Climate Progress points us to Farm Policy, which has audio of an interview (MP3) White House advisor David Axelrod gave to Gerald Seib of The Wall Street Journal on C-Span on Sunday. In the interview, Seiber asked if cap and trade legislation was a ‘essentially a non-starter,’ to which Axelrod sounded a cautious note and urged the Senate to find a bipartisan consensus.

Here is a rushed transcript:

Sieber: Another item on your agenda right now has been global warming, cap and trade.  There’s a sense on capitol hill that the exhaustion at the moment with the economic crisis and the health care debate makes that essentially a non-starter.  Is it a non-starter to you, or do you think that is still an item on the active agenda for 2010?

Axelrod: Well let’s first talk about the issue of energy, Jerry.  Because I think that can’t be a non-starter for the United States of America.  Right now what you see is China, just full throttle, full speed ahead in trying to command the clean energy economy of the future.  India is moving in that direction.  And this is going to be an important part of the economic mix in the future.  We have to compete for those jobs and that future.  And so we can’t just walk off the field when it comes to energy.  And the President spoke about in his state of the union.

In terms of cap and trade, there are efforts ongoing in the United States Senate between Republicans and Democrats to come up with an overall energy bill that would help drive this clean energy investment, this clean energy economy.  If a consensus can be reached, we want to support that.  But this is clearly an issue that Republicans and Democrats are going to have to do together.  It’s not something that one party of the other can do.

I’m glad to see folks letting the Senate know that an energy bill without a cap on emissions and a price on carbon is not acceptable.

BGA Letter to Senate FINAL –

Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones:

As I reported yesterday, some Senate Democrats are calling for leadership to abandon a cap on carbon dioxide pollution and instead move forward with a bill that focuses only on energy provisions. And President Barack Obama yesterday also acknowledged that this may well be what happens in the Senate. In remarks to Senate Democrats today, however, Obama called on his party not to take “the easy way out” by dropping a cap on emissions.

Here is the relevant part of the transcript:

But — and this is just the point that I wanted to make because it came up in New Hampshire yesterday — we still — one of the best ways to be on the forefront in energy is to incentivize clean energy, and discourage the old sources or methods that aren’t going to work in the future.

And so the fact that Joe Lieberman is working with Lindsey Graham, John Kerry has been all over this — the three of them are coming together to try to find a workable, bipartisan structure so that we are incentivizing and rewarding the future — and understanding that there’s a transition, so that we’ve got to make sure that the disruptions are minimized as we move into this new energy future — that’s going to be vital.

So don’t give up on that. I don’t want us to just say the easy way out is for us to just give a bunch of tax credits to clean energy companies. The market works best when it responds to price. And if they start seeing that, you know what, dirty energy is a little pricier, clean energy is a little cheaper, they will innovate, and they will think things through in all kinds of innovative ways.

So I want to congratulate specifically John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham, who it probably doesn’t help him for me to compliment him — (laughter) — but has been very thoughtful in terms of how they’re approaching this issue.

Also of interest, Senator Graham denounced the prospect of splitting energy from cap and trade this morning:

Graham on Wednesday also rejected moving the Senate energy bill alone. “If the approach is to try to pass some half-assed energy bill, and say that moves the ball down the road, forget it with me,” the South Carolina Republican told business leaders from the renewable energy industry on Wednesday.

See multiple updates below.

More bad news from the naysayer in chief:

The most controversial aspects of the energy debate that we’ve been having: The House passed an energy bill, and people complained about, well, there’s this cap and trade thing, and you just mentioned, you know, let’s do the fun stuff before we do the hard stuff.

The only thing I would say about it is this. We may be able to separate these things out, and it-it’s conceivable that that’s where the Senate ends up, but the concept of incentivizing clean energy so that it’s the cheaper more effective kind of energy is one that is proven to work and is actually a market-based approach.

Brian Beutler quite rightly notes that Obama’s tacit acceptance of this outcome makes it all the more likely.  For someone who ostensibly supports a clean energy and climate bill that follows the science, this president sure does seem to take a lot of steps to make such a bill less likely to pass the congress.

Here is a video clip of the exchange:

Update — Looking over the full transcript, it looks like Brian jumped the gun a bit. In context, it isn’t clear at all that Obama is signaling to the Senate that splitting energy from cap and trade would be acceptable. In fact, right after the clip above, he makes a decent argument for putting a price on carbon.

Update 2 — The White House is already walking this back:

A White House spokesman reaffirmed Tuesday evening that Obama supports moving climate and energy legislation as one package.

More of the transcript below.

Read the rest of this entry »

This is encouraging:

“I like what he said about nuclear energy,” said Sen. George LeMieux of Florida, one of the few Republican senators who has expressed interest in the climate issue. “I like what he said about drilling, if we do it the right way. … I hope there will be some energy and effort on it. And I’m a person who’s open to working on it.”

climate_debate_senate –

Statement via email:

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement on energy independence and climate change efforts.

“The energy legislation that was passed by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is not strong enough to lead us to energy independence. The climate change legislation passed by the House of Representatives and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is too onerous on business and does not enjoy bipartisan support.

“My goal is to continue working with Senators Kerry, Lieberman and my Senate colleagues to create a new pathway forward that focuses on a more robust energy security package and a more business-friendly climate legislation.

“I am committed to finding a new way forward as I believe energy security is a short and long-term job creator for our country. Clean air is a shared value by both parties and all Americans. I remain hopeful after discussing this matter with conservation groups, businesses, and Senate colleagues we can be successful this year.”

Associated Press:

A day after meeting with environmentalists concerned about surface mining, Gov. Joe Manchin asked the Legislature to approve a symbolic resolution affirming that coal is still king in West Virginia.

Resolutions sought by Manchin were introduced Tuesday in both the House of Delegates and the state Senate.

They condemn federal legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions with so-called ”cap and trade” programs, and express support for investment in new energy industry technologies aimed at reducing pollution from coal.

Here is the text of the resolution:

Expressing the will of the Legislature to oppose the adoption of a national cap and trade program for carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions that is unduly burdensome to the State of West Virginia and to support measures that encourage investments in technology to address carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions, and requesting that West Virginia’s congressional delegation resist and oppose efforts to adopt a national cap and trade program that is detrimental to our State.

Whereas, The adoption of a national cap and trade program for carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions would have serious financial and economic implications for the State of West Virginia; and

Whereas, House Resolution 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is pending approval in Congress; and

Whereas, The Act calls for the establishment of a national cap and trade program that, if effected, would reduce West Virginia’s gross domestic product by an estimated $750 million by 2020 and by an estimated $1.75 billion by 2030; and

Whereas, West Virginia would lose up to 10,000 jobs by 2020 and up to 22,000 jobs by 2030 if the proposed cap and trade program is enacted; and

Whereas, The industries that would be most affected by the proposed cap and trade program include mining, retail trade and health care; and

Whereas, West Virginia is investing heavily in technology designed to limit carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions, including a $100 million investment by American Electric Power in carbon sequestration and capture technology at its Mountaineer Plant in Mason County, a state-of-the-art facility that is the first of its kind in the world; and

Whereas, Globally, more coal is being used than ever, and demand is projected to rise to even greater levels as more coal- fired power plants are built in other countries; and

Whereas, Coal will continue to be a primary energy source to meet these additional demands and therefore the United States should lead the way in advancing cleaner coal technology; and

Whereas, Additional investments are needed to address carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining the current energy supply; and

Whereas, The Legislature, with the leadership and support of the Governor, enacted laws to reduce, within reasonable limits, carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions in this state by adopting an alternative and renewable energy portfolio standard and a regulatory framework for carbon capture and sequestration projects; and

Whereas, For the sake of those individuals and families who depend upon the industries that would be affected by a national cap and trade program, the House of Delegates, the Senate, the Governor and West Virginia’s congressional delegation must work together to ensure that any proposal to reduce carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions includes reasonable provisions intended to safeguard the security of this nation and West Virginia;

therefore, be it Resolved by the Legislature of West Virginia:

That the Legislature of West Virginia is opposed to the adoption of a national cap and trade program for carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions if it creates unnecessary volatility in the energy market, fails to address the energy and security needs of this country, threatens the jobs of hardworking men and women, raises energy costs to an unacceptable amount, fails to provide for additional investments in technology or is otherwise unduly burdensome to the State of West Virginia; and, be it

Further Resolved, That the Legislature of West Virginia supports measures that encourage investments in technology to address carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions; and, be it

Further Resolved, That the Legislature of West Virginia requests that West Virginia’s congressional delegation resist and oppose efforts to adopt a national cap and trade program that is detrimental to our state; and, be it

Further Resolved, That the Clerk of the House of Delegates forward a certified copy of this resolution to United States Senators Robert C. Byrd and John D. Rockefeller IV and Representatives Nick J. Rahall, Alan B. Mollohan and Shelley M. Capito.

He was for it before he was against it:

“Realistically, the cap-and-trade bills in the House and the Senate are going nowhere,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who is trying to fashion a bipartisan package of climate and energy measures. “They’re not business-friendly enough, and they don’t lead to meaningful energy independence.”

Mr. Graham said the public was demanding that any energy legislation from Washington focus on creating jobs, whether by drilling for offshore oil or building wind turbines.

“What is dead is some massive cap-and-trade system that regulates carbon in a fashion that drives up energy costs,” he said.

Mr. Graham’s opinion matters because he has been the only Republican willing to work with Democratic senators on some form of climate change legislation. He said that the price of attracting Republican and business support was to use the legislation to provide incentives for building nuclear power plants, stepped-up domestic oil and gas exploration and subsidies for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal.

Senator Lieberman is the last person who should be leading negotiations on an important progressive priority. There is literally nobody I’d rather have compromising on my behalf:

“We are really working hard to get something done this year and we are prepared to compromise,” he said.

And who will he be compromising with?

He noted talks last week with White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, and a separate session with officials from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Nothing good can come of this.