Senate Democrats’ Monday-night marathon is a perfect highlight of their new climate strategy: Talk tough now, take action much, much later.
More than two dozen Senate Democrats, joined under the banner of the recently formed Climate Action Task Force, will hold the floor all night to talk about global warming.
The talk-a-thon has the blessing of Majority Leader Harry Reid, who plans to speak Monday evening and last week called climate change “the worst problem facing the world today.”
The event is part of stepped up efforts by liberal Democrats to play offense on climate. The strategy is designed to create political space for President Obama’s EPA regulations and eventually lay the groundwork for major legislation.
But after the last senator leaves the floor, and the last tweet has been tweeted, the follow-up — at least in terms of action — will fall short of aggressive.
Democrats’ have no immediate plans to force message votes on a carbon tax, a cap-and-trade system, or any other major legislative mechanism to actually address climate change.
Compare that with House Republicans’ own energy crusade: a steady stream of rhetoric — and a long string of votes — to push approval for the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline.
So what explains the gap?
The Democrats’ caucus isn’t united enough, it doesn’t have GOP allies, and its leadership doesn’t view votes on pricing carbon as a political winner right now.
A big climate bill hasn’t even come to the floor since 2008, when cap-and-trade legislation stalled 48-36 on a procedural vote.
Two years later Reid, again lacking votes, pulled the plug on the climate measure crafted by then-Sens. John Kerry and Joe Lieberman before it even reached the floor.
Four years after the environmental movement saw the window open and close to enact climate legislation, advocates are in no mood for claiming moral victories.
So these days, Senate Democratic leaders are instead trying to bring attention to a topic with no underlying bill.
It’s a strategy that recognizes that the votes still aren’t there, and that forcing symbolic roll calls won’t help vulnerable members up for reelection, such as Sens. Mary Landrieu and Mark Begich, who aren’t taking part in the talk-fest.
“I think they want to do something useful on the issue without putting some of their colleagues in an uncomfortable spot,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.
One Senate Democratic aide said that 2014 politics are one reason not to bring up legislation. Another? The Keystone XL pipeline.
“There is so much focus on Keystone from both proponents and opponents that until it’s cleared off the decks, it is difficult to have a reasonable debate or set of votes on clean energy, energy efficiency … [or] any other energy and climate legislation without it reverting back to a Keystone debate,” the aide said.
Whatever the reason, Democrats are calling for action without any effort to push major legislation on the horizon.
They’re seeking traction in other ways, such as publicly calling out the major TV networks for their paltry amount of climate coverage on the Sunday talking-head shows.
“The cost of Congress’s inaction on climate change is too high for our communities, our kids and grandkids, and our economy,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who cofounded the new climate task force, said in a statement. “On Monday we’ll be sending a clear message: It’s time for Congress to wake up and get serious about addressing this issue.”
A few weeks ago, on a call with the pro-Obama advocacy group Organizing for Action, Whitehouse predicted that the window for climate legislation would reopen in 2015 or 2016.
In the meantime, defensive votes on the GOP’s efforts to scuttle EPA regulations are more likely to occur than a floor showdown on a Democratic climate plan.
In other words, for Democratic climate hawks, talk may be cheap but it’s one of the few tools they’ve got right now.
What We're Following See More »
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
Speaking at the funeral of former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, President Obama "compared Peres to 'other giants of the 20th century' such as Nelson Mandela and Queen Elizabeth who 'find no need to posture or traffic in what's popular in the moment.'" Among the 6,000 mourners at the service was Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Obama called Abbas's presence a sign of the "unfinished business of peace" in the region.
Three million—a number that lays "bare the significant gap between Donald Trump’s bare-bones operation and the field program that Clinton and her hundreds of aides have been building for some 17 months."
In a somewhat shocking move, the Chicago Tribune has endorsed Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson for president, saying a vote for him is one that voters "can be proud of." The editorial barely touches on Donald Trump, who the paper has time and again called "unfit to be president," before offering a variety of reasons for why it can't endorse Hillary Clinton. Johnson has been in the news this week for being unable to name a single world leader who he admires, after earlier this month being unable to identify "Aleppo," a major Syrian city in the middle of the country's ongoing war.
"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."