West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
Yesterday’s Democratic Senate caucus meeting – combined with Majority Leader Reid’s push on this issue, combined with President Obama’s leadership, combined with a clear demand by the public for action – has given comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation a major boost as we head towards the 4th of July recess. Clearly, at this point, there’s a better path to 60 votes in the U.S. Senate for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation than ever before. We are that close to making history, let’s make sure we seize this moment!
With all that in mind, a recent national survey by Al Quinlan of Greenburg Quinlan Rosner Research has potentially powerful implications for the 2010 elections, providing yet more evidence that climate legislation – despite a fallacious "mainstream media" narrative arguing otherwise – is actually good politics. The key findings are threefold (note: the document talks about strategy for the Democratic Party, but could apply to Republicans as well):
Small businesses “are among America’s most popular entities,” with an eye-popping 44:1 favorable to unfavorable ratio (“the highest we have ever seen in our polling on any topic”)
Generating support from small business owners, for either political party, is a key to success in the upcoming mid-term elections.
Small business owners strongly agree “that a move to clean energy will help restart the economy and lead to job creation by small businesses.” In fact, according to Greenburg Quinlan, “One of the most surprising findings of the survey is that despite the fact that nearly two thirds of business owners believe it would increase costs for their businesses, a majority still want to move forward on clean energy and climate policy.”
As if that’s not evidence enough that there’s broad support out there for comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation, how about this Benenson Survey Group survey, conducted in late May/early June 2010? The key findings of this poll are:
65% of “likely 2010 voters” believe that “the federal government should invest much more than it currently invests [or] somewhat more than it currently invests.”
63% of “likely 2010 voters” support an energy bill that would “limit pollution, invest in domestic energy sources and encourage companies to use and develop clean energy…in part by charging energy companies for carbon pollution in electricity or fuels like gas.”
Among “undecided voters,” “62% support the bill and just 21% oppose.”
There is also strong evidence from this polling that voters – including independent voters by a 2.5:1 margin – are strongly inclined, by around a 2:1 margin, to be “more likely to re-elect” their Senator if he or she voted for a strong, comprehensive, clean energy and climate bill.
In sum, solid majorities of small businesspeople and the public at large both support comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation. Which is why, once again – as we pointed out yesterday – the “mainstream media” narrative, that voting for limits on carbon pollution is bad politics, is just dead wrong. To the contrary, victory this November could go to the candidates – and the party – that seizes this issue and makes it their own. Ideally, it would be great to see both Republicans and Democrats fighting to be the “greenest” candidate, and not just in terms of how much money they raise.
UPDATE: Add another poll to the list, this one by WSJ-NBC indicating that “Respondents favored comprehensive energy and carbon pollution reduction legislation by 63 percent to 31 percent – a two to one margin.”
As if the oil companies from Texas – and their allies in the corridors of power - hadn’t done enough harm to our country already (for more, see the late, great Gulf of Mexico), now they are at it once again. This time, it’s Valero and Tesoro, pouring money into a campaign this election season to undo California’s landmark, clean energy and climate law, AB 32. On Tuesday, the oil companies’ proposition was certified for the November ballot. The fight, as they say, is on!
As is often the case, the "mainstream" media nowadays is pushing a "conventional wisdom" line that has only one major problem – it’s largely or completely wrong. In this case, the "wisdom" is that voting for limits on carbon pollution is bad politics. The polling indicates it’s far more complicated than that.
For instance, the latest CBS/NY Times poll indicates that nearly 90% of Americans believe U.S. energy policy needs either "fundamental changes’ or "to be completely rebuilt," while 97% of Americans are "angry" or "bothered" by the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Those percentages hardly appear to indicate a status quo, "conventional wisdom" electorate on this issue, or an automatic political downside to making fundamental changes in U.S. energy policy.
Perhaps that is why, when you actually look at the 17 Democrats up for reelection this year (Bayh, Bennet, Boxer, Burris, Dodd, Dorgan, Feingold, Gillibrand, Inouye, Leahy, Lincoln, Mikulski, Murray, Reid, Schumer, Specter, Wyden) and subtract out those retiring (Bayh, Burris, Dodd, Dorgan) or defeated in a primary (Specter), you find that the vast majority – all except for Blanche Lincoln - are in favor of climate and energy legislation. Let’s take a look.
Michael Bennet- What could be clearer than this recent quote, "The best way to limit carbon pollution is for Congress to pass a comprehensive climate and energy bill." Barbara Boxer- A climate champion by any measure Russ Feingold- Issued a statement declaring, "Climate change is real and we need to address it. By blocking action on climate change, the Murkowski resolution would have stalled our march toward energy independence through more efficient vehicles, alternative fuels and renewable energy, all of which can spur new American jobs." Kirsten Gillibrand - Listed as a definite "yes" on a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill by E&E News Daniel Inouye- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews Patrick Leahy- He recently stated, "Let us not be known as the Congress that continued to punt, pass and kick on some of the crucial issues like these, on which the American people are looking for solutions, not procrastination." Barbara Mikulski - Listed as a definite yes on a comprehensive, clean energy and climate bill by E&ENews Patty Murray- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews Harry Reid – Has called for "bring[ing] comprehensive clean energy legislation before the full Senate later this summer." Chuck Schumer- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews Ron Wyden- Also listed as a definite yes by E&ENews
And let’s not forget these two letters – one on March 19 to Harry Reid and the other on January 26 to President Obama - showing 33 Senators (not even counting John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, who didn’t sign either letter but obviously are champions on this issue, plus most likely others as) clearly calling for climate legislation.
So, why is it that we keep seeing the perception in the "mainstream media" that a vote for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation is bad politics? Perhaps because of the unfortunate tendency of the "mainstream media" to keep recycling quotes from a few loud Senators -- like Byron Dorgan and Evan Bayh -- who just happen to be exiting the scene altogether for potentially "greener" (and not in the environmental sense!) pastures. For the "mainstream media," recycling their preferred narrative may make a good story (or the story they want to tell, for whatever reason). In politics, however, perception is nine tenths of reality, and in this case the reality is that there is far too much at stake for this country to rely on "conventional" wisdom, especially when the facts – those troublesome things - tell a very different story.
In this context, this past Friday, Greg Sargent of The Plum Line asked an important question regarding clean energy and climate legislation in the U.S. Senate: "Can A bold new crop of Senators save carbon limits?" Sargent’s intriguing thesis was that[,] "[i]f carbon limits have any prayer of surviving in the Senate's energy reform bill, it may turn on the efforts of one group: The energetic freshman and sophomore Senators that are pushing hard to keep carbon limits alive." Sargent pointed to an interview with one of those freshmen, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, in which he argued that "There's a lot of new energy in those two classes, and they recognize that this is the moment."
In short, what Merkley’s saying is that it’s time for Democrats to stop listening so much to the "old guard" of Senators who are retiring. Instead, Merkley makes the case for paying more attention to the Senate freshman (and sophomores), who by definition were elected relatively recently and, therefore – at least theoretically - might have their fingers closer to the pulse of the public than the old timers. In part, the question is whether there could be a "generational" difference going on here. Not "generational" in the chronological sense, in which "younger" Senators are more pro-environment than "older" Senators. But, perhaps, "generational" in the sense of "political age," as in "how long have they been in Washington, DC?"
Given the analysis above, we might want to add "members in cycle" to Merkley’s admonition about listening more to freshmen then to old timers. Because the fact is, the majority of Democrats actually facing the polls this November are in favor of taking action on energy independence, clean energy, and holding corporate polluters accountable. Perhaps this is because they are listening to what the public is clearly demanding, which is fundamental change in U.S. energy policy? And perhaps they are not listening to a "conventional media" narrative which is completely wrong? Regardless of the reason, it appears at the moment – and certainly on this issue - that Democrats would be better served by listening more to the folks facing public opinion, as well as those elected more recently, and less to the ones preparing to depart for "greener" pastures.
Last Saturday (July 18), around 400 of your neighbors gathered at the state Capitol Culture Center for a protest and town hall meeting regarding the harm that cap and trade legislation will do us. Although Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV 2nd), expressed concern about losing West Virginia coal jobs, she apparently never explained how it will do so. I missed the event, but I've read all the reports that I could find, and even though it was far better covered than any anti-mtr protests, I'm willing to bet that no one will ever get around to asking Capito what makes her think that cap and trade will cost WV coal mining jobs. Because it won't. It may, however, help us to gain "green" industry jobs.
I remember when the airborne fly ash (aka "coal ash") around the John Amos power plant near St. Albans was so thick that you couldn't open your car window while driving for fear of being blinded. Back then industry stooges ...er "experts" warned politicians that cleaning fly ash from the air would skyrocket costs and lose jobs. And although exactly the same arguments were used against acid rain mitigation laws, the fact is that none of their dire warnings ever amounted to any more than hollow scare tactics. Because when lawmakers finally stopped the coal fired power industry from being bad corporate neighbors, the cost of electricity never really shot up. Yet entire "green"industries have sprung up since that coal ash legislation. In WV, though, not so much, largely due to extreme anti-"green" tunnel vision of our coal-powered politicians.
The point of cap-and-trade is to cap carbon emissions to mitigate pollution. Simply figure out how to stop polluting and you won't have to pay the tax. So if coal is really as clean as Rep, Capito told us during her campaign, then just why would anyone need to protest?
The bill requires power plants, factories, refineries and electricity and natural gas distributors to reduce the emissions linked to global warming. It also calls for more power production from renewable sources such wind and solar energy, and raises energy-efficiency standards.source
Instead of wasting millions to lobby and buy politicians to lie about how "clean" coal is, wouldn't it make far more sense to develop a method to make coal "clean" and then manufacture and export it?
BTW Rep Capito has collected $263,290 from the coal industry so far to shill their bogus "Coal is Clean" shinola, so you'll never see her at a town hall meeting expressing her "concern" over the loss of tens of thousands of deep mining jobs in WV due to the expansion of surface mining.
The CBO has just ranked Waxman-Markey as a deficit reducer. This is important under PayGo Rules in the House, which Nono Goposaurs were mocking on the floor of the House this morning. Will Rep. Shelley Moore Capito stop scaring her constituents and spreading lies?
Lots going on today, too much for me to cover on an otherwise busy day. Head over to Coal Tattoo where Ken Ward, Jr. has the multiple stories covered. For more on the (as expected) PATH application filing, see the ever-helpful The Power Line blog, too.
The story I find most intriguing today is Rep. Rahall crowing about Obama's EPA approving the majority of MTR approvals submitted recently. Can't tell if that is final approvals or if he has his numbers straight, as there is no permit by permit list out yet to back up the numbers.
Either way, the news is causing great disappointment to those who thought candidate Obama promised a dramatic change in MTR policy (I never interpreted his comments as such).
The Washington Post is reporting the Obama "EPA May Reverse Bush, Limit Carbon Emissions From Coal-Fired Plants":
The Environmental Protection Agency will reopen the possibility of regulating carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, tossing aside a December Bush administration memorandum that declared that the agency would not limit the emissions.
The decision could mark the first step toward placing limits on greenhouse gases emitted by coal plants, an issue that has been hotly contested by the coal industry and environmentalists since April 2007, when the Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide should be considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
[snip]
In response to a Sierra Club petition involving a permit for a coal plant in Bonanza, Utah, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said yesterday that the agency would take a new look at the issue and solicit public comment. Jackson added that the memorandum issued by her predecessor, Stephen A. Johnson, two months ago should not restrict states weighing air pollution permits for new coal plants.
[snip]
John Stowell, vice president for environmental policy for Duke Energy, one of the nation's largest utilities, said he "wasn't surprised" by the announcement. Industry officials expect the federal government to impose a cap on greenhouse gas emissions, he said, and are hoping that Congress will adopt an economy-wide plan rather than relying on the executive branch to target specific sectors.
"It serves as a reminder that it's coming, but we still expect it to be done through the legislature and not the regulatory process," he said, noting that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and others have signaled that the committees they chair will pass climate legislation by the end of the year. "They're all saying it's urgent. The president's saying it's urgent -- 'We're going to get it done this Congress.' And I believe them."
Does this move have any immediate effect? Yes, at least one plant proposal--a 1,590-megawatt plant in Nevada--will likely be put on hold now.
This announcement effectively stops the building of any new coal-fired plants until new regulations are determined.
Copyright 2011 West Virginia Blue
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, dedicated volunteers and participation by members of this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong solely to their respective authors.
As if the oil companies from Texas – and their allies in the corridors of power - hadn’t done enough harm to our country already (for more, see the late, great Gulf of Mexico), now they are at it once again. This time, it’s Valero and Tesoro, pouring money into a campaign this election season to undo California’s landmark, clean energy and climate law, AB 32. On Tuesday, the oil companies’ proposition 
