Is Kerry-Graham Op-ed in NY Times a "Game changer"?
Ricardo Bayon on October 12, 2009 4 Comments
So here we have it, a ray of hope. As Manik Roy of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change writes, this op-ed could be a game changer. It highlights a potential area of agreement between the Democrats and Republicans on a climate bill. Whether what they call for in the op-ed piece (found here) can actually happen in time for Copenhagen is another matter. But Hope springs eternal, as they say, and this has gotten the hope flowing in a way we haven't seen in a while. Comments please, is this a game-changer?
Game Changer? That seems a bit of an overstatement. A small ray of light showing that we may still get a climate bill to the Senate floor is more appropriate.
The Senate healthcare debate is probably a good proxy, where Senator Snowe has become an almost singular Republican voice of bipartisanship and discussion among what is becoming the common partisan obstructionist yelling. Is the Op-Ed a sign that the climate bill debate will shift from this rancor to sudden bipartisan cooperation, with logic, science and political compromise once again dictating the Senate’s work? No, but it is a highly encouraging signal that the Senate does remember how to reach across the aisle and work toward common goals. Legislation that has a bipartisan leadership voice has traditionally fared better in the Senate. However, even with Senator Graham’s endorsement, with an issue as divisive as climate change, one where it is still news that in the Op-Ed Senator Graham stated that Climate Change was real, we will need more than just his support. This development will need to be one of many if this bill is to find the 60 votes it needs. It seems unlikely that in the Senate there will be a single voice that finds the needed consensus, as Representative Peterson did in the house. But who knows, maybe Senator Graham can become the Climate Bill pied piper, and march the naysayers into line behind a bill. More likely, he, as has Senator Snowe has in the healthcare debate, will find himself to be a lonely voice of support.
Simon, I actually agree with you that this isn't yet the "Game Changer" that everyone is saying it is. I do think it is a strong positive signal and reason for hope, but the battle is very much uphill. If you watch a youtube video of Graham's town hall meeting the Monday after the Op-ed, you see him being skewered for taking the positions he took. That shows what this bill is up against. I still believe it will all come down to the farmers and the ag lobby, and now that the American Farm Bureau has invested serious cash in an anti climate-bill campaign, it could get ugly!
Maybe not a "game changer", but certainly more than a "small ray of light". The comparison to the Senate's health care process is a good one: Sen. Snowe's bipartisanship has eased the way for more conservative democrats, moderate republicans and other assorted fence-sitters. Sen. Graham's influence is arguably much greater than Snowe's, or at least broader. His imprimatur will open some senators up to deal-making and should ultimately produce a lot more votes in favor.
That said, you are right Ricardo: it could get ugly.
It can get ugly, but I am wondering what it is that can be done to bring these groups in. The American Corn Growers Association has come out in support of the Climate Legislation, yet the Iowa corn growers are opposing it. This shows the lack of information on actual financial effects to farmers, and dialogue to engage these groups. In Vermont one of the county Ag groups came out in opposition to climate legislation last month, and then reversed that decision this month as the members learned more about the actual impacts. That said, will the new Stabenow amendment have anything near the effect of the Peterson amendment?