As the World Burns How the Senate and the White House missed their best chance to deal with climate

[Mass]

It is written by the unsupportable Rian Lizza, but it is really interesting to read.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_lizza?printable=true#ixzz11JrhIYg4

On April 20, 2010, Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, and Joseph Lieberman, along with three aides, visited Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s chief of staff, at the White House. The legislators had spent seven months writing a comprehensive bill that promised to transform the nation’s approach to energy and climate change, and they were planning a press conference in six days to unveil their work.

Kerry, of Massachusetts, Graham, of South Carolina, and Lieberman, of Connecticut, had become known on Capitol Hill as the Three Amigos, for the Steve Martin comedy in which three unemployed actors stumble their way into defending a Mexican village from an armed gang. All had powerful personal motivations to make the initiative work. Kerry, who has been a senator for twenty-five years and has a long record of launching major investigations, had never written a landmark law. Lieberman, an Independent who had endorsed John McCain for President, had deeply irritated his liberal colleagues by helping the Republicans weaken Obama’s health-care bill. Graham, a Republican, had a reputation as a Senate maverick—but not one who actually got things done. This bill offered the chance for all three men to transform their reputations.

The senators had cobbled together an unusual coalition of environmentalists and industries to support a bill that would shift the economy away from carbon consumption and toward environmentally sound sources of energy. They had the support both of the major green groups and of the biggest polluters. No previous climate-change legislation had come so far. Now they needed the full support of the White House.

The senators sat around the conference table in the corner of Emanuel’s office. In addition to the chief of staff, they were joined by David Axelrod, the President’s political adviser, and Carol Browner, the assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change. Lieberman introduced his aide, Danielle Rosengarten, to Emanuel.

“Rosengarten working for Lieberman,” Emanuel said. “Shocker!”

Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman knew that Obama’s advisers disagreed about climate-change legislation. Browner was passionate about the issue, but she didn’t have much influence. Axelrod, though influential, was not particularly committed. Emanuel prized victory above all, and he made it clear that, if there weren’t sixty votes to pass the bill in the Senate, the White House would not expend much effort on the matter. The Democrats had fifty-nine members in their caucus, but several would oppose the bill.



Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_lizza?printable=true#ixzz11OEU1AKd
...

The example of Lizza's irritating writing. I cant really make sense of this, except as something typical of Lizza.

When the Obama era began, John Kerry was looking for a new political identity. Like Lieberman, he had a strained relationship with the new President. Kerry had been scheduled to endorse Obama the day after Obama’s presumed victory in the New Hampshire primary. But Obama lost, and that night he nervously called Kerry and asked, “Are you still on board?” Kerry said he was. “Ninety-nine per cent of politicians would have walked away at that moment, because our odds of winning the primaries were quite low,” Dan Pfeiffer, now Obama’s communications director, told me in a 2008 interview. “It was a huge moment.” Kerry and his aides believed that, if Obama was the President, Kerry’s endorsement would give him the inside track in the competition for the job as Secretary of State. But Obama passed him over

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_lizza?printable=true#ixzz11OEvJS6w

I finished to read it and it is interesting to read.

[Mass]

1. More comments on this by Joseph Rohm

http://theenergycollective.com/josephromm/44593/new-yorker-how-senate-and-white-house-missed-their-best-chance-deal-climate-change

The New Yorker: How the Senate and White House missed their best chance to deal with climate change

As the Senate debate expired this summer, a longtime environmental lobbyist told me that he believed the “real tragedy” surrounding the issue was that Obama understood it profoundly. “I believe Barack Obama understands that fifty years from now no one’s going to know about health care,” the lobbyist said. “Economic historians will know that we had a recession at this time. Everybody is going to be thinking about whether Barack Obama was the James Buchanan of climate change.

It may be true that Obama “profoundly” understands what failing to address global warming means. Certainly I (and many others) thought that was true — until he basically punted on the issue without a serious fight.

The lengthy New Yorker piece, “As The World Burns,” however, suggests that if Obama did understand the transcendent nature of human-caused climate change, he personally didn’t try bloody hard to put together 60 votes for a bill.

The piece is well worth reading, although the conclusion, quoted above, just misses the mark. I don’t believe that in 50 years “Everybody is going to be thinking about whether Barack Obama was the James Buchanan of climate change.” Let’s set aside whether “everybody” (or even most people) in 2060 (or even today) would know what the “James Buchanan of climate change” means.
...

[karynnj]

2. Some thoughts after reading it and trying to figure where it was coming from

This is an interesting article, which I am still trying to absorb. After reading it last night and trying to absorb the different angles, I think it is very negative on the Obama administration's actions. From their perspective, this was not something that Obama, Emmanuel, or Axelrod were all that interested in, much less passionate about. Here, the most damning proof that was the case is made by public actions - Obama did undercut negotiations by unilaterally calling for expanded drilling and nuclear plants - taking away key bargaining chips. He did give some speeches where he supported cutting carbon, but there never was strong support. On this, this is not a new perspective.

As to the way the Senators are portrayed - it is not a hit piece on any, but it is clear that the main sources were Lieberman's staff - there are many points where there are quotes from them speaking of what happened. As a result his role is overblown - his previous bills are mentioned, where Kerry's 2004 platform, his work at environmental conferences are not - though This Moment in Earth is and his commitment is. To some degree, there is an attempt to elevate Lieberman, by lowering Kerry.

It is mindbloggling to read of Kerry, "Like Lieberman, he had a strained relationship with the new President." Kerry did want to be SoS, but that did not make him not an Obama ally, like Durbin - both of whose support Obama likely can take for granted. This leads the author to nearly equate his relationship with Obama to that of Lieberman, a pariah in the party. He also brings up as Kerry's motivation the desire to write landmark legislation - and while that is something any Senator wants to do - no one listening to him since 2004 could avoid seeing his primary motive is that it is the environmental need. Note that Lieberman is the quoted source. In addition, it ignores that in K/L/B Kerry has landmark legislation that is the prototype for the way Obama now proposes to spend foreign aid. I know it would have been B/L/B had there been a different VP, but fair is fair and Kerry's name is on it - and Kerry was the force behind it from the beginning - and it was called Kerry's when it was spoken of as potentially not working. It also ignores that the overlooked Kerry has been able, with Obama's blessing, to be an active diplomat - and one with more accomplishments than the SoS.

Lindsey Graham is treated more sympathetically than in most articles written after he backed away - though this really is first and foremost from Lieberman's perspective. In the earlier part of the relationship, the author argues that Kerry had reason "not to like" Graham, because of comments he made in 2004 - which actually are far less bad than what most Republicans said. "In 2004, Graham had gratuitously told the Times that Kerry “has no charisma” and “doesn’t relate well to average people.” (It might be interesting if the author looked at the worst thing any Senator, in either party, said of Lieberman - if Graham's innocuous comments would have stopped Kerry, Lieberman should have absolutely no Senator willing to speak to him.

There is also a gratuitous Gore comment at the end - blaming the fact that the Senators tried to pull in all the stake holders. Gore needs to be reminded that Clinton did not even send the Kyoto treaty he worked on to the senate - because as it was it would not have gotten one vote. Gore ignored, rather than used, the Byrd/Hagel resolution that stipulated that any plan needed to have some constraint on the third world country's carbon and that US industries had to be protected from competing with countries that did not have the same constraints. Byrd/Hagel passed with 96 votes, including both people who wanted to do nothing and people supporting dealing with global warming. At Bali, Kerry was instrumental in getting the agreement that did have differentiated controls for the third world and he included tariffs (though they were not called that) on products that compensated for that. Gore's self serving comment feeds the anti-corporation people. It is not clear how you get 60 votes otherwise.

That same attitude means that some negotiations - like those with Sherrod Brown, that resulted in calling for what really is a tariff on non-complying countries and credits that help the coal driven rust belt, so those states don't bear the whole burden. (Some thing NAFTA Gore would never have included.)

This seems to be mostly a Lieberman based effort to make him look better by making him the real leader, when in fact, he was - as even this shows - the third man brought in mostly to make centrists and conservatives less uncomfortable with Kerry leading this as the strongest environmentalist in the Senate. Lieberman and his people, are willing to do what Kerry and his are reluctant to do - to blame Obama on the bill not passing. (Kerry goes no further than saying it should have been pushed - which suggests that he likely does not disagree with the stronger blame assigned here.)

[Mass]

3. I got a similar reaction reading the article.

I am not sure if this was inspired by Lieberman or just because Lizza likes Lieberman (as he did in 2003-2004 when TNR endorsed him). Generally speaking, the staff of TNR during these years did not like Kerry and still does not, with an exception on Spencer Ackerman who, as a serious commentator of foreign affairs, recognizes Kerry's knowledge. Somehow, I think the comment concerning Kerry's strained relationship with Obama comes from this.

This said, I liked reading about the insides of the Senate/White House and would not be surprised it is fairly accurate, if anything because it corresponds more or less with what we have read during the last year.

I did not take Gore's quote as you did. I think it was a statement of fact. It is true that there was a lot of things in KGL that was clearly coming from the industries and not necessarily useful, but as Gore said, this is the only way to do so.

Aside from the White House staff, the other person who does not come out good is Reid, which is not surprising. Sadly, I think the criticism of both the White House and Reid when it comes to pushing hard to get bills voted upon (and passed) may be warranted.

[karynnj]

4. I agree with you on Reid

I didn't think he could have come out worse than he already had with the way he and Schumer played with immigration, but he does. I agree that most of the things said to have happened match the internal stories.

I did not remember that he endorsed Lieberman. I had not realized that he was one of the TNR people - if so, this has more grudging praise for Kerry than they have shown in the past.

I took Gore's comment to be that they failed BECAUSE they sought to gain industry support. That is almost the opposite of saying that it is the only way to do it. I am glad to read your opinion because my own made me really angry at Gore, who I had never really liked, but greatly respected for his work on climate change.

[beachmom]

5. I read the article last night on my Kindle and for purposes of sleep, I wish I had read it earlier

in the day. I found it disturbing, particularly, the incompetence of the WH.

Here is my take on the article:

1. I just don't buy Kerry having relationship problems with Graham or the President. After all, Kerry called up T Boone Pickens, THE funder of the SBVT; why would he have a problem working with Graham who really didn't say anything all that bad in '04. Also, the two of them are former prosectors, so I guess I see them as naturally seeing many things eye to eye.

Meanwhile, Kerry got over his disappointment on the SoS position pretty quickly. I would say by the inauguration. He enjoyed running the hearing for Hillary's confirmation, and has worked with her closely the last nearly 2 years. Although, I felt she has blundered at times (and somehow received nearly 100% positive press), overall, she has worked well with the Chairman of the SFRC.

Also, I question the wisdom that the only reason Kerry risked a lot endorsing Obama after the NH primary was to get the SoS job. Is he really that naive, petty and arrogant to think an endorsement would guarantee him such a prominent position in the cabinet? Knowing what I do about John Kerry, I highly doubt it. I mean, why did he pick Obama to be a keynote at the '04 convention? What was in it for him then? Well, he saw Barack Obama in Illinois and was highly impressed, thinking him akin in many respects to JFK. John Kerry felt that Barack Obama was a highly gifted and intelligent politician who could make history by becoming the first African American President. To have played any role in that was payoff enough. THAT is how John Kerry thought. The SoS position in my view would have just been gravy for him. Sure, he was unhappy when he didn't get the job, but it wasn't the main reason he endorsed Obama. If it was, then I have completely misjudged the character of the man. Rizzo lacks imagination in his matter of fact discussion of why JK endorsed Obama after NH.

2. I feel vindicated in my defense of Graham at the time. I said he was screwed over, and now there is even more evidence other than the immigration fiasco that he was not treated well for going out on a limb. Although far away, he still is vulnerable for a '14 primary challenge because of his work he did. That isn't true for Kerry or Lieberman who come from states that are sympathetic for dealing with global climate change.

3. I came away admiring Kerry more. He actually had a plan. It was stick with the CO2 target, and negotiate on everything else. He stuck to that plan, until well after the bill had died and all hope was lost. I don't blame him for messing around with the target when they were down to a utility only bill. Just getting SOME regime together would have been a miracle at that point.

4. I agree with the approach KGL took in getting Republican votes. Courting them individually was NOT working. Since they were stooges to the corporate lobbies, may as well do a run around and get the polluters on board. It didn't work, but if it had it would have been viewed as ingenius.

5. I was really disturbed by what the WH did. I mean wow!!! They really screwed it up big time. But I think the main reason was the fact that Carol Browner only had THREE staffers. When you don't invest in something, don't be surprised when it all blows up in smoke. Rahm was just being Rahm. But Axelrod was beyond ridiculous. He needs to resign and then come back for the '12 election, something which he is good at.

6. The article focussed on KGL in the Senate and the WH, but I agree with the article Mass linked to on who is really to blame:

Finally, for the sake of completeness and so as not to be misunderstood by those who aren’t regular readers and didn’t see my June 30 post (”Republicans demagogue against market-oriented climate measures they once supported“), most of the blame for this failure should go to the anti-science, pro-pollution ideologues. They have spread disinformation and poisoned the debate so that is no longer even recognizable. Who could have guessed just a couple of years ago, that the GOP champion of climate action would now trash a bill considerably weaker than the one he tried to pass twice? (see Rolling Stone on “The Climate Killers: 17 polluters and deniers who are derailing efforts to curb the climate catastrophe.”)

And if you are keeping score at home in the blame game, the media is the second most culpable group for their generally enabling coverage — see “How the status quo media failed on climate change” and How the press bungles its coverage of climate economics: “The media’s decision to play the stenographer role helped opponents of climate action stifle progress.”

Those two groups deserve about 90% of the blame (60-30?), I think (assuming that we assume the 60 vote antidemocratic super majority requirement is unchangeable). The other 10% goes to Obama and his team (along with Senate Democrats, scientists, environmentalists, and progressives) — and let’s not forget the “Think Small” centrists who also helped shrink the political space in the debate (see “Michael Lind of the New America Foundation misinforms on both climate science and clean energy“).

7. As to Reid, who comes out looking REALLY bad, let's not forget Chuck Schumer's role. I have no idea why his terrible behavior by saying on national TV that climate was going to be put on the back burner was completely forgotten.

8. Despite WH blunders and everything else that went wrong, there was NEVER a time when KGL had 60 votes nor any real hope of getting those 60 votes. I question whether under any circumstances they would have gotten those votes. The reason was toward the end of the article. The public just didn't view climate change as all that important.

9. I LOVED the part about McCain being mad that Graham was now being called the Maverick. It goes to show that McCain has just been lying through his teeth for the past 2 years about being a right wing conservative. He was just pandering to the right wing in Arizona due to the primary challenge. He would much rather be a maverick in the middle of the action, and resents what the tea party has reduced him to being. I mean what a bizarre system we have set up: crazy conservative activists have Republicans quivering in their boots while liberals are derided by Democrats every other week. I guess it comes down to the numbers.

[MBS]

6. " " " " " n/t

[beachmom]

7. I wrote this diary when Graham folded.

Clearly, I emphasized Schumer too much (although I did put Reid in the title) and did not understand at the time how much the WH had blundered in dealing with Graham. But overall, I think I got it right, and Al Giordano is looking pretty foolish to me (he is The Field in the comments) since we know for sure (and really knew then) that there was no immigration bill on the table AT ALL.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/25/860575/-How-Reid-and-Schumer-killed-climate-legislation-(Update-2)

[karynnj]

10. You really were pretty on target

I am not sure you emphasized Schumer too much - I suspect that this article keeps Schumer, who we KNOW was involved repeatedly out of it, for the same reason Lieberman, who was clearly # 3, is highlighted. Mass posted of the author's endorsement of Lieberman in TNR in 2003. I suspect that he also may be a big Schumer fan, given that Schumer and Lieberman are not that far apart on the Democratic spectrum. (In addition, he may see Schumer as a potential Majority Leader and doesn't want to be on his "bad" list.

I suspect that New Yorker Schumer would be hurt if people saw him as having been partially a killer of the climate change bill.

[karynnj]

8. Great analysis - and very depressing

I agree with you on Kerry's focus - and the one thing that can be said is that there was no avenue that could have led to a successful bill that was not tried. The CW from the start was that there would not be 60 votes. The fact that Snowe, Collins, and McCain, who always had been involved on these bills in the past were against it and would not have signed on even if the bill were identical to what they sponsored in the past. For reasons you stated in number 9. The really sad thing for Snowe is that this action, which I hope bothers her conscience, won't save her from a primary challenge - and it could make her vulnerable to a Democrat.

In retrospect, I wonder what would have happened had the Democrats in setting up the 2009 Congress amended the filibuster full, not eliminating it, but doing something like Harkin suggested that reduced the number needed in second or third filibusters. The fact is that the 60 means that the filibuster is far harder to break than the old fashioned kind. In the 110th Congress, they were already filibustering everything.

Like you, I am disappointed in the White House, but even in 2008, Obama did not really seem to care passionately about this issue - unlike both Gore and Kerry. I remember a "This Week" with John and Teresa, where near the end, Stephanopolis asked if there was anyone running who they were happy with on the issues like climate change from their book. Teresa immediately answered "No" JK then agreed that no one running at that point was where he would have wanted them to be, but spoke of the Democrats as better than where the Republicans were. (from memory - so take with a grain of salt.)

It is sad, but it might very well be that the real problem was that the majority of people really did not care enough to make the serious choices that they have to do.

[MBS]

9. I also was disappointed, but not surprised, by White House

passivity/bungling on climate change. FWIW, my memory of the "This Week" interview is exactly the same as yours, and I also remember that I'd independently formed the same opinion on the 2008 crop of candidates as THK and JK long before that interview. It was always obvious, alas. : (

In a recent oped in the Boston Globe that addressed Dem disappointments, James Carroll noted that in 2008 we opted for hope, but what we really wanted was magic. In terms of environmental change, given the current political (no pun intended) climate, I've concluded that maybe magic is what we NEED at this point. Thank God that JK gets it, and has always gotten it, in terms of environment; and thank God that he continues to fight hard for solutions. If only there were at least 60 others like him in the Senate, and a stronger commitment in the White House. . and a media that actually would do its job (I agree with that commentator that Mass brought to our attention) . Eventually we'll get there, but boy it's a discouraging time.

The thing that impresses me most about JK is that, despite decades of of political stupidity and slander that he's had to deal with, and despite the current political miasma in DC and across the country, he has not gotten cynical yet. He just keeps fighting. Thanks, Senator Kerry.

[karynnj]

11. Here's another view of the article from Mother Nature Network

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/politics/blogs/article-shows-what-really-happened-to-the-2010-climate-bill

They were impressed by Graham and Kerry,

4. Kerry led the charge
While John Kerry ended up failing in getting anything passed, Lizza’s article shows how devoted the “new” Kerry was to meeting with lobbyists, the administration and senators from Olympia Snowe to Lisa Murkowski. Kerry made uncomfortable deals with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, T. Boone Pickens and Joe Lieberman, which all had to be uncomfortable for a number of political reasons.

They speak of the willingness to use the EPA right to regulate greenhouse gases as a bargaining chip. (they seem to have mixed the point that it takes legislation to balance incentives and money to reduce the impact on areas that are hardest hit. The EPA can set standards and enforce them, but the hesitation would be that the entire rust belt would have severe negative economic impacts. That would do what the bill wouldn't - cause enormous pain. In addition, the EPA can not give the incentives to create the jobs that the bill would.

Their conclusion - Reid killed the bill. (They don't bullet point it), but in the Reid bullet point they refer to it as a "killer WH leak" that the bill survived.

[Mass]

12. More comments about this article

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-10-04-lessons-from-climate-fight-its-senate-stupid-lizza-new-yorker/

Lessons from the climate fight: it’s the Senate, stupid
...
The Senate is dysfunctional and corrupt. I know I keep harping on this, but that's because other people keep harping on the green movement and cap-and-trade and John Kerry and Obama. When liberals turn on each other because of failure in the Senate, the Senate wins. The Senate is not the real world! It's a corrupt, unrepresentative, archaic institution run according to perverse rules, populated with incurious, egotistical, ignorant, wealthy old white men. Nothing good or decent survives there. That's not a problem for good and decent things, it's a problem for the Senate!

Obviously, greens and Dems knew the Senate existed and should have planned for it. But it's too easy to say everyone should have known climate legislation was an impossible lift in the Senate. The ineptness, absurdity, and adamantine status quo bias on display in the Senate over the last few years has gone beyond what could have been reasonably predicted by even the most cynical. More on that in subsequent posts.

and

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/10/how-climate-legislation-failed

So then there was Plan B: get industry groups on board, and hope that they could put pressure on Republicans to do the right thing. So John Kerry, Graham, and Joe Lieberman (collectively KGL) went to work. They got the Chamber of Commerce on board by promising to preempt EPA regulation. They got T. Boone Pickens on board by promising a bunch of tax incentives for natural gas. They got the big oil refiners on board — for a few weeks, anyway — by agreeing to remove refineries from the cap-and-trade regime and instead have them pay something called a "linked fee."
Along the way there were some screwups. The White House unilaterally agreed to support $54 billion in nuclear loan guarantees. Then the EPA agreed to slow down its plans to regulate carbon. Finally, at the end of March, Obama announced a plan to allow more offshore drilling. All of these are things that KGL wanted to hold in reserve as bargaining chips with wavering Republican senators. But even so, they kept plugging away until April, when a White House source apparently told Fox's Major Garrett that Obama opposed the linked fee. Graham's policy aide, Matthew Rimkunas, emailed Lieberman's aide, Danielle Rosengarten:
...

And Steve Benen, of course.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_10/025982.php

I've seen some suggest that it casts the Obama White House in especially bad light, and it's true that Lizza highlights some strategic and policy errors that the president's team made, none of which helped the process along. But the key takeaway from the article, at least for me, was that the tri-partisan package was destined for failure, regardless of any other consideration, unless four to six Senate Republicans were prepared to get on board.
...
Think about that for a moment. The fate of the legislation -- and the fate of our efforts to combat a climate crisis -- was dependent on a cable news network not focusing too much attention on legislative negotiations. Graham was apparently willing to do some heavy lifting, just so long as Fox News' attention was focused elsewhere.

[beachmom]

13. The Atlantic Wire has a nice round up of all these articles

plus a couple more:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/How-Obama-Lost-Climate-Change-5285

[beachmom]

14. Ha! Gotta love David Roberts of Grist giving it to John McCain:

http://www.grist.org/article/2010-10-05-lessons-from-the-climate-fight-mccains-a-jerk/

Lessons from the climate fight: McCain’s a tool

One of the facts that bobs to the surface as you read Ryan Lizza's New Yorker piece on the death of the climate bill is that John McCain is kind of a tool. I know he's fallen pretty far from his beloved-by-the-media perch of the mid-2000s, but he could stand to fall a bit farther. (Yes, I realize I'm harping on this.)

...

McCain wants to cut and run and be the mavericky center of attention. Hell hath no fury like a hypocrite scorned.

I realize the bill probably wouldn't have passed regardless of what McCain did. He's not the center of the story and his calumny was no worse than many others'. Nonetheless, he's kind of a douchecanoe and it can't hurt to say so.