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 until 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.

Update — Digby points out that Graham is negotiating in bad faith on immigration reform as well.

Update 2 — More on GOP hypocrisy on reconciliation from Matt Yglesias and Steve Benen.

A few polls I hadn’t yet gotten around to writing about:

Via Framing Science, this Stanford study (PDF) shows that the decline in concern regarding global warming some polls are finding is not entirely accurate.

Here is a video of Professor Krosnick discussing the survey:

Separately, an international survey of 9,000 people in 22 countries had the following findings:

• 83 per cent are concerned by climate change and 80 percent by the level of local air pollution.
• 77 percent are concerned or very concerned about their country’s reliance on other countries providing oil and gas.
• 89 percent think it important or very important to reduce their country’s reliance on fossil fuels.

About 16% of the respondents were from the United States.

And yet another Gallup poll shows Republicans as outliers in terms of understanding environmental issues. While Democrats and Independents think the quality of the environment has improved since Barack Obama took office, Republicans aren’t so sure:

The letter is below:

Read the rest of this entry »

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 »

Senator Murkowski:

“To secure my vote on a climate bill, we have to develop a good policy. In my mind that good policy would include ANWR as part of a domestic production title.”

Sierra Club spokesman Josh Dorner, via email:

“Drilling in the Arctic Refuge is, has been, and always will be a non-starter. Drilling for more oil at one of the places most impacted by global warming is perhaps the furthest thing from a solution that I can imagine.”

Update — Adam Kolton, the National Wildlife Federation’s senior director for Congressional & federal affairs, weighs in with another strong statement:

“Just as there are bridges to nowhere, there is legislation to nowhere. Senator Murkowski’s demand that the price for her vote on a climate bill is drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a non-starter and she knows it. It was rejected when the Republicans controlled the House, Senate and White House and it would obviously be rejected with the Democrats in charge. For someone like Senator Murkowski, who says she wants to pass a climate change bill, to make such a demand calls into question her sincerity and must be a huge disappointment to those in Alaska who believe the state is on the front lines of the climate crisis and that we urgently need to reduce
emissions. The National Wildlife Federation has always worked to block any legislation that would give Big Oil drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and we’ll continue to do so moving forward.”

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.

Wonk Room:

This act of conspiracy-driven ideology is hardly alone — a Wonk Room investigation has found at least fifteen state legislatures attempting to prevent limits on greenhouse gas pollution. The states of Alabama and Utah have already adopted resolutions calling for the overturn of the Environmental Protection Agency’s global warming endangerment finding, with legislators in thirteen more states in tow. Several of these “Dirty Air Act” resolutions argue that the overwhelming scientific consensus on the threat of manmade global warming is actually a conspiracy.

Go here to read the full piece.

Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones:

The House Republican caucus is launching its own effort to block the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide emissions, joining a number of other ploys to prevent or delay anticipated new rules from the agency.

On Tuesday, Republicans plan to introduce their own resolution of disapproval for the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases are a threat to human health. The effort, lead by Joe Barton (R-Texas), has 79 Republican cosponsors. It mirrors both the Senate version introduced by Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that has 40 cosponsors, including three Democrats, and another House measure introduced last week by Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.). (A resolution of disapproval is an obscure parliamentary tactic that allows Congress to override decisions from the executive branch.)

Here is the resolution:

030110_Endangerment_Resolution

Here is the synopsis:

Urging the United States Environmental Protection Agency to immediately halt its carbon dioxide reduction policies and programs and to withdraw its endangerment finding and related regulations until a full and independent investigation of the climate change conspiracy and science can be undertaken.

And here is the full bill:

hj0013f

Judd Legum, a candidate for state delegate, has a petition opposing this legislation. The petition states:

I oppose Ron George’s carbon emissions resolution because I care about the Chesapeake Bay and reject anti-environment extremism.

You can sign the petition here.