We're in trouble when the Dem front runner for a Senate seat advertises how he'll do nothing to stop climate change, but his opponent will take action:
Keep that in mind when you decide how pure your climate bill has to be in order to win your support.
Reading this post and some of the comments leaves me a bit bewildered. One way to get Republicans on board is to enable them to be divas, flatter them, let them bask in the media spotlight as they play Hamlet for 6 months, and keep offering compromise after compromise while getting nothing in return, on the off chance that maybe, just maybe, Lindsey or President Snowe or whoever will get on board. Another way to do things is to propose popular pieces of legislation and then make the Republicans eat shit every day they fail to pass it, go send out your charismatic leader to give speeches and hold rallies in their states, mobilize your massive community of supporters to take various actions in support of the legislation, etc. I could be wrong that the latter is the better strategy, both politically and in terms of actually getting s**t done, but it just isn't the case that the options are kissing up to Lindsey Graham or nothing.
Actually, in terms of "getting s**t done," as in getting climate legislation through the Senate, I think it's pretty clear that the choices really are kissing up to Lindsey Graham or nothing. I welcome the explanation as to how we're going to get 60 votes for a better climate bill without him, though. Or an explanation of how our charismatic leader is going to turn a likely loss of several Senate seats into a gain of several seats - otherwise the 60 vote hurdle gets even worse for at least 2 more years.
The only question in my mind is whether the cost of Republican support is worth it, in terms of restricting the ability of the EPA and the states to act independently. We won't know until we see the legislation.
As for seeing the legislation at all, John Kerry says it ain't over. It's worth mentioning than Graham had said before that health care legislation was killing the climate bill, and then returned to the negotiating table.
Larry Shapiro's smart view on why immigration is replacing climate as a legislative priority, and its effect:
Finally, with no movement capable of forcing a robust response to the climate crisis, the only way Sens. Graham, John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) could have gotten the Senate to pass a bill would have been to appease the special interests at the root of the problem.
Not sure I agree with his assessment that the legislation is dead, or that it's not worth the price paid to special interests, though. And personally I support a no-net-immigration policy, probably my most pseudo-rightwing political view (except that I'm also pro-amnesty, but whatever....).
Something unrelated - peak phosphorus? A new one to me, no idea whether it's a real concern.