Kate Sheppard asks if the passage of health care legislation will hurt or hinder progress on climate legislation.   But the underlying question is whether or not Senator Graham is looking for an excuse to bail on climate negotiations.  The answer to that question might just be yes.  His rhetoric hints at the possibility, and he’s willing to distort the truth about reconciliation without hesitation while huffing and puffing that it leaves him no choice but to bail on unrelated legislation.  If Senator Graham does end up using the passage of health care reform as an excuse to give up on climate talks, his lack of integrity will be readily apparent for all to witness.

First, some back story.

Last week this National Journal article ($) made me worry:

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, the lone Republican working with Democrats on both immigration and climate change legislation, might walk away from talks on those issues if Senate Democrats use budget reconciliation to pass changes to their healthcare bill in a deal with the House, according to Graham and a leadership aide….

A Senate GOP aide said it was too early to begin worrying that a deal will be struck on a climate bill that would put a price on industrial carbon emissions. But at the same time, aides said stakeholders should consider the impact reconciliation will have on climate legislation and the possibility that the midterm elections could yield more business-friendly Republicans in Congress.

“They should definitely realize there’s not a lot of good reasons to cut a rash deal at this point,” a Republican aide said. “I think they’re going to have a very hard time convincing any Republicans, particularly with reconciliation hanging over their head. It seems like, to me, from a business perspective, they should consider that.”

But since it was National Journal quoting an anonymous Republican aide, I didn’t place much weight in it. Was that a mistake? Could Senator Graham really take such offense to reconciliation that he would scuttle climate talks over it?

Senator Graham emerged last fall as a leading Republican in negotiations on clean energy and climate legislation. While he wasn’t ready to support the Boxer-Kerry bill on the table, he expressed confidence in “a pathway forward … that makes us more energy independent, creates sound environmental policy, promotes job creation and frees our nation from dependency on foreign oil.” In the months that followed, as he was attacked by South Carolina Republicans over and over again, he continued making the case for clean energy. In early January, responding to being censured by a local county Republican party, he shot back: “I do believe in finding common ground to solve hard problems.” As recently as the end of January he was still “committed to finding a new path forward.”

But in late February, the rhetoric took a turn for the worse:

In a private meeting with several environmental leaders on Wednesday, according to participants, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), declared, “Cap-and-trade is dead.”

Then on the March 7th edition of Face the Nation, Graham said (PDF):

We’ve had reconciliation votes but all of them had received bipartisan support, the least was twelve when we did reconciliation with tax cuts. So it is taking a partisan product and making it law.

It isn’t clear whether he was being disingenuous or was just mistaken, but his statement was factually incorrect. Graham was apparently referring to the 2001 tax cuts. But as the Sunlight Foundation has documented, Bush’s 2003 tax cuts were passed through reconciliation on a hyperpartisan 50-50 vote. Whether he was being disingenuous or not, those were harsh words, and they are not encouraging for those of us who have worried all along about the Senator’s ability to negotiate in good-faith.

Graham’s most disturbing comments about reconciliation came on Sunday on ABC’s This Week:

“If they do this, it’s going to poison the well for anything else they would like to achieve this year or thereafter.”

He continued:

“I’ve been working with Lieberman and Kerry, we’ve come a long way on the climate and energy issue,” Graham said. “This is one issue where the president has been great. He’s saying all the right things to give us a chance to become energy independent, clean up the air and create jobs. But when it comes to health care, he’s been tone deaf, he’s been arrogant, and they’re pushing a legislative proposal and a way to do that legislative proposal that’s going to destroy the ability of this country to work together for a very long time. And that’s not necessary.”

Jeromy Symons gets this exactly right:

“Senators shouldn’t squander this opportunity for real energy reform because they are angry on other topics,” he said. “Think where our nation would be if Congress called it quits every time parties fight over one issue. Nothing would ever get done.”

Senator Kerry remains confident in Senator Graham’s interest in proceeding, citing earlier statements the Republican Senator has made. But Senator Graham says a lot of things.

Ezra calls it an empty threat, quipping that “if Graham doesn’t think the well is already poisoned, then I dare him to take a sip from it.” But it isn’t clear to me that Senator Graham is above using this as an excuse to back out of climate negotiations. While talking a relatively good talk most of the time, he’s been working behind the scenes to weaken the legislation as much as possible. And by the looks of things he’s had significant success on that front.

I can’t help but note that Senator Graham initially became interested in climate legislation because of his mentor John McCain. McCain, of course, has long since bailed on climate discussions for plainly political reasons.

Bailing now offers Senator Graham an easy opportunity to accommodate his increasingly anti-science base by pulling the football on the gullible democrats once again.

On Monday Graham warned reporters that the draft legislation he is developing with Senators Kerry and Lieberman may not be public mid-April. If all goes according to plan, health care reform will be the law of the land by then.

When Democrats pass health care legislation in the next few days, Senator Graham will have a potentially career-defining decision to make. He can take the easy route, the predictable path, by joining Republicans in an orchestrated tantrum and an attempt to completely shut down the government.  Or he can do what he knows is right and continue working for clean energy legislation that will create jobs, reduce pollution and improve our national security. We’re going to find out what Senator Graham is made of very soon.

The whole editorial is strong but I especially like the last few paragraphs:

Industrial emissions account for a third of this country’s greenhouses gases, and freezing the government’s ability to regulate them makes no sense. There is no guarantee that Congress will produce a broad bill. And even if it does, what is the harm in requiring power plants and other industrial facilities to make near-term improvements in efficiency, or switch to less-polluting fuels?

These senators seem to have bought the hype, spun by industry, that the E.P.A. will run amok. This is not the way we read the intentions of the E.P.A. administrator, Lisa Jackson, who has promised that whatever regulations she proposes will be gradual, cost-effective and affect only the largest facilities.

Nor is it the way we read Congress’s responsibility to the country. That is to address the very real danger of climate change, not deny the government the tools it needs — and legally has — to fight it.

The fact that the thinking behind Murkowski and Rockefeller’s efforts comes directly from polluting industries is an important point, and one that can’t be repeated enough as far as I’m concerned.

Here is the National Association of Manufacturers:

The EPA needs to slow down and let Congress handle this issue.

Here is Senator Rockefeller on the day he introduced the Stationary Sources Regulations Delay Act:

This legislation will issue a two year suspension on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources—giving Congress the time it needs to address an issue as complicated and expansive as our energy future. Congress, not the EPA, must be the ideal decision-maker on such a challenging issue.

The Times piece is worth reading in full.

Late update — Joseph Romm has much more on this here.

Multiple updates at bottom of post.

Newly released Gallup polling seems to show a sharp drop in the percentage of Americans who know about, are concerned about and understand the threat of global warming.

The piece leads with a graph showing a sharp increase in the percentage of Americans who think the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated:

When I saw this I immediately assumed the increase was due to the changing opinions of Republicans, and did not reflect a general trend within the broader population. As Joseph Romm has demonstrated, the GOP’s understanding of climate science has been on a steady decline for years. More evidence of this here and here.

In the piece, Gallup notes that “evidence from last year showed that the issue of global warming was becoming heavily partisan in nature, and it may be that the continuing doubts about global warming put forth by conservatives and others are having an effect.” I’ll say.

Gallup has provided EnviroKnow with the full cross-tabs, which are available below. To illustrate the fact that the shifts shown in the poll are largely partisan in nature, I’ve produced a series of graphs based on the cross-tabs.

The fact that an equal number of Republicans (31%) believe that the effects of climate change have already begun as believe the effects will never happen is an excellent display of the schizophrenia of the Republican position on the issue.

Reasonable people can disagree on policy solutions for dealing with problems we face as a society. But the Republican party is playing a different game entirely. Republicans and conservative thought-leaders — at the behest of the corporate polluters who bankroll their campaigns — have made a conscious decision to deny the science in order to advance their political agenda. Put simply, they seem to think they are entitled to their own facts. Unfortunately for them, and ultimately for the rest of us as well, physics doesn’t give a damn about politics.

Here are the full cross-tabs:

Read the rest of this entry »

The Hill:

A mostly Republican group of 20 state and territorial governors is urging Congress to block EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

A letter Wednesday from the governors – 18 Republicans and two Democrats – to House and Senate leaders alleges that planned EPA rules to limit heat-trapping emissions would harm their state economies.

“We feel compelled to guard against a regulatory approach that would increase the cost of electricity and gasoline prices, manufactured products, and ultimately harm the competitiveness of the U.S. economy,” states the letter to Democratic and GOP leadership.

The letter is below:

Read the rest of this entry »

The Hill:

In a March 5 letter to Kerry – who is playing a leading role in Senate climate negotiations – Levin calls for a delay of at least 10 years before industrial plants face regulations. Levin argues that a further delay should be provided “if important trade provisions to assure a level playing field are not included and fully implemented.”

Levin also argues for a national standard for emissions from cars and trucks that would prevent states from adopting different rules.

Here is the letter:

levin

If so, the easiest path seems to be through Senator Lincoln’s office. The Sunlight Foundation published a massive research project yesterday in which they mapped out the connections between Senator Lincoln and various lobbyists. You can see a full visualization of this here and read the research here.

This came today from the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.

Here is the analysis:

Jobs_Analysis_0309

Here is the full statement, via Post Carbon:

I do not plan to cosponsor Senator Rockefeller’s legislation at this time. I was encouraged by the response last week from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to a letter that I signed along with other Senators that would delay into next year the application of stronger standards regarding increased efficiency or reduced pollution at large power plants and factories. Following up on my previous conversations with her in my office, I take her at her word.

In addition, as I have pointed out in my op-ed of December 3, 2009 entitled Coal Must Embrace the Future, West Virginia needs to have a seat at the negotiating table. I am continuing to have significant discussions about how to ensure the future of coal as a long-term energy resource. I am reluctant to give up on talks that might produce benefits for West Virginia’s coal interests by seeming to turn away from on-going negotiations. I will continue to negotiate with all who are earnestly engaged in the pursuit of a proper balance between saving jobs, protecting the environment and ensuring the health of our communities.

Senator Rockefeller:

Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV today introduced legislation to suspend potential Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources for two years.

“Today, we took important action to safeguard jobs, the coal industry, and the entire economy as we move toward clean coal technology,” said Senator Rockefeller. “This legislation will issue a two year suspension on EPA regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources—giving Congress the time it needs to address an issue as complicated and expansive as our energy future. Congress, not the EPA, must be the ideal decision-maker on such a challenging issue.

The legislation is below:

Read the rest of this entry »

You may have noticed the ‘Click to Call’ widget on the right side of the blog. It is for a 72-hour call-on campaign Clean Energy Works has organized to demonstrate support for climate legislation. Please consider using the widget, or this link to call your Senators today.