The “final week of the” UN Climate Change summit “boils down to a battle between” Pres. Obama and “the self-described ‘skunk at the picnic’” — Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK).
Inhofe, “who has called global warming a hoax, plans to travel this week to Copenhagen” where he’ll stay “just long enough — as few as three hours, he says — to tell heads of state that the Senate will not pass an energy bill that would limit greenhouse gas emissions.”
Inhofe: “We know (the bill) is never going to go to a vote. It’s dead. It’s gone … I’m not going to allow them to think America is going to do something it’s not.”
Delegates from other countries “say that without Congress’ support, Obama won’t be able to keep whatever promises he makes when he arrives” 12/18 “to try to seal a deal on capping emissions” (Winter, USA Today, 12/14).
In the weekly GOP address, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) “slammed” the summit, saying it “could result in emissions mandates” that “would destroy millions of American jobs and damage our economic competitiveness for decades to come.”
Blackburn: “With Americans already facing double-digit unemployment, there could be no worse time to unilaterally disarm our energies of job creation and economic growth.” (Zimmermann, The Hill, 12/12).
But “despite a multitude of impasses, conflicts, and dramas playing out in hotel lobbies, restaurants, and meeting halls in Denmark’s frigid capital city, hope remains the dominant mood” as the summit enters its final five days.
Even if a final agreement on greenhouse gas emissions is not achieved, “many environmentalists, academics, and scientists say, the groundwork to reach one next year appears to be getting done” (Daley, Boston Globe, 12/14).
War Of The Bills
“As if the debate … wasn’t complicated enough,” Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) 12/11 “introduced their own bill to cut emissions, one that’s a lot simpler to explain to voters” and that “plays off the anti-Wall Street mood that’s popular” on both sides of the aisle.
The “question is whether the latest bill will be any easier to pass.” Like other bills it would “require companies to hold government-issued permits in order to emit greenhouse gases” but the Cantwell-Collins measure “would give the vast majority of revenues raised under such a system — 75% — back to consumers each month in the form of checks.”
At “39 pages, the Cantwell-Collins bill is a lot easier to understand than the” 1.4K-paged “behemoth the House approved” over the summer and it’s also “a lot closer to the spirit of” Obama’s “campaign pledge, which called for ‘all pollution credits to be auctioned.’” But “does that make it easier to pass?”
Cantwell “says her bill,” with Collin’s co-sponsorship, “has a better chance of securing the votes of” GOPers and moderate Dems (Power, Wall Street Journal, 12/11).
Their version may give critics of the House bill “something to rally around.” Cantwell-Collins “has attracted support from some new quarters, however, it could lose support from segments of the business community that have helped propel the climate legislation” forward in the House and Senate cmte.
Wall Street “may be particularly disappointed in the new bill” because it “would restrict trading in a new carbon market to entities regulated by the act, a move that may have more populist appeal” (Snyder, The Hill, 12/14).
What We're Following See More »
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."
"Federal regulators on Thursday delayed a vote on a proposal to reshape the television market by freeing consumers from cable box rentals, putting into doubt a plan that has pitted technology companies against cable television providers. ... The proposal will still be considered for a future vote. But Tom Wheeler, chairman of the F.C.C., said commissioners needed more discussions."
"The Supreme Court is taking up a First Amendment clash over the government’s refusal to register offensive trademarks, a case that could affect the Washington Redskins in their legal fight over the team name. The justices agreed Thursday to hear a dispute involving an Asian-American rock band called the Slants, but they did not act on a separate request to hear the higher-profile Redskins case at the same time." Still, any precedent set by the case could have ramifications for the Washington football team.
The Hollywood Reporter takes a look at a little-known intersection of politics and entertainment, in which Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon is still raking in residuals from Seinfeld. Here's the digest version: When Seinfeld was in its infancy, Ted Turner was in the process of acquiring its production company, Castle Rock, but he was under-capitalized. Bannon's fledgling media company put up the remaining funds, and he agreed to "participation rights" instead of a fee. "Seinfeld has reaped more than $3 billion in its post-network afterlife through syndication deals." Meanwhile, Bannon is "still cashing checks from Seinfeld, and observers say he has made nearly 25 times more off the Castle Rock deal than he had anticipated."