A Climate of Opportunity for Democrats

This week, after years of resisting limits on US greenhouse gas emissions, President Bush showed interest for the first time in stopping those emissions sometime in the next two decades. Many Republicans praised the President's "measured" approach and echoed his call for slow-going and a reliance on technology. Democrats, environmentalists and others immediately (and rightly) castigated him for proposing a climate change policy that won't stop climate change.

The fact that President Bush is hesitant -- or unwilling -- to take major steps on climate change is not news. The news is that the president has acknowledged the writing on the wall, granting that some kind of regulation on carbon emissions is inevitable. The news is also the opportunity that this creates for the Democrats in Congress and the next president.

President Bush is, of course, among the last to come to the table on this issue. Democrats in the Senate have rallied behind a cap-and-trade bill authored by Sens. Lieberman and Warner, and the leadership plans to bring it to the floor for a vote in early June. Governors across the country have begun passing laws and forming interstate pacts to reduce CO2. And all three major presidential candidates have called for limits on emissions.

The key barrier to making progress on the national level in a timely way has always been the bulwark provided opponents of action by the President's consistent unwillingness to call for mandatory limits. It's infected on-the-fence Members and slowed progress in both chambers.

That Bush barrier is now gone, at least in form. So what should be done?

It's a question that falls squarely in the laps of House and Senate Democrats.

After years of fighting the good fight in the face of stubborn opposition, now there is a chance for progress, even if that means bipartisan compromise. "Bipartisan compromise" hasn't exactly been the watchword (or phrase) in the last seven-plus years. But there's another phrase that ought to be the priority for Democrats in this case: points on the board.

Climate legislation presents probably the last best chance for Democrats to score a legislative win and prove their return to majority a success. Many freshman Democrats will need that kind of evidence to point to in November, as they defend their seats in hotly contested swing districts. Using this opening -- however flawed the specifics may have been -- to reach the five or six Senators and key House committee members whose votes matter most could prove essential to securing that win.

This is also a critical opportunity to build momentum for the next president. The opposition to real reform won't just disappear next January -- no matter who sits in the Oval Office, there will still be a persistent, organized effort to water down or strangle climate legislation. Every constructive step forward taken this year will insulate the next President when he or she takes on the climate issue.

This isn't to suggest that Democrats should abandon their legislation and go with the president's flawed plan. Far from it -p Lieberman-Warner presents a smart and effective means to fight climate change. The mandate that Bush has provided is instead to use this opening to recruit support from swing Senators, to drive forward and propose legislation in the House, and to continue pulling the White House closer to doing what needs to be done.

We have an opportunity as a nation to do something about this common challenge. Bush has waived the tiniest of white flags, and Democrats should seize the chance to move forward.

Related:
A. Siegel: Global Warming Legislation: What Matters?

Comments

[rhx056]

I merely want to address one statement from this essay:

"Climate legislation presents probably the last best chance for Democrats to score a legislative win and prove their return to majority a success."

A "success"?! You have got to be kidding. As soon as impeachment was "off the table" there was no chance of this congress being a success. But to make it worse, this congress has had one chance after another to actually BE a success, and have basically fallen down every time. Their complicity in actions by the Bush administration have been disastrous. The only real positive development I've seen was that the House of Reps stood firm on retroactive immunity in the FISA issue. That's a good development, but it is not much.

Being accomplices in more bad Republican legislation will not make this congress a "success". It has been a failure, it is a failure, and we can only hope that more good Dems (as opposed to status quo Dems) get elected to congress in the upcoming elections.

[FADUTA]

Well rats. I was RIGHT with you up to the phrase "more good democrates . .". Close but no cigar. Actually I cannot believe the House Dem's got away with blocking FISA. You really think your rights are at risk when we listen in on terrorists' ok suspected terrorists.

Don't suppose that you have been following the science on the fact global warming stopped 10 years ago?! Even Al G. thought Kyoto was a bad idea.

[rhx056]

You must not care about the crimes of the current administration. That makes you complicit in those crimes.

[A. Siegel - Huffpost Blogger]

Why would passing a bill that is written by Senator McCain's two strongest Senate supporters be a victory for the Democratic Party majority? Politically, I just don't get it.

Substantively, you are wrong. Lieberman-Warner is a reckless bill that does not achieve what scientists say is required. In fact, optimistically, it would achieve about half of what is required by 2020. See: http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/plumbing-lieberman-warners-shortfalls-doesnt-meet-scientific-requirements/

[thedirtman]

I've read every book on energy and climate change. By far and away the best book is Bill Richardson's Leading By Example. I feel that the purpose of the book was completely overlooked due to the timing of the book's release last October. Leading By Example was mistakenly pushed aside as campaign book, but its value as an approach to climate change and CO2 emissions was completely underestimated.

Richardson nailed the best approach to global warming. He paired his response with energy alternatives AND national security. An Apollo program on alternative energy, primarily with wind and solar, would lead to putting America back on top in technology, energy, and would drive the economy for years to come.

[Photofarm]

Sorry, but you can't control Global Warming or Global Cooling, it is beyond the ability of man to manipulate earth's climate. Anyone that claims otherwise is a total fool that has no comprehension of the history of climate change on earth before man.

[thedirtman]

Sorry, but anyone who thinks man cannot influence the planet that he lives on is not only a fool, but a useless fool at that.

[A. Siegel - Huffpost Blogger]

"Beyond the ability of man ..." Was the Ozone layer and CFC simply a fantasy?

Would all-out nuclear war affect the climate? If that is true, then it is not beyond humanity's ability.

Anyone who states what you write is ignoring the implications of what 6+ billion people, pumping oil & burning coal as fast as possible can do.

[Uselessboy]

Science is not a democracy. You don't get a vote in this any more than you can overrule an NFL ref.

[unfoxworthy]

Sorry Joe, I gotta agree with the others here who are taking this for what it is...a line.
The American people are not gonna take this arguement to task and run it to ground because, as with all other issues; education, health care, energy, waste, greed, immigration, reforms, "free" trade, etc., we know that the special interests have a hand in the outcome.
Besides, we're just too damned complacent to get out and stop the special interests from having that same hand in the pie. That same complacency is why I say "Hands Off".
Every crisis just can't loom over our heads...it has to DOOM us before get off our duffs to act.
Only when issues hit us square in the face (and not out neighbors or fellow countrymen) do we finally realize that it all just wasn't rhetoric from the special interest...or the politicians...or the experts...or the prognosticators...or a whack-job of a president.
Let it go Joe. Cuz when the soccer moms start having to rob for their gas money, and joggers have to resort to gas masks (you get the message), will we say, "Ya think we should do something?"
We're Americans!

[RENREVARD]

JOE LOCKHART IS A PAID LOBBYIST HE IS A PARTNER IN GLOVER PARK. HOWARD WOLFSON IS HIS PARTNER IN GLOVER PARK.

[PioneerKing]

Joe are pimping for the coal company now? What a corck of crap you know your legislation will not help with climate change and cap and trade is one of the biggest lies around
Joe you have turned out to be a fat horrible shill

[Javani]

"What is the rush NOW? Why can't Congress wait until after the Bush Administration leaves office."

The Europeans are fearing a second collapse of their carbon markets. If Bush wants the Euros to keep funding his funny money by absorbing T-Bills, he has to give the promoters of carbon credit instruments "hope", a fiduciary basis, that America will inevitably get hooked into carbon trading. It's a meager fiduciary basis, but the promoters need something to seemingly explain their current and past predictions when the carbon bubble scheme finally collapses.

At least the dodgy American "mortgage-backed securities" are backed by something more than the absence of a component of air, but the Euros are none to happy about being urged to put their money into those anyway, and the threat to not absorb Tbills scared Bernanke into his liquidity fix. And most of all, Bush needs the collapse to come after his decrepit reign so he can claim "Not on my watch!!"

[tea in the harbor]

There are some things congress can do, mandate better gas mileage, regulate industrial emissions, and maybe limit the hot air coming from Washington. For the most part, we are better off handling changes in our personal lives ourselves. We don't need another monopoly like the utilities to strangle us at their will. If each home invests in the new solar and wind technology we can produce enough power on our own, without corporate masters, to fuel our homes and probably most of our transportation needs. The oil industry is going to die, we should be very careful not to replace it with another business model that can be used against us by either terrorists or corporate monopolies! (Oh, and as long as a war criminal serves out his term unchallenged, the new Democratic majority is a failure, there is no redemption for dereliction of duty!)

[hark]

Imagine what we could accomplish by diverting the $180 billion a year wasted in Iraq to the development of alternative energy, especially solar.

And the first such installment could have been the $165 billion we pissed away on tax rebates so Americans could go on a weekend shopping spree at Wal-Mart sometime this summer.

Imagine all the American jobs this would create.

But of course, as we all know, global warming and peak oil are liberal elitist frauds, like the theory of evolution, so we can go on ignoring them.

[HeevenSteven]

Trying to lock in security for big-coal and big-oil Joe?

[runswithscissors]

Another case of Bush trying to salvage a legacy without disrupting the business of his corporate masters. If he cared the slightest bit about the issue he wouldn't have made matters worse for seven and a half years.

As a side note, I think the Beijing Olympics could be a great opportunity to expose just how big a problem we're facing. The pollution is so bad that several endurance events could very well be cancelled. This is the type of visual evidence that could convince skeptics that the environment is in trouble.

[MyNameIsJames]

Lockhart,

What is the rush NOW? Why can't Congress wait until after the Bush Administration leaves office. Why make HIM relevant in the Global Warming/ Environmental debate? I think that the new President whether Clinton, Obama, or McCain will be so much better than Bush on this issue. Let's keep him out of the loop. Why would you even take Bush's bait? Your suggestion is a BAD one.