Obama, Kerry & Graham Hasten Domestic Climate Change Legislation
Published October 12, 2009 @ 06:42AM PT

Senators John Kerry and Lindsey Graham offered fighting words this weekend, explaining "If Congress does not pass legislation dealing with climate change, the administration will use the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new regulations." In the New York Times they explained just how difficult it will be to pass a comprehensive climate bill, but think a bi-partisan agreement is possible.
The partnership between Kerry and Graham, Democrat and Republican, is a fresh attempt to find consensus and get the necessary 60 votes, hoping EPA regulation won't be necessary, explaining that a climate change bill can be in everyone's interests:
It’s true that we come from different parts of the country and represent different constituencies and that we supported different presidential candidates in 2008. We even have different accents. But we speak with one voice in saying that the best way to make America stronger is to work together to address an urgent crisis facing the world.
The comprehensive opinion piece is a must read to understand domestic negotiation, and the reasons why it is in America's interests for legislation to pass.
The White House has been also been working hard to pass energy and climate legislation this year. Meetings with half of the Senate and 100 mayors indicate their ambition. And the permanent White House representative at Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator John Kerry's meetings to advance the legislation indicates further eagerness. They're hoping to sign a climate bill before Copenhagen, but aren't optimistic about it being signed that quickly.
Photo credit: Center For American Progress
Share this Post
Comments (4)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Email


















Scare tactics so they can have the power and money. Global Warming is a lie. The temperature is actually getting colder.
Posted by Cliff Dalton on 10/14/2009 @ 08:06AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Global Warming is a coined term. However, we are experiencing Global Climate Change. This is what we have to either adapt to or try to prevent. In either case we have to seriously consider changes in the human life style in general.
Posted by Brittany Muller on 10/14/2009 @ 03:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The Republican's are so narrowminded sometimes. No offense to them. Global warming is very serious so we just can't sit on our hands and hope for the best. We must take action!! What are we going to do when the water temperture rises another degree or two? Yeah it's pretty serious business.
Posted by Christopher Allen on 10/15/2009 @ 12:12PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Here's my comment (in verse) about the Kerry-Boxer bill:
Dear Barbara and John:
Herewith enclosed a friendly missive:
Your climate bill is quite impressive.
Senator Boxer - Like CA often leads the nation,
You lead in my admiration.
Your bill for greenhouse regulation
Should aid the climate's amelioration.
Senator Kerry - I voted for you in 2004,
And in 2000 I voted for Gore.
Though you both fell short of your ambitions,
You've accomplished so much in your current positions.
Senators, what you've done for climate change
Would otherwise have been hard to arrange.
You managed to strike the tricky equilibrium
Between accomplishing something while minimizing opprobrium.
You've clearly seen both problem and solution--
To dramatically reduce greenhouse gas pollution.
Cutting 20% by ‘20 is a good introduction,
And 83% by ‘50 an important reduction.
The House did OK, but you did better
Despite the Senate's heavier GOP fetter.
The carbon collar's a good innovation:
It reduces risk and opposition without program castration.
There will be more low-cost reductions than people realized
Once American ingenuity is mobilized.
Your bill is something one doesn't oft' see:
Good politics and good policy simultaneously.
It's not easy to do both at the same time
(Almost as hard as talking climate in rhyme).
Of course, the Devil is in the detail,
And many in Congress want the bill to fail.
With amendments galore they will assail,
But I hope that you two still will prevail.
But the Post is right: your bill's still missing one thing
That caused them to give their endorsement less ring.
A cap-and-trade plan is sorely needed
Without it the bill will be surely defeated.
As you said John, that's for the Finance Committee,
But their work so far on healthcare has not been pretty.
Will they turn to lead this opportunity golden
Because they're to financial interests beholden?
But you've both done a good job to start things out--
That's what making a difference is all about.
(As long as it's now backed up by political clout,
And Dems can avoid an ignominious route.)
"Energy Citizen" has come out with a full-page ad
Saying GHG regulation would be bad.
They raise the specter of $4 gas
But we've had that before in the recent past.
Oilman Bush's policy (total inaction,
And climate change report redaction)
While he and Cheney were in charge
Led to gas and oil price increases even more large.
You think $4 per gallon is bad?
Try $5.88 if you want to make people mad.
Is it a coincidence that under the Bush Administration
Oil prices increased by a factor of ten?
But let's give credit where credit is due:
Bush did reverse that trend before he was through.
So I guess that I should make a confession:
Bush did bring energy prices back down... by causing a recession.
But when the economy recovers, we must understand
Energy prices will go back up again, unless we decrease demand.
Regulating GHGs is the only way to do it,
So it's crucial that we get to it.
Senate Republicans don't like your bill, of course:
Comparing it to the House's, Sen. Thune (R-SD) said it's "much worse."
"It's more expensive, it's more restrictive, it's more aggressive," he said.
Maybe he'd rather have EPA regulation under the CAA instead?
It helps that EPA is taking action;
That should give your bill a lot more traction.
(The "EPA option" is political gold
Because it's something over opponents' heads to hold.)
As you know, we must move fast for Copenhagen--
No time for political or partisan foot dragin'.
If we don't, we'll continue to be the villain.
But if we succeed, we (and the world) will be chillin'.
So here's to you, Senators Boxer and Kerry
I hope that you can a majority carry.
Let's hope the Senate soon passes
Greenhouse gasses
(The bill, I mean).
[See more poems about climate change at www.newsericks.com/tag/climate-change.]
Posted by Ray in DC on 10/16/2009 @ 06:00PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.