Foreign Policy Blogs

SPQR

Senatus Populusque Romanus – The Senate and the People of Rome.  The old Roman Senate was, on paper, representative of the people.  Because the US is a representative democracy, the US Senate was meant, up to a certain point, to perpetuate this same principle.  It was, however, certainly less representative, from Day One, than its coequal legislative branch, the House of Representatives, in that its fundamental composition belies the principle of one person, one vote.  Moreover, Senators were, for more than 120 years until the 17th amendment to the Constitution, selected by the legislatures of the states they represented, hardly a process conducive to expressing the “will of the people.”  I have opined on the inherently undemocratic nature of the Senate before.  The Senate is the body in which the powers of the special interests have always found the greatest solace and succor.

Why have I subjected you to this junior jeremiad on the failings of the Senate?  It is because much of the fate of the American government’s response to the global climate crisis lies in the tender mercies of these 100 persons.  The Senate, as recounted in Robert Caro’s extraordinary Master of the Senate: The Years of LBJ, Vol. 3, managed to hold up the progress of civil rights legislation for decades.  I don’t think it’s going to be quite the protracted struggle with this critical issue as it was with civil rights but it’s going to be tough.  The People’s House, the House of Representatives, managed, just barely, to pass less-than-perfect but still landmark climate and energy legislation at the end of June.  Now the ball is in the Senate’s court.

At an environmental finance conference I attended earlier in June, there was much discussion of the legislation and its prospects.  Eileen Claussen, the President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, had some thoughts.  She noted the considerable and several pressures on Congress to get to some concrete solutions, sooner rather than later.  The US Climate Action Partnership, for instance, is spearheading the efforts of many major industrial corporations to get Congress to act.  The Obama Administration is certainly a powerful determinant.  (Some commentators say the White House is not being sufficiently assertive.)  There is also the pressure from the many local, state and regional initiatives that have been driving progress on energy and climate, among them the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), the 27 states that have mandated a renewable energy portfolio (RPS), and the US Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Center.  There is the overwhelming body of science and there is the body of public opinion.  I would add to this list the strong support of a significant portion of the American labor movement – see the critical work of the Blue Green Alliance.

Claussen said that she calculated that there were 36 yes votes on the Democratic side of the aisle in the Senate (+ Al Franken now) and 23 “iffy” Democrats.  She said there were 14 possible Republicans, with nine already having backed some precursor of climate change legislation plus five who have been sounding positive.  She said that nuclear power would have to be a component of the legislation that comes out of the Senate to garner enough votes there.  That, in my opinion, is most unfortunate as I regard nuclear, along with CCS, to be among the most expensive and wasteful blind paths that we can take.  (The CCS provisions in Waxman-Markey are also lamentable.)

There were some pessimistic prognoses on the passage of legislation from others at this conference, like David Hunter of the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) who said there was no chance for 2009, it was possible for 2010, but likely in 2011.

There are many, many people watching Congress and hoping to influence its progress toward strong climate and energy legislation.  Among the expert observers is the venerable World Policy Institute.  Its president, Jonathan Lash, identified this as one of the Environmental Stories to Watch in 2009.  In Lash’s analysis, there are a “Gang of 16” Democrats from states heavily reliant on coal that will be at the core of how things play out in the Senate.  Lash notes “The United States Senate was designed by the Constitution to reflect regional issues, that’s why each state regardless of population has two senators and that means that this geographic distribution of coal dependence is an essential political fact as we think about what legislation can pass, and a reflection of why I said at the beginning environmental legislation comes from the middle-in this case the physical middle of the country.”  (Lash is more tolerant of the political disparity inherent in the Senate’s design than I am, clearly.)  See this slide show (slides 9-18) to get a visual sense of some of the numbers and the politics.

SPQR

Here’s some more inside baseball on the Senate from the “Washington Post.”  It reports that Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, who has said he wants to have climate change legislation passed this year, can count on 40 to 45 votes on the basic premise of cap-and-trade.  Beyond that, “Supporters are targeting a pool of roughly two dozen lawmakers — including about 15 of Reid’s Democrats — who will determine the legislation’s fate.”  Barbara Boxer, the smart, strong and progressive chair of the Environment & Public Works Committee, held the first of a series of hearings last week with four top Obama administration officials testifying on behalf of robust climate and energy legislation.  In her opening statement, she said:  “I believe that this Committee, when the votes are eventually taken on our bill, will reflect our President’s attitude, which is ‘Yes, we can, and yes, we will.'”  Other hearings are forthcoming.

Although Boxer had targeted a bill to be prepared and voted on by her committee before the August recess begins, she has now announced that this won’t happen until after Labor Day.  Grist reports here on this development and that Harry Reid has also “…bumped his deadline for committee action on a bill back by 10 days to Sept. 28. By that date, he wants all six committees with jurisdiction to have concluded markup of their components of a climate plan. Reid said he pushed the date back to give legislators more time to work out differences over the bill.”  Is this a good thing or a bad thing?  Grist quotes the Sierra Club as saying the delay provides “…a huge organizing opportunity, both here in D.C. and in the field.”  EDF says “It gives senators more time to review and understand the historic bill just passed by the House. It signals a serious intent to seek agreements on key issues going forward.”

NPR takes a long look at the “…withering opposition from Republicans. They say it will cost consumers too much and hurt American business.”  As Boxer said in her statement from July 7th, “Today, I expect you will hear fierce words of doubt and fear and worse from the other side of the aisle regarding our legislative efforts to move forward with clean energy jobs legislation. This is consistent with a pattern of ‘No, we can’t.'”  That is to say, based on the nearly monolithic Republican opposition in the House, it’s no surprise that Republicans in the Senate are going to come at this with all guns blazing, as its leadership will direct.  However, there are a few Republicans, like the two Maine Senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, who, like almost all New Englanders, have a long and deep regard for the environmental ethic.  They will not be marching in lockstep.

As one famous New Englander wrote, there are “…miles to go before I sleep.”

 

Author

Bill Hewitt

Bill Hewitt has been an environmental activist and professional for nearly 25 years. He was deeply involved in the battle to curtail acid rain, and was also a Sierra Club leader in New York City. He spent 11 years in public affairs for the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation, and worked on environmental issues for two NYC mayoral campaigns and a presidential campaign. He is a writer and editor and is the principal of Hewitt Communications. He has an M.S. in international affairs, has taught political science at Pace University, and has graduate and continuing education classes on climate change, sustainability, and energy and the environment at The Center for Global Affairs at NYU. His book, "A Newer World - Politics, Money, Technology, and What’s Really Being Done to Solve the Climate Crisis," will be out from the University Press of New England in December.



Areas of Focus:
the policy, politics, science and economics of environmental protection, sustainability, energy and climate change

Contact