In a recent discussion about showers and water use, someone commented that they take (in essence) Navy showers (wet themselves, turn off water, soap, then rinse) so why would it make sense to have an efficient system.
I don’t have low flow shower heads, but I rinse up, turn off the water, lather up, then rinse quickly. I think this works out well. …
And the response to a recommendation to get a low-flow showerhead:
Do you really think that my method doesn’t save as much as a low flow head running the whole time?
Well, actually, it likely does “save as much” … and perhaps even more. But this is postulating an either / or situation when there is greater power in “and”.
“If Waxman-Markey can’t get the votes of reliable liberals, they are then forced to go to the right to get a majority,” Pope told the Huffington Post. The bill that has emerged isn’t as strong as it could be, he said, because of the “impact of the failure of liberals to commit on the bill.”
This quotation went flying around some circles, environmentalists and progressives (and some progressive environmentalists) with a “WTF?”-type commentary.
To be clear, we should place the very real inadequacies of Waxman-Markey at the feet of those responsible: fossil-foolish interests, people gullible to deception from the global warming denial wing of the Flat Earth Society, and those scared to lead rather than have to explain themselves in the face of massively deceptive advertising. And, we should recognize that the bill has real strengths in it, in no small part due to leadership by people like Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, but also due to the committed dedication of scientists and activists, environmentalists and progressives seeking to have a science-based policy that will improve the economy while turning the tide on global warming.
Thus, with the reality that the fault for ACES’ weaknesses fall not mainly on “reliable liberals”, Pope’s comment outraged quite a few.
Knowing Carl and also knowing the reality that even the best of journalists can report what they believe is accurate while fostering a misunderstanding, it seemed sensible to query Carl directly (see after the fold for the question/response).
In short, the explanation is more nuanced and specific than the quotation would suggest. In short (again, see after the fold for Carl’s entire comment), Carl believes that the time for equivocation had passed by mid-week. While “reliable liberals” has strategic opportunities for strengthening this legislation in the years, months, weeks leading up to the vote, by not being an assured vote early by mid-week, this helped foster deal-making with more conservative members, who sought weakening measures, rather than providing a stronger negotiating position by the bill’s managers.
I am uncertain about whether I agree with Carl. (I’d state that I disagree but he has far more experience in ‘last-minute deal-making’ than I, thus likely a more knowledgeable and nuanced perception of the situation. But, as a counter-argument, for example, what might the impact have been if 50 “reliable liberals” had gone to the mat Friday morning requiring something specific, such as $5 billion more year for renewable energy deployment)?) But, Carl’s point really is a conversation about how to play an end-game, about implications of tactical maneuvering, rather than what could (depending on one’s reading of the Huffington Post piece) be read as a strong condemnation of the role of “reliable liberals” throughout the ACES Act process.
While there are quite serious issues to consider in how ACES was weakened leading to its passage yesterday and serious issues about whether this is the bill that is required, the vast majority of the opposition to the bill relied on deceit and deception. In part, Representative Lloyd Doggett’s decision to flip his vote from no to yes came based on listening to floor statements by card-carrying members of the Global Warming denial wing of the Flat Earth Society.
The misrepresentation of ACES comes not only in terms of demonstrated anti-science syndrome suffering, but also from misrepresenting the bill’s impacts and priorities.
In light of the tremendous importance of this legislation, LCV has made the unprecedented decision that the organization will not endorse any member of the House of Representatives in the 2010 election cycle who votes against final passage of this bill. Every Member of Congress received a letter informing them of this policy and LCV’s strong support for H.R.2454 on Tuesday, June 23. “The stakes could not be higher; a safer, healthier planet and a new energy economy hang in the balance, and it’s imperative that members of Congress be on the right side of history,” LCV President Gene Karpinski said in the letter to the House. … LCV’s endorsement is a nationally recognized shorthand that gives candidates for federal office legitimacy with environmental voters and donors.
Earlier today, two members of the House of Representatives most dedicated to advancing the nation on energy and environmental issues announced their opposition to the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act. This was, it is quite likely, a different call as there are quite strong (and even compelling) arguments to vote for the bill despite its flaws. Honestly, in their shoes, I don’t know what statement I would have made today.
Peter Defazio came to the floor to emphasize how ACES under cuts one of the nation’s greatest environmental achievements, the Clean Air Act, by withdrawing the EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions.
“This energy bill’s fine print betrays its laudable purpose. The real cap is on the public interest and the trade is the billions from the public to polluters. It is too weak to greatly spur new technologies and green jobs. An Administration analysis shows that doing nothing actually results in more new renewable electricity generation capacity than approving this bill. “Vital authority for the EPA is stripped, but 2 billion additional tons of pollution are authorized every year, forever. Residential consumer protection incredibly is entrusted to the mercy of utility companies. Exempting a hundred new coal plants and paying billions to Old King Coal leaves him, indeed, a very merry old soul. This bill is 85% different from what President Obama proposed months ago. No wonder his Budget Director called this type of bill ‘the largest corporate welfare program in history of the United States.’ Until greatly improved, until families share in the billions this bill grants powerful lobbies, I cannot support it.”
Both DeFazio and Doggett struggled, it is certain, over how to vote on this legislation. And, both determined that the bill’s inadequacies in face of what is necessary to confront climate change were just too serious for them, in good conscious, to vote for the bill.
Likely Global Warming denier Collin Peterson, rated 85% in 2008, and coal-booster Rich Boucher, rated 77%, both central in serious weakening of this legislation. are both in line for LCV endorsements as they grudgingly support the watered down bill after winning major concessions for their interests.
BREAK– UPDATE: Lloyd Doggett just made a statement stating that he will vote for the bill, in part because he has listened to the global warming denial wing of the Flat Earth society.
President Obama made quite favorable comments about the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act at the opening of his press conference. (And, of course, no journalist thought this issue meriting a question …) Today, the President made a strong statement calling on all members of the House to vote for this legislation. In his comments (full text after the fold), the President emphasized that this is “jobs bill”, tying this quite directly to prospects to dig ourselves not just out of the climate hole, but our unemployment hole. The President’s statement is a strong one, a powerful discussion of the value of meaningful, strong climate legislation. And, it will (should) be hard for any Democratic member of the House to ignore his call for a yes vote. [Read more →]
At times one needs to make decisions about how to rate confidences and how to maintain relationships. While not a “journalist”, this blogger can develop relationships that are built up in a variety of reasons and a variety of pathways. Many conversations are ‘off the record’, are part of discussions that don’t necessarily lend themselves to throwing out into public for any number of reasons. Yet, as with journalists, sometimes these “background” or “don’t quote me” or “can’t give you that email but trust me” conversations have significant import and there is reason to put something out on the table, to have an open conversation.
There is a real debate among those concerned about climate change about the best path forward in terms of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act.
Friends of the Earth, among others, sees the bill as so weakened as to have become counter-productive. FOE has called for Representatives to vote against the bill unless it is (significantly) strengthened. With each passing day and with each weakening of this bill, their case seems ever more valid.
Many, especially many within the environmental community, are calling for the bill to be strengthened. Many (most) of these are coming in with a message along the lines of “vote for passing ACES, Friday, and, oh by the way, pretty please (with sugar on top), try to strengthen the bill in the interim and try not to have it weakened further”. Most of these organizations have not given any indication of whether there is some form of red line of weakening and undermining beyond which they can no longer support Waxman-Markey.
With the President’s statement yesterday supporting ACES and Al Gore’s telecon last night, these two quite prominent climate activists seem to fall into the “vote for it even though it falls far short of what we’ve called for in the past” camps. Obama, after all, called for 100% auction of carbon permits while ACES gives away 85% initially (and most for a decade +). Gore called for an end to coal, while ACES gives it renewed life, and called for 100% clean electricity with a decade while ACES has a poorly structure renewable energy & energy efficiency standard of 17 percent by 2020. Thus, they are supporting a bill that is weaker than what they have called for.
This is true, in essence, for every single one of the environmental organizations ‘involved’ in the Washington game. It is hard to seen any serious “environmentalist” who sees ACES as the bill that they would like to see. The question becomes,. at some point, how weakened it can become and still merit support.
An interesting twist in the final days before House voting on the bill. Going back to the opening of this post and ‘background’ discussions / sources: A good number of people have told me in the past few days that major environmental organization is actively working against strengthening amendments to the bill, stating that those groups are fearful that any actual strengthening will keep the bill from being passed.. Sigh, when asked to go on the record, everyone has said no … But, different people, different offices, separate conversations saying very similar and reinforcing things.
How to handle this?
Sigh … Well, I reached out and asked a number of organizations for statements on the record.
Three environmental groups were mentioned by name.
Environment Defense Fund was mentioned in an offhand, “I think they’re involved”, type commentary. When queried about this, EDF’s Tony Kreindler directly said “baloney”. He quoted from a letter that EDF sent Speaker Pelosi this Monday: “We urge all House members to vote “yes” on H.R 2454 and to support amendments that strengthen the legislation.” That letter is, in fact, a very strong endorsement of ACES as a “crucial step” and “the most significant peice of environmental and energy legislation or our generation.” While this letter doesn’t provide much strength to the “strengthen it” effort, there is an on-the-record rejection of any EDF involvement in fighting strengthening amendments.
Also mentioned, in an aside-sort of way, was the League of Conservation Voters. As of yet, six hours later, no response from LCV. Does silence thus imply that LCV, which announced yesterday that they will not endorse any member who does not vote for ACES, is fighting against strengthening amendments?
Several people directly mentioned NRDC staff as discussing whether it would be best to vote against strengthening amendments for fear that those amendments would reduce the chance of the bill passage. When directly asked about this, NRDC spokesman Michael Oko sent the following:
NRDC is fully behind the ACES bill. Our policy experts and staff have been working on it for months to ensure that the bill is strong and that it is passed.
This is a historic week in Congress. We believe it is vital that this bill is passed through the House, so that it can be taken up by the Senate and delivered to the President’s desk. America needs strong climate and energy legislation this year.
As the bill moves ahead, we will continue to look for opportunities to make it stronger and to protect it from opponents who would try to weaken it. As you’re aware, it has been a hard fought process to get this far — which has taken tremendous leadership by Speaker Pelosi, Mr Waxman, Mr Markey and many others to get it to the House floor.
As we approach this historic marker, NRDC is extremely proud of the efforts we, the broader environmental community, and many others have made. As evidence, you can see the letter we signed — along with 28 other groups — supporting strengthening and passage of ACES.
As per this and the referenced letter, NRDC is on the record supporting strengthening of ACES … and its passage.
Now, at the end of the day, am I receiving a confused message. Are there environmental groups actively lobbying against strengthening amendments? Are there staff doing so independently? Are there, perhaps, people having ‘conversations’ about whether specific strengthening amendments will lower the chances of the bill’s passage? Or, is the world simply a confusing place and this just a confusing blog post? Or, is it all of the above and even more.
At the end of the day, looking likely that we will see a full House vote on ACES in the near future, there is a simple reality: ACES is far from the ace in the hole to provide us a winning hand against Global Warming. Wherever we should lay the blame (primarily, of course, on fossil foolish interests, their disinformation and deception campaigns, and their Congressional allies), this bill opened as less than what was required and has been weakened significantly through the House legislative process.
It seems clear that “enviro” calls that ‘you should support the bill but please, we’re asking nicely, would you strengthen it’ are not effective in promoting the sort of legislation that is necessary. And, it is clear that too many are ready to support this no matter how watered down it might get. What is unclear is whether, in their strong desire to have climate legislation, “green” lobbyists are prepared to fight and are actively fighting against efforts to strengthen the legislation.
[NOTE: Additional material …]
What next?
Learning to play hardball is a long process, from t-ball through a lot of hard practices to, for just a rare few, that stepping up to the plate in the major leagues. It is uncertain that those fighting for real action to fight climate change know how to play hardball with minor and poorly funded players like Exxon-Mobil, the US Chamber of Commerce, Peabody Energy, etc … Literally $trillions (along with that minor, pesky issue of living conditions for all humanity and, well, most other species) are at stake here and those fighting meaningful action understand those stakes. It is uncertain that, as a totality, those fighting for change to something better have shown themselves ready to be in the big leagues with these fossil fools. Sadly, we don’t have the time to say ‘go back to AA ball and get some more experience.
Now, some of the best discussion of alternative political paths re climate legislation is, at this time, from Chris Bowers at Open Left. See, for example, Collin Peterson Gets His Way, But Is Now A Great Environmentalist discussing the implications of LCV’s threat to not endorse any Representative who does not vote for Waxman-Markey — no matter the reason for their vote.
As we question and think about lessons for the future, we should recognize that we live in the present. It might be that Waxman-Markey merits passage, as is, and that the best prospects for passage are to prevent strengthening amendments. It might be …
Or, perhaps we should be fighting for meaningful improvements to the legislation that foster a better chance for avoiding catastrophic climate change and for seizing the economic opportunities from a confident move into a clean energy future.
Many groups are fighting for three key amendments.
1. Increase the Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) to 30% by 2020.
2. Protect the Clean Air Act and keep the EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions. (See this CREDO action item: Remove the Trojan Horse from Global Warming Legislation.)
3. Reduce emissions allocations to polluters and shift the resources to green jobs and renewable energy.
NRDC just came out with an analysis of electricity prices (pdf here) which points to the another “positive” that highlights the disingenuous nature of many of the attacks on climate legislation from fossil foolish interests. The NRDC modeled the Waxman-Markety bill, including its energy efficiency and consumer protection provisions, and found that the bill would led to an actual reduction in the average monthly electricity bill. In fact, they find that electricity bills would be lower in 46 of 50 states compared to “business as usual” policies. And, even in the remaining four states, monthly electricity bills would still be lower than 2007 (adjusted for inflation) due to overall energy policy.
While the Waxman-Markey ACES is far from the legislation that it should be and far from what is required to turn the tide against Global Warming’s rising seas, arguments that it will “cost” to much are simply false and part of fossil-foolish scare tactics to undermine any and all efforts to tackle climate change.
Congress has approved and sent to President Obama, as part of the Supplemental, a $1 billion (down-payment on a) Cash-for-Clunkers bill. As structured, this bill is a clunker that will do a poor job at achieving any (and, well, all) of the legitimate objectives of such legislation:
Stimulate economic activity
Improve traffic / highway safety
Help the population move to better and more appropriate transportation
Thus, with reason, yesterday’s Washington Post editorial page attacks the Cash for Clunkers bill. But, the Post‘s editorial board go a step too far with A Clunker of an Idea, attacking the very concept of what can be useful and legitimate public policy rather than focusing on how to have made this bill a useful one.
Yesterday, President Barack Obama had a daytime press conference that is being viewed with outrage by many in the media world. That ‘outrage’ is manufactured and displaying ignorance.
No, instead, the “outrage” derives from what might be seen as some mishandling of President Obama’s turning to the second questioner, Nico Pitney of The Huffington Post. Obama turned to Nico with the following:
Obama said to Pitney, “Nico, I know that you, and all across the Internet, we’ve been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran. I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. … Do you have a question?”
Dana Milbank attacks the Obama team and Pitney as posturing some form of daytime soap opera in Stay Tuned for More of “The Obama Show”. Milbank misrepresents this entire situation as a coordinated situation, undermining the very concept of freedom of the press as per these lines:
The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences, because it sends a message to the world — Iran included — that the American press isn’t as free as advertised. But yesterday wasn’t so much a news conference as it was a taping of a new daytime drama, “The Obama Show.”
…
During the eight years of the Bush administration, liberal outlets such as the Huffington Post often accused the White House of planting questioners in news conferences to ask preplanned questions. But here was Obama fielding a preplanned question asked by a planted questioner — from the Huffington Post.
…
the prepackaged Huffington Post question
“Planted”?
“Prepackaged”?
Milbank is certainly implying (actually, I think, stating) to his readership that Pitney’s question had been provided to him by the White House. This is, quite bluntly, an incredibly serious accusation for one journalist to make about another. (Well, perhaps Milbank could be excused … maybe a “blogger”, even a salaried one who has greater circulation that The Washington Post, doesn’t count as a “journalist” for Milbank.) Time for Milbank to put up the evidence of this violation of journalistic ethics or shut up (that is, after writing a correction and apology).
When it comes to Pitney, perhaps Milbank (and other critics) should wake up and recognize something that becomes evident after just the tiniest of ‘google tube’ searching:
Pitney is doing some of the best (quite possibly the best) English-language reporting on events in Iran. This is, in no small part, to the importance that the internet is serving in terms of getting information from Iran and Pitney’s/HuffPost’s skills in new media.
Pitney had openly declared on Huffington Post that if given a chance to ask a question, that he would seek to ask one from an Iranian.
Milbank could have put these facts into the story and mentioned that Pitney’s question was, easily, the most serious and challenging question Obama faced in that press conference. Instead, Milbank writes this about Pitney:
Obama knew this because White House aides had called Pitney the day before to invite him, and they had escorted him into the room. They told him the president was likely to call on him, with the understanding that he would ask a question about Iran that had been submitted online by an Iranian. …. Pitney said the White House, though not aware of the question’s wording, asked him to come up with a question about Iran proposed by an Iranian.
Milbank is certainly suggesting (stating, no?) that the White House choreographed the entire situation. That Pitney was simply a witting tool for Obama-team manipulation of the press.
Milbank also attacks the Obama team for arranging another ‘unusual’ questioner.
And, as it turned out, [Pitney] was not the only prearranged questioner at yesterday’s show. Later, Obama passed over the usual suspects to call on Macarena Vidal of the Spanish-language EFE news agency. The White House called Vidal in advance to see whether she was coming and arranged for her to sit in a seat usually assigned to a financial trade publication. She asked about Chile and Colombia.
Perhaps, Dana, it could be worth mentioning that this question came on the same day that President Obama met with the Chilean President and a week before he is to meet with the Colombian President. That, of course, would have been hard for Dana to figure out as Vidal’s question began:
Mr. President, you’re meeting today with Chilean President Michelle Bachelet. You’re meeting next week with Alvaro Uribe from Colombia.
Looking at the situation, if there is any journalistic malpractice at play, it is with the truthiness emanating from places like Faux News and Dana Milbank, not from serious questioning by journalists like Nico Pitney and Macarena Vidal.
The NRDC modeled the Waxman-Markety bill, including its energy efficiency and consumer protection provisions, and found that the bill would led to an actual reduction in the average monthly electricity bill. In fact, they find that electricity bills would be lower in 46 of 50 states compared to “business as usual” policies. And, even in the remaining four states, monthly electricity bills would still be lower than 2007 (adjusted for inflation) due to overall energy policy.