when it comes to this issue!

[beachmom]

20. Oh, thanks for that.

I love John Kerry on days like these!

[Luftmensch067]

22. "We gotta move on this"

I just want to say to all of you on a personal level, that you know I watched Ted Kennedy over 26 years fight to get tough things passed. And in 1970 he began that effort to pass health care reform. We just got it this year. This is not going to take that long. This is not going to take close to that long. I am absolutely confident that as the American people make their voices heard and as our colleagues go home and listen to them we’re going to grow in our ability to pass this.

You want to see where JK's inspiration on this comes from? Go here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBMDefbG27s

and watch from about 5:22 to 8:08.

John Kerry is not going to give up on this. Ever. Battles may be lost, but he's in this war for the long haul.

[ProSense]

26. This is

posted here.

[MBS]

30. Globe coverage (7-23) of this story

Not bad (seems to be pieced together from wire stories, etc, though)
. . . on page 2 of the hard-copy paper

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2010/07/23/democrats_drop_signature_climate_bill/

[saracat]

13. I am very sorry about this. I had hoped for the best. But again, this is proof that

bipartisanship doesn't work, and compromise didn't help. Not with these people. And Sen. Kerry deserved better from his own party and more support from the WH.

[karynnj]

14. Kerry himself speaks of getting support from the WH

This actually has nothing to do with Kerry. In fact, it would have died long ago with anyone else. The problem is that we are in a deep recession and - especially in the coal states - the Senator see any climate change bill as having a large, initially negative cost to their states. Kerry has worked very hard to design a bill that tries to mitigate this.

There are many Senators, who on other issues are good Democrats, even progressives who are not on board because they are afraid of the impact on their constituents. Some like Feingold are friends of JK. One think that is true i that it might have had a better chance if this was done last year. You can blame Reid and Baucus for giving the Republicans too much time, but it is not clear that it ever was likely - even if the Republicans were not totally obstructing to get both of these done. It i also hard to argue that they should have not done financial reform first.

Bipartisanship was the only way to go on this - even before Brown won. There were some Democrats who just would not ever vote for this - including Rockefeller, who from observations on Finance and Commerce is a Kerry friend. He also is from a coal state. As long as the filibuster exists - and that is at least until January, Kerry needed at least some Republicans.

From his comments, he is still fighting. He has had more success on foreign policy, where he has a very real chance of being seen as a great SFRC chair and someone who has nudged foreign policy in the right direction. I think he will eventually get a climate change bill passed. This effort - after all - is a quantum leap beyond 1998 when Kyoto was not even sent to the Senate for a vote. (It completely did not have what Byrd/Hagel stated as necessary for a climate bill - some use B/H as a "vote" against Kyoto, but it was 4 month before Kyoto.)

[saracat]

15. I applaud Kerry's efforts. I still no longer support bipartisanship.

It doesn't exist. It takes too sides and if only one is willing to compromise, we get nothing, particularly with the blue dogs adding to the mix. It seems a long time ago I believed in that concept but a long time ago resonable folks could be found on both sides.that isn't so any longer.The country is deeply divided, more than ever. But anyway best of luck to Sen.Kerry.

[karynnj]

19. I agree with you that there is little to no bipartisanship

- and it is phony. McCain and Snowe each sponsored climate change bills in the past. Yet neither wants to face their party's anger. In a way, I am more disappointed in Snowe. She is not up for re-election until 2012 and I expected more of her. You might notice that Snowe did not support health care either - even though the final bill didn't even have the things she worried about in committee. She did - importantly - vote for the unemployment extension and the financial reform bill. The difference between them and this, is they are far more popular and likely to become more so.

Like you, I am old enough to have seen when there was not a huge divide between the parties. There were then many Republicans, who I liked better than the worst (or even the middle) Democrats. I nearly voted for one - John Anderson - for President and would have had he been the Republican nominee. I think if life were different and he were the 1996 nominee, I would have voted for John Heinz, from my neighboring state, over a sitting Democratic President.

[beachmom]

21. Good post in the NYT about that:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/with-no-obama-push-senate-punts-on-climate/

What I like about the post, which is critical of the President, is that it names things he can do to move this issue forward.

Nice to see you back here, Saracat.

[saracat]

23. Thanks beachmom. I was so sad to see this. It just adds to the list of my disappointments.

Sigh. No matter what others think. JK was abandoned on this. But I will say b no more. That was a very good article. But someday, somehow, JK WILL get this issue heard. And then, it will be the real deal.

[karynnj]

27. That article certainly show that Obama did as little as he could on this

In fact, he gave more word to nuclear power and drilling in his SOTU.

This really is not a complete surprise, it never was a big issue for him. I remember when John and Teresa Kerry were on Stephanopolis' This Week show in early 2007, when they were on their book tour. He asked Teresa who she thought would be best on the environment given that her husband was not running - she immediately answered that none of them were where she would want on climate change and the environment at that point. JK agreed and then spoke of hoping that they would move on that.

The sad thing is that in 2000 and 2004, we had nominees for whom this was a big issue. Of the 2, I think JK would have been the better in getting it. In 2008, when whoever won would have won in a landslide with unusual majorities in both houses. On this issue, this window was wasted. Kerry at least knows he really did do everything he humanly could.

I apologize for not saying :hi:

[ProSense]

24. This

He has not given a substantial speech focused on the responsibility of the world’s greatest emitter of greenhouse gases to face up to the long-term risks posed by the rising human influence on the climate system and pursue the opportunities that lie in a sustained “energy quest.”

...is inaccurate

He has also addressed it in his weekly addresses: here

And how realistic is this:

- Obama has also failed to challenge fossilized foes of meaningful action on energy and climate change, from Senator James Inhofe to the many conservative columnists — along with some liberals — who’ve distorted the American discourse on climate into an either-or debate over beliefs little different than that on abortion or gun rights.

This is not the President's job to debate every conservative columnists.

The problem is that trying to blame the administration for a bill that is stalled because it needs Republican support isn't productive. Senator Kerry has stressed the President is fully behind the effort, and the President's engagement is demonstrated in the meetings and his comments.

[beachmom]

25. Remember how the right wing machine went after Kerry in 2006 even before the botched joke?

Why not make Inhofe out to be the poster child of madness from the Right. I thought that was a good idea actually. A concerted effort of course. But maybe the POTUS himself. Why not? Expose that jerk.

[MBS]

29. I'm frustrated about the slow pace of things, too, and I agree with

karynnj that JK is light years ahead of Obama in terms of knowledge and gut-level commitment, but , in the NYT/Revkin blog, this passage is wildly inaccurate:

- He has not invited a variegated stream of researchers and analysts of climate science and policy to the White House. Whatever you think of the climate policies of President George W. Bush, at least he did this in his first year, forcing his cabinet — not lower functionaries — to sit through something like a dozen sessions of what amounted to “Climate 101.”

??????? :wtf: ????????

Whoever may have come to the White House during the W reign, W obviously paid NO attention to any testimony on climate change, except to reject it, or create difficulties for those (James Hansen) who pushed for change. And the Obama administration has permanent staff devoted to this issue, not just "a dozen sessions" of visiting speakers. Good grief.
Obama's staffing is absolutely A-1 on this front (at least Browner, Lubchenco, Holdren, etc. . Salazar is not ideal, but could be much, much worse). . . the frustration is in getting the congressional dinosaurs to move on the issue, and in getting Obama to get to the kind of gut-level commitment to these issues that JK has, and to step up Obama's bully-pulpit efforts and/or to twist arms in Congress a little more. Heard last night that Obama and his family will visit the Gulf in August. That's good.

[wisteria]

28. Very disheartening, but not unexpected in this climate right now.

I just hope Senator Kerry has an opportunity soon to try again for a more comprehensive energy and climate bill.
I blame some of this on Reid,Graham and Schumer. But, in the end, spending to long a time trying to pass health care reform put this issue in the forefront too close to elections. Anymore, outcomes like this do not surprise me. I almost expect them. But, we should be grateful we have people like Senator Kerry in the Senate who continue to keep fighting even after being knocked down a couple of times. Now though, I really have no interest in wasting my time following a nonsense bill all set up to look good just in time for election season.

[karynnj]

32. Also, Kerry's healthcare analogy does put things in perspective

They did get MUCH MUCH further on this than they ever did before. They got a bill through the House and they got far more support than they ever did in the Senate. It i easy to see with the Republicans able to block unemployment extensions - which should not be controversial at all for nearly 2 months, that passing this momentous piece of legislation just wasn't going to happen.

I really hope that the elections go better than anyone currently dares to hope and the combination of a rejection of tea party extremism, no huge gain for the Republicans, and the previously sane Republicans regaining their sanity might allow a bill to pass in the lame duck session. Unlikely, but it would have the value of the House already having passed it. But, if all those things happen, and the House is still in our hands, it could be restarted in both Houses in 2011. (Losing the House would make the lame duck session more important.)

[MH1]

34. This is sad on so many levels

I am so sick of politics right now. We have Palin claiming that the federal debt (which in her world is all Obama's fault) is a burden on the back of future generations. Gee where have I heard that before? But it wasn't a concern for republicans when it was their guy running up the bills and giving their buddies tax breaks.

Meanwhile, although the economic consequences of continuously burgeoning federal debt may in fact be dire for future generations, that is NOTHING compared to the consequences of unchecked environmental damage and climate change. The health effects will completely blow away any benefits from the health care bill.

And back in Jimmy Carter's administration, we saw this coming. Gore, if elected inaugurated and if he had sufficient political skill and backing, could have at least diverted us from being on quite so drastic a course as we are on. Kerry certainly would have as well, although a 4 year delay would have been harmful.

If climate legislation dies now and if republicans take back control for any length of time, things are going to get very bad, perhaps in the lifetimes of many of us, and at least the lifetimes of our kids.

Really sucks.

(sorry to be such a downer but that is how I see it)

[YvonneCa]

35. You are not 'a downer' at all...

...just a realist. I agree with every word. :hi: