Why Must ‘Moderate’ Dems Exist?

It seems to me that the only purpose Senators like Evan Bayh serve is to hold up good legislation. Why? To stick to their principles? Nope. The only consistent position these folks have is that they will change positions, usually because short-term, political calculations tell them to do so (i.e. to seem ‘conservative’ enough for the folks back home).

Anyway, Bayh might be the key swing vote on a federal renewable energy standard, something that would push us towards a low-carbon future, and Bayh’s being coy (read: cowardly) on where he stands on the issue:

Senate backers of a renewable electricity standard are closer than ever to the 60 votes needed to pass the long-stymied plan, but reaching the magic filibuster-proof number is proving to be no easy task. …

With President Obama in the White House and stronger Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, enactment of a standard has become more likely but remains far from certain. The Senate magic number of 60 votes, enough to get cloture and bypass a potential filibuster, remain the key hurdle.

“The gain in seats by Democrats does not necessarily make it automatic they can get 60,” said a former Senate aide. …

If Bingaman goes through the committee — where Democrats hold a 13-10 majority — the Democratic swing votes are believed to be Sens. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Evan Bayh of Indiana and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Bingaman would need to carry two of these three, or at least win over one if he also has backing from some GOP members.

Bayh has not committed his vote either way. “I am all for helping promote the use of renewable energy. Whether this is the appropriate mechanism or not remains to be seen,” he said. Asked whether he would vote for Bingaman’s proposal specifically, he replied: “I have not endorsed it yet. That is not a yes or a no. It remains to be seen.”

I love it. “I am all for helping promote the use of renewable energy,” he says, while refusing to endorse an RES. Spare us the suspense, and perhaps tell us how you actually feel on an issue…oh wait, he’s got to wait to see polls before he can vote. What a dork-o.

Dream Headline: “Under Obama, Dark Days Seen Ahead For Fossil Fuels”

I read the following in today on CNN Money, and it put a smile on my face:

Under President-elect Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., the fossil fuels industry may face “dark days ahead,” while alternative energy sectors are likely to flourish.

Although it will take years to engineer and implement, an Obama administration energy and environment policy marks a tectonic shift for the nation. He would move the U.S. away from petroleum as its primary energy source and towards renewable energy, advanced biofuels, efficiency and low greenhouse-gas-emitting technologies.

And he must be doing something right–Big Oil is already “concerned” about his policies:

Companies such as ExxonMobil (XOM), ConocoPhillips (COP) and Chevron Corp. ( CVX) say they’re concerned about returning to policies enacted in the 1970s, including Sen. Obama’s proposals for a windfall profits tax and market intervention such as tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

I doubt either of these ideas will be at the top of Obama’s agenda, but it’s still interesting to see the Big Three shaking in their boots.

Romm’s Got a Crush on Obama’s Energy Plan

Joe Romm at Climate Progress loves Obama’s detailed “New Energy for America” plan:

This is easily the best energy plan ever put forward by a nominee of either party. … This is an aggressive, achievable, and most important of all, a necessary energy plan. Kudos to Senator Obama and his energy team. Maybe he is The One.

I definitely agree that the Obama plan’s emphasis on plug-in hybrids and increased energy efficiency shows that he understands the problem. He’s clearly pushing for un-sexy solutions beyond “drill, drill, drill” or “ethanol, ethanol, ethanol.”

Read the full Obama plan here (PDF).

UPDATE: Watch out, Paul Krugman’s got a crush too: “Now that’s more like it — a hard-hitting political speech with a solid policy proposal behind it.”

Another Growing Green Sector: Lobbying

One way Big Oil achieves its political objectives–for example, making sure their tax breaks stay on the books–is through the millions of dollars they spend annually on political contributions and lobbying.

The renewable energy industry is doing its best to catch up. The Politico reports:

Ten years ago, the alternative energy industry spent less than $2 million on lobbying, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. As Congress began moving on two global warming bills last year, that spending reached nearly $16 million.

The American Wind Energy Association spent $815,700 on lobbyists last year, according to lobbying disclosure reports. The National Biodiesel Board shelled out $1.2 million — more than double its lobbying budget for 2006. [...]

In 1998, the alternative energy sector accounted for $308,000 in donations to candidates. So far this cycle, green industry donors have given nearly $528,000 — putting them on track to match or surpass their high water mark of nearly $957,000 in 2000, when global warming guru Al Gore topped the Democratic presidential ticket.

But Big Clean has a long way to go before they approach Big Oil’s ability to influence:

To be sure, the investment of the green companies in Congress pales in comparison to that of the established energy sector players.

Political giving by the oil and gas crowd this cycle has already surpassed $11.5 million — roughly 22 times more than the energy sector’s green newcomers.

Meanwhile, the oil and gas industries are a perennial entry on the center’s list of top lobbying sectors. They spent $82.6 million on lobbying last year, up from a record-breaking $75.3 million in 2006.

As oil and gas prices continue to climb, and with Lieberman-Warner possibly coming up for a Senate vote in June, don’t expect Big Oil’s spending spree to slow in 2008.

Waxman Forced to Recycle EPA Subpoena

The Egregiously Political Agency is at it again, and Rep. Waxman is having none of it. TPMMuckraker reports:

House oversight committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-CA) issued his third subpoena to the EPA this year. Waxman’s committee has been investigating [EPA Administrator Steve] Johnson’s decision, made against the unanimous recommendation of his legal and technical staff, to block California’s attempt to institute tough greenhouse gas limits for cars and trucks.

Waxman says that his staff “has found evidence that EPA officials met with the White House” about the rule, but that “EPA has refused to disclose the substance and extent of its communications with the White House.” Waxman’s subpoena seeks about 100 EPA documents involving the White House.

Read Waxman’s full statement here.

Obama: Gore’s My Climate Change Counselor

Obama’s got a crush on Al Gore…and his climate expertise. Here’s what Obama told a Pennsylvania crowd yesterday:

I will make a commitment that Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve [climate change]. He’s somebody I talk to on a regular basis. I’m already consulting with him in terms of these issues.

Watch the video here:

While Al Gore would definitely work with the next administration on climate, he may not have time to join the Cabinet. After all, he does have a $300 million climate change campaign to run.

McCain: Not So Maverick-ish on Enviro

Climate change is an issue on which John McCain has differentiated himself from fellow Republicans. It’s one of the reasons he has the reputation of being a “maverick” senator, willing to buck the party line for the good of the country.

But a look at his overall environmental record shows he’s no friend of green voters. Bloomberg reports:

“To his credit, McCain has made global warming a priority,’”said Gene Karpinski, president of the Washington- based League of Conservation Voters. Still, “throughout his time in Congress, McCain’s voted pro-environment only one out of four times.’”

Karpinski and other environmentalists criticize McCain’s positions on renewable energy, livestock-grazing practices, timber sales and funding to conserve public lands, wildlife and oceans.

In his quarter-century in Congress, McCain has demonstrated a “pattern of voting with polluters and special interests instead of consumers and the planet,” said Carl Pope, executive director of the San Francisco-based Sierra Club.

McCain supported opening the Gulf of Mexico to oil drilling, opposed renewable energy requirements for utilities and voted for cuts to conservation programs.

According to a coalition of green groups, McCain has a lifetime green voting score of 24, compared to Clinton’s 87 and Obama 86. (Read the full online voter guide from The League of Conservation Voters here.)

Bachmann Denies Like It’s 1999

Remember how I said “at least the debate has shifted” on global warming? How  arguments over the science were giving way to disagreements over the economic effects of cap-and-trade?

Nevermind.

Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) has weighed in to shatter my hopes and dreams:

The big thing we are working on now is the global warming hoax. It’s all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax.

She did go on to address the economic issue, saying, “The tax cap and trade system for limiting emissions is just another tax on businesses.” It doesn’t add much of anything to the economic “modeling wars” debate. But this line of attack represents the simplistic anti-tax argument the right will no doubt make against responsible climate change legislation.

Americans Want a Smarter Energy Policy

I noticed some surprising findings (at least to me) in this recent Pew Research Center energy policy poll.

A large majority of Americans want higher fuel economy standards for cars, higher funding for renewable energy, and more money for mass transit. The numbers from Pew:

And what’s most surprising to me is how bi-partisan these views are:

You’d think this would mean federal lawmakers would be clamoring to accomplish these goals…heck, it’s a political slam dunk.

But you’d be wrong. Take fuel economy, for example. A quick comparison chart shows how far behind the U.S. is:

Yep, that’s the U.S. at the bottom–below Canada, Australia, and China.

Who’s Greener: Obama or Clinton?

Slate’s “Green Lantern” does the analysis so we don’t have to:

Overall, Clinton’s plan is a little better on nitty-gritty details. The Lantern likes her specific shout-outs to plug-in hybrid vehicles and light-emitting diodes, as well as her adoption of Al Gore’s idea for a federal agency (dubbed Connie Mae) that will facilitate the development of green homes. The plan’s language is also more pragmatic than Obama’s, with lots of emphasis on the phrase market-based in order to appeal to laissez-fairers and a whole section dedicated to explaining how the “green economy” will reinvigorate American industry.

Obama, on the other hand, seems to regard environmentalism as more of a moral obligation than an economic opportunity. He’s shorter on specifics, particularly when it comes to financial breakdowns, but he discusses some pressing big-picture concepts—for example, the environmental consequences of urban sprawl, a phenomenon that has been encouraged by misguided tax incentives. And he gets points for thinking not just about energy, but also several issues near and dear to green-minded voters: As elucidated in this supplementary fact sheet, Obama’s team hopes to tackle lead poisoning, toxic runoff from livestock operations, and sustainable solutions to Western drought.

Ok. Then who’s greener? Unfortunately, it’s not such an easy question:

The Lantern hates to waffle, but it’s really a matter of how you regard your own environmental leanings. Clinton’s plan offers more red meat for stats geeks (whose ranks include your humble narrator), but Obama’s is slightly more visionary. Neither is perfect, given their knee-jerk affinity for biofuels and clean coal, but such is the nature of politics.

Personally, I tend to fall into the “pragmatic” camp because I think government can’t do everything on its own. And we certainly need to make it easier for responsible corporations and green entrepreneurs to make clean energy more profitable. Plus, I love how Clinton has adopted The Goreacle’s green homes idea.

(Full disclosure: I’m an Obama supporter. And I think either one of the candidates would be great on Green Wonk’s issues.)