Climate bill post mortem: part 1 of 1 billion

About why the Senate failed:

"We weren't able to credibly promise political reward or punishment," Bill McKibben said. "The fact is, scientists have been saying for the past few years the world might come to an end. But clearly that's insufficient motivation. Clearly, we must communicate that their careers might come to an end. That's going to take a few years."

A Grist commenter asks, "what are the limits to plain speech and passion in this landscape? I worry we're about to launch the green movement equivalent of the Adlie Stephenson and Walter Mondale campaigns."

About why the CLEAR Act (Cap and Dividend) would have been better:

Peter Barnes wrote on Grist: don't underestimate "the political value of simplicity. It's hard for politicians to vote for a controversial policy like cap and trade (however it is spun) that neither they nor anyone else can explain. Lots of Americans get that putting a price on pollution makes sense, but if you can't tell them in a few sentences how that price will be set and where the money will go, you re not going to win them or their representatives over."

"...average families don't understand the intricacies of different carbon pricing mechanisms, but they can distinguish between having their pockets picked and having them filled."

Direct cash dividends to people "allows moderate Democrats and Republicans to vote for carbon pricing and not be annihilated at the polls."

Cap and Dividend is "an ambitious, workable and durable emission reducing system that already has some bipartisan traction and could conceivably get 60 votes in a more Republican Senate than we now have."

Dear Kerry-Lieberman Apologists

The macro-economic birds-eye view says that it doesn't matter if we give billions in subsidies (free allowances) to BP and Exxon (or utilities that are burning coal) rather than to the American people. This is looking at "costs" but not "transfers." I think it is stupid to pre-distribute 40 years of allowance value. When Congress created the Federal Reserve, they didn't pre-set interest rates for the next 40 years. Anyway, the political alliances are too fragile to last, and the edifice will crumble under its own weight. And I won't cry for you, Economists. It's time to value people, not corporations. Three cheers to the Nobel committee for recognizing this with the recent award to Elinor Ostrom.

Our goal is to drive up the costs of fossil fuels, but Exxon and BP will invest the ridiculous windfall profits in climate denial and purchasing Congress following the "Citizens United" ruling. We may need to form a Citizens Energy Consumer Cartel to bargain with OPEC and Exxon and BP. This new cartel will say, we'll let you have rising prices in the face of our falling demand for fossil fuels, but we'll need to divide the windfalls and much of it will return to the people to help us make the changes we need to make.

Sure, they won't like it. They may scream socialism, etc. They may flood the airwaves and fund retrograde candidates. But this is a battle for democracy, the Earth, and civilization.

Why Graham's Tantrum might be Good for the Climate

The Kerry-Graham-Lieberman (KGL) climate bill, a mythical bill that no one has even seen but everyone keeps talking about, sort of like a unicorn, may not ever come to exist after Graham suddenly got furious when he found out that immigration might come before climate on the Senate's docket over the weekend.

KGL has changed many times depending on the polls and the business lobbies that its three sponsors met with over the last, what, 6 months, longer? Each change has resulted in more giveaways to coal, nuclear, and offshore oil drilling. I don't recall ever hearing about a change where they said, now that we've met with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, we are strengthening the emission reduction targets, returning even more permit auction revenues back to consumers, and investing even more into new cleaner technologies. But maybe I missed it.

So KGL, RIP. It played a key role in delaying real action on climate for at least 6 critical months, and distracted the Beltway Green Groups from motivating their members, mounting protests and blockades and putting real pressure on lip-service Senators. Now that the Dems 1 year opportunity is passing us by, KGL's delaying tactic was brilliant. Graham may be rewarded by Mitch McConnell for taking one for the team by faking partnership.

Or I could be wrong. All the liberal press keeps saying, Oh, Lindsey Graham was acting in good faith and it was Harry Reid who torpedoed this. How do we know this bail out wasn't planned all along, and this immigration thing isn't just a convenient excuse now that it's getting down to the wire and Graham would have had to finally put his name down on paper.

Anyway, adios KGL, hello CLEAR. The Cantwell-Collins climate bill has been around since December, but in all the anticipation for KGL, remained a runner up...until now. Now it is the last one standing. It is bipartisan. It reduces emissions, gives most of the permit auction revenues back to consumers, invests the rest in clean technologies, and lacks the freebies to coal, oil, and nuclear. Oh, and I almost forgot to mention, it actually exists!

I'm not sure if actual existence is a pre-requisite for the media to take something seriously, or for Senators to start considering supporting something, but maybe it should be.

Sacrificing 30,000 troops for Lieberman's health care vote

Everyone knows the war in Afghanistan is pointless. But Lieberman is so bloodthirsty, that he probably extracted the additional 30,000 troops in exchange for his vote on health care. I can see why Obama may have taken the deal. 30 thousand American lives in exchange for health care for 30 million Americans.

But why waste the time and money? Would it be cheaper to just fly the troops to Connecticut, maybe line them up in front of Lieberman's district offices or his house, and shoot them dead now, rather than wait for them to trickle in 5 a day? Maybe this would appeal to Lieberman's budget hawk tendencies.

Oh well, thank you to the brave soldiers who are being sacrificed so that the rest of us can have health care.

Lieberman and Edwards: Twice Vice?

Any predictions I make will be proven wrong before I even post them. So consider these idle speculations, not predictions.

If McCain picks Lieberman (in Yiddish, Loybermoin) as his Vice, he nullifies Obama's "post-partisan" image. McCain also sheds some of the Bush-Repug baggage and reaches out to independents and disaffected Hillary voters- Obama's territory. According to some other blogs, the Jewish vote might flee (although I'm not convinced because of the Iraq/Rumsfeld/warmonger issue), and this could impact Florida and Pennsylvania in the general election. McCain will still have to campaign with his right-wing friends to try to get out that vote that is suspicious of him.

If Obama picks Edwards, he may try to make a play in Southern states, focus more on working class economic issues, and try to exploit McCain's ties to lobbyists and corporations. Some people think that Edwards would make a much better Attorney General, and that he wouldn't want to run for Vice again. The other potential pick for VP that I thought was interesting is Claire McCaskill, Senator from Missouri. This would be an overture to the women's vote, and MO is a swing state in the middle of red territory. But will the Hillary backers be able to stomach a placebo?

(In case you were wondering, Nader already picked Matt Gonzalez as his running mate, but I'm not sure who Cynthia McKinney (running for the Green Party) picked)