Climate peacocks like to preen and call attention to themselves with flashy moves — but they are not sincerely interested in taking the difficult but necessary steps toward reducing carbon pollution. Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson has the story of this rara avis, which should be an endangered species, but, sadly, isn’t.
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) is giving obstructionist senators a chance to finally take action on climate and clean energy, after they attempted to block the “unelected bureaucracy” of the Environmental Protection Agency from doing so. After holding a “thrilling” climate caucus with his members last week, the Democratic majority leader plans to bring an “impenetrable” comprehensive package of legislation to repair the damage caused by fossil fuels to our economy and our planet.
Earlier this month, 47 senators “” every Republican and six Democrats “” voted for Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) resolution to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific global warming endangerment finding, finalized after years of delay in following a Supreme Court mandate to obey the language of the Clean Air Act.
Twenty of Murkowski’s supporters claimed they voted to reject science in order to preserve the “balance of power” between the legislative and executive branch. They said that they had to overturn the EPA’s scientific finding because setting pollution limits should instead be the job of the elected members of Congress. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) even said he voted for Murkowski to “ensure that Congress keeps its responsibility to establish our nation’s environmental regulations.”
Like “deficit peacocks” who pretend to be hawkish on budgets but refuse any real solution, these “climate peacocks” claim to care about science, energy reform, and the environment, but have yet to find solutions to the threat of climate change. Reid is now calling the bluff of these twenty “responsible” senators, who will be proven to be fossil-fueled hypocrites if they fail to support policies that bring the swift reduction of carbon pollution that science demands.
The Climate Peacock Caucus
Lamar Alexander (R-TN): “It’s Congress’ job “” not a bureaucrat’s or agency’s “” to take action on carbon in a way that preserves jobs.”
Scott Brown (R-MA): “We cannot allow these decisions to be made by an unelected bureaucracy; this is an issue that deserves a full debate in Congress.”
Susan Collins (R-ME): “I also have serious concerns about unelected government officials at the EPA taking on this complicated issue instead of Congress. It is Congress that should establish the framework for regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.”
Bob Corker (R-TN): “I don’t believe it’s appropriate for the EPA to mandate large-scale carbon emissions reductions through administrative regulations. If there is any action taken in this regard, it should be done through Congress.”
Mike Crapo (R-ID): “Such an important debate as climate change, and the potential to drive up costs on consumers and small businesses, should not be left in the hands of Washington, D.C., bureaucrats.”
Mike Enzi (R-WY): “I rise in support of Senator Murkowski’s resolution that would ensure that Congress keeps its responsibility to establish our nation’s environmental regulations.”
Lindsey Graham (R-SC): “This is a balance-of-power issue and it has long been clear to me that Congress should write the rules when it comes to the regulation of carbon, not the EPA.”
Chuck Grassley (R-IA): “These decisions should be made by Congress, where officials can be held accountable by the people, rather than by an unelected bureaucracy, in this case the same agency that tried to penalize farmers for the fugitive dust that kicks up from the tractor on windy days.”
Orrin Hatch (R-UT): “Hatch and Murkowski believe it is Congress’s job to establish any carbon control program, not the executive branch.”
Jon Kyl (R-AZ): “I believe it’s wrong for the administration to try to advance its goals by any means possible, in this case, by going around the legislative branch and using the EPA to enact sweeping economic and energy regulation.”
Mary Landrieu (D-LA): “If the federal government is serious about reducing carbon emissions, Congress needs to develop the right goals, guidelines and tools necessary to do the job.”
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR): “Congress – not unelected bureaucrats – should be making the complicated, multi-faceted decisions on energy and climate policy.”
John McCain (R-AZ): “What this debate, and this resolution, is really about whether the American people get a say in our Nation’s energy policy through their elected representatives or if they will be bound to the whims of the unelected bureaucrats at the EPA.”
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK): “We should continue our work to pass meaningful energy and climate legislation, but in the meantime, we cannot turn a blind eye to the EPA’s efforts to impose back-door climate regulations with no input from Congress.”
Ben Nelson (D-NE): “Controlling the levels of carbon emissions is the job of Congress. We don’t need EPA looking over Congress’ shoulder telling us we’re not moving fast enough.”
Mark Pryor (D-AR): “Although I agree with the science, I firmly believe that Congress, and not the EPA, should determine policy on greenhouse gas emissions.”
Jim Risch (R-ID): “The merits of global warming and how to address it should be debated in the legislative bodies of Congress, not decided by an unelected bureaucratic agency of the federal government.”
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV): “I intend to vote for Senator Murkowski’s Resolution of Disapproval because I believe we must send a strong message that the fate of West Virginia’s economy, our manufacturing industries, and our workers should not be solely in the hands of EPA.”
Olympia Snowe (R-ME): “It is Congress – and not unelected bureaucrats – that should be responsible for developing environmental policies that integrate our nation’s economic well-being as an urgent priority along with the reduction of carbon emissions, and I do not accept that these are mutually exclusive goals.”
George Voinovich (R-OH): “Unfortunately, the Obama Administration and Senate Democrats today rejected an attempt to put our nation’s environment and energy policy back into Congress’ hands.”
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Joe Manchin is implying that he will name someone for Byrd’s seat who will vote against the climate bill, so that hurts.
Now I’m just hoping for a strong moral stand for a good bill this year (that will fail), use the failed cloture vote to paint opponents as siding with big energy, and that there is filibuster reform next year at the start of the Congress.
These Senators don’t like EPA because it has the specific charge of reducing pollution based on the best available scientific evidence. The objections are all about retaining the right to craft legislation according to the needs of the special interests that support their campaigns, and make their post political lives even cushier.
Their votes for the Murkowski bill had nothing to do with an aversion to the power of “bureaucrats”. EPA was originally established with strong support from many Republicans, based on the need for a transparent and objective organization that will serve the public interest. These bureaucrats’ independence from political and economic pressures is what they really can’t stand.
I love how congress persons complain about “unelected bureaucrats” who are just following the rules and regulations that Congress enacts! The EPA is compelled *by law* to act in the way it does. If you truly care about the rule of law, you don’t make exceptions to the law because of political expediency. The term “hypocrite” comes to mind.
Apparently, A Reminder Is In Order
It seems that many of these politicians may need to remind themselves — or may need to be reminded by their peers — that nature’s forces are overwhelmingly stronger than human procedural considerations and false understanding. Also, they may need to remind themselves that, when it comes to matters of such immense consequence, it is not “the written law” that is the final decider of human action, if the written law is not just or healthy or sustainable. Instead, it is the human appeal, en masse, to deep human moral principles.
Thomas Jefferson did not appeal to the written law in writing The Declaration of Independence, of course. Instead, he appealed to deep human moral considerations. The Declaration of Independence was actually unlawful and treasonous when compared to the written laws of the times, which were British of course. Similarly, Martin Luther King Jr. appealed to deep moral considerations when marching against the justness of many of the written laws on the books at the time. Rosa Parks broke the written law by sitting where she sat. Gandhi broke and defied laws that were unjust and unhealthy.
The thought — if many of these politicians, mostly Republicans, hold this thought — that 41 votes in a Senate of 100 (i.e., enough to cause a filibuster) can block meaningful and effective, and necessary, legislation to deal with climate change is a downright dangerous, irresponsible, and damaging notion, ultimately. First of all, it’s not even genuinely democratic. Forty-one votes, as we know, is not a majority. But not only that: Well-intentioned people, in growing numbers, will not sit by idly as time passes if we just continue to spew CO2 into the atmosphere even as 97-98 percent of the bona fide scientists inform us that doing so will cause deep hardships on other people around the world, on ourselves, on future generations, and on other species. As history has shown, well-intentioned people don’t just sit around as that sort of thing happens, waiting for the next four-year election cycle or watching as a minority of Senators can block necessary, just, and healthy legislation.
A vote TO effectively address climate change — sincerely and proactively — is also a vote FOR a continuing healthy democracy. Persistent votes against addressing climate change, effectively, are also votes against the continual smooth functioning of our present brand of democracy. Democracy will have to accommodate the realities of nature, and respect them, and will also have to respect the fact that certain human moral basics are more basic than “the written law” (in cases where the two contradict each other), if it is to be well and be sustainable. Democracy will also do well to realize that 41 or 42 votes is simply not a majority. Democracy cannot change nature’s forces, nor can it change basic mathematics. Nor can the written law change the will of people like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Ben Franklin, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., and many others in cases where those people can clearly see that the written law happens to be entirely unjust, unhealthy, and unsustainable.
To be clear, I love democracy and want it to be healthy, just, functional, peaceful, sane, and so forth. My complaint is not at all with democracy — the real thing. Instead, my complaint is with politicians who think that they can ignore nature’s realities, ignore deep human moral considerations, ignore basic mathematics, and the like in order to preserve an unhealthy status quo that is itself unsustainable. That won’t work. The sooner we realize that, the better for everyone.
Cheers,
Jeff
With regard to the energy extraction states like West Virginia and Louisiana this is starting to feel a little like a hostage crisis. We’re constantly told how indispensable coal and oil are while the politicians from these states work (other than the courageous Senator Byrd)do everything they can to prevent us from developing alternatives. What size investment fund to redevelop such energy extractive regions would it take to stop the politicians from these areas from working to destroy the global environment?
Oliver James says: June 28, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Joe Manchin is implying that he will name someone for Byrd’s seat who will vote against the climate bill, so that hurts.
Byrd, killed by a record-setting heatwave in DC after helping to rebuff Murkowski’s gift to her oily and sooty patrons. There’s a whole stratigraphic sequence of metaphor to explore; a poet could not have done better than reality in this case.
Correction: In my second paragraph, in my comment above, the word ‘justness’ should instead be ‘injustice’, of course, for clarity’s sake.
But few have a clue what some of the experts are even saying (about climate change). The US National Academy of Sciences published an article today 6/28 related to Climate Change that seemed to go out of it’s way to make their findings impossible to comprehend.
It certainly seems like the fact based community needs to do a better job getting the message out that Global Warming is real and is something that will effect you personally in a big way.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/24/0908906107.abstract
Joe1347 says: June 28, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Joe that’s a very interesting approach using state-of-the-art tools for probing our squishy mental processes. You’re right, it’s somewhat numbing but it’s also what the folks yelling and screaming about Anderegg et al are effectively demanding, not that they’d ever bother reading it.
Well said Jeff, @4: Fully, whole heartily, absolutely, positively, unequivocally, concur…
Can’t we just retrain people put out of work for a cleaner healthier jobs? Why do we have to kill the future of humanity to keep a planet devouring dinosaur alive? The already rich can surely take a break and live on their interest for a bit while humanity gets it’s house in order.
Observed event -
The National Hurricane Center -
Alex has no forward speed …….
7:00 PM CDT Mon Jun 28
Location: 20.6°N 91.6°W
Max sustained: 60 mph
Moving: Stationary
Min pressure: 990 mb
Alex is almost directly over the Ixtoc I in the Bay of Campeche of the Gulf of Mexico, about 100 km (62 mi) northwest of Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche in waters 50 m (160 ft) deep, at 85 F degrees.
Steven King couldn’t write this story. All this Mickey Mouse booming is about to get moved several hundred yards into the marsh .
The whole Gulf is just hotter than hell. A Bouy northeast of Alex in the Bay of Campeche -
Station 42055
NDBC
Location: 22.017N 94.046W
Conditions as of:
Tue, 29 Jun 2010 02:50:00 UTC
Winds: NNE (20°) at 17.5 kt gusting to 21.4 kt
Significant Wave Height: 7.2 ft
Dominant Wave Period: 9 sec
Mean Wave Direction: ESE (108°)
Atmospheric Pressure: 29.58 in and rising
Air Temperature: 83.7 F
Dew Point: 77.4 F
Water Temperature: 85.3 F
—————————–
This reminds me of last August , when Tiwan got 10 feet of rain. I hate it when these things slow down, and stop.
One more observed event .
5 bucks sez this will the hottest June on record for Washington D.C. Good thing Senator Inhfoe has an igloo to keep him cool.
Tonight’s water vapor loop, and it ain’t pretty -
http://www.goes.noaa.gov/HURRLOOPS/huwvloop.html
By the way , Here’s yer ” Ata Boy “, for the Time vote. Now get back to work.
Thanks for the link, Colorado Bob, @ 12. I am sure we will be paying more attention soon.
Leif -
I’ve watched dozens of these things over the years, the ones that stop, and wander, seem to take up more water.
I love the Joint Typhoon Warning Center . Hello Guam !
Americans have no idea powerful the typhoons are in the Pacific now.
That we’ve seen them moving closer to the mouth of the Persian Gulf. Which is like seeing them in the South Atlantic off Brazil . These things are going where no kick ass low has gone before. The one’s off Australia jump to cat 5 the fastest now.
The largest Tundra Fire yet seen 3 summers ago -
http://s125.photobucket.com/albums/p51/coloradobob/?action=view¤t=0_2b7f48b48f3b62b5e5d4359440054a15.jpg
That same spring saw Georgia have the largest fire in it’s history, … the frickin’ swamp was on fire. Montana set it’s all time hottest records that year.
I was watching pretty closely than year. Brian Head in southwest Utah is 9,600 ft. There aren’t many stations higher than this one. It was 96 degrees there at that time. The night numbers were 20 plus degrees above average. Short record set there, but we crash these records now. They aren’t creeping anymore.
” There are no deniers on any wild land fire crew in the world now. “
Some of the fire fighters from that summer -
The Words of Fire Fighters
One thing that has emerged from this fire season are the words of the people who have been fighting them, and the people who have been caught by them. Consider these accounts :
http://coloradobob1.newsvine.com/_news/2007/08/05/878712-the-words-of-fire-fighters
The Words of the Fire Fighters – An Update
http://coloradobob1.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/22/1040975-the-words-of-the-fire-fighters-an-update
Mega Fires are very hard to follow, the fire trapping people in their cars.
I have a talking polar bear too ……
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSzxhiPb6w8
Been thinking about making another one , and have oil slowing creeping up the ice has the bear talks . What with off shore Arctic drilling and all.
Colorado Bob. I recall a few months ago we were discussing the energy imbalance represented by the current ~0.7 watts/m2.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/15/the-climate-science-project-global-warming-is-happening-ocean-heat-content/#comment-262739
The current number referenced in the above link is all the energy from 190,000 nuclear power plants dumping into the ocean every minute of every day. With about 10 new plants a day coming on line. That energy is now potential energy, (added heat), like a big battery. Looking for a place to “arc out.” Added heat means more evaporation. More evaporation, more water vapor in the atmosphere. ~4% more, = ~ 1.5x Lake Superior. Also more heat energy in latent heat. BIG chunks! All available to add energy and water to storms.
Winter or summer.
Intensify High and low pressure systems.
Bump records.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/20/president-obama-explains-the-science-behind-climate-change-and-extreme-weather-climatologist-kevin-trenberth-and-meteorologist-jeff-masters-on-npr/
I am sorry to be off-topic but my peacock is offended on behalf of peacocks everywhere: http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2010/06/senator-robert-byrd-and-basil.html
Joe, something’s amiss on your home page. As of now it shows no posts between 2/17 and 6/25.
[JR: I want to keep some old posts on the front page and Word Press bolixes up the order. I don't know how to fix that, but I might take a shot over the holiday weekend.]
You have in this group the usual cadre of climate science ‘semi deniers’ with the Republicans and most of the Democrats from southern and or energy producing states.
Jay Rockefeller in the end sold his soul to the coal lobby-not surprising, but disappointing.
I think for many in the US political system- both parties- they seem to see the lack of urgency in the climate change debate- and to seek a beginning reduction in the use of fossil fuels- they need to understand what dire consequence could happen if something is not done soon. But they seemingly deny the significant risks we face.
In the end- its going to come down to; how much longer can the planet suck up CO2 – which continues to rise rapidly.
When a dramatic set of weather/climatic events begins to happen like dominoes falling- perhaps the Politicians, the MEDIA and lastly the American public will begin to understand. Till that ‘tipping point’ is reached- little or nothing will be accomplished.
@Joe #8
One of my peeves with the scientific community IS the issue of translation.
There’s a language that has evolved among scientists, primarily in an effort to say PRECISELY what we mean to say, and nothing else, and that’s a good thing. The failure has been in relaying that information to non-scientists in a way that doesn’t make them feel like they’re being talked down to. They’re not (usually) – they just don’t speak the language, and the scientists aren’t good at remembering to translate.
That being said, the results and numbers on this issue have been, at this point, pretty well translated and made VERY available.
Meanwhile, two leading economists (one who served on President G.H.W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, and one who served in President Clinton’s Energy Department and Office of Science and Technology Policy) write in Roll Call: “It would indeed be regrettable if Members of Congress, who universally prefer carbon markets over command-and-control regulation, could not enact a bill that spares us such regulation and begins to solve the climate problem.”
http://www.rollcall.com/news/47821-1.html
Colorado Bob: I bet you’re right re: DC June temps record. I’m a college student interning for the summer out here and it’s relentless.