A sliver of silver lining in the Gulf disaster has been its unflinching spotlight on the wrongs of our fossil-fuelish ways. President Obama understands the connection between the crises of extractive energy and the opportunity of clean energy:
But we have to acknowledge that there are inherent risks to drilling four miles beneath the surface of the Earth, and these are risks -- these are risks that are bound to increase the harder oil extraction becomes. We also have to acknowledge that an America run solely on fossil fuels should not be the vision we have for our children and our grandchildren.
In the same speech, Obama indicated support for the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act and promised: "the votes may not be there right now, but I intend to find them in the coming months."
APA is perceived as a watered-down bill: too many giveaways to nuclear power (12 new plants), the chimera of clean coal ($10 billion), and Big Oil (expansion of offshore drilling). Shortly before its release, it gained the support of three Big Polluters; were it not for a badly-timed hissy fit from Lindsey Graham, a beaming BP executive would have stood next to John Kerry on April 26 for the bill's rollout. Instead, Graham's temper tantrum has become a political opportunity for Democrats to strengthen the climate bill.
Currently, the bill's whip count is: 26 strong yes, 11 probably yes, 31 fence sitters, 10 probably no, and 22 strong no. Over the last 11 months, the most dramatic shifts have been in "yes" (35 in July 2009 down to 26) and "fence sitter" (23 in July 2009, now 31). Most recently, Senators Lautenberg, Menendez, and Bill Nelson have moved from "yes" to "fence sitter" because they oppose offshore oil expansion. Of the 31 Senators currently sitting on that apocryphal fence, 11 are Republicans (Alexander, Scott Brown, Collins, Corker, Graham, Gregg, LeMieux, Lugar, Murkowski, Snowe, and Voinovich). A bill must collect the 26 yes votes and 34 votes from the 52 probably yes, fence sitters, and probably no categories to pass. Note: all whip count information is taken from a firewalled E&E News link.
What if the climate bill were to become "BP-Free," i.e., all provisions favored by Big Polluters were to be stricken? (Part 2 will spell out policy details.) The bill would be a better bill. And that flock of fence-sitters would face a choice: stand with BP, or stand with Americans for clean energy.
The disaster has already spilled into politics, so smart Democrats should seize the moment. Republicans keep quiet on BP while attacking the government's response. Meanwhile, Democrats have been divided on using Big Oil as a foil in the energy/climate debate: bold Democrats want to make the climate bill a referendum on the nation's dependence on fossil fuels, while Third Way Democrats whine about appearing "too partisan." (News flash, brave souls: the federal government-BP shotgun wedding, showing signs of strain for weeks, probably ended when BP hired a partisan-to-the-hilt Petro Barbie spokesperson with knowledge of the secret Cheney energy task force.)
Which Republicans are likely to cross party lines? Scott Brown, the Maine Senators, and LeMieux (whose mentor Crist is suddenly vehemently opposing all offshore oil) are obvious possibilities. Graham has hinted that he'll pull his support without offshore oil expansion, but Kerry has hinted that Graham will vote for the final bill regardless. A trio of Southern nuclear power advocates (Alexander, Corker, and Isakson) may be enticed. Although none of their public pronouncements have been favorable, I wouldn't be surprised to see Gregg, Lugar, and Voinovich consider the bill. A BP-free bill would lose any support it might have had from Murkowski.
Democrats forced Republicans to make a similar choice during votes on the financial regulation bill: stand with Goldman Sachs or with the American people. Republicans Scott Brown, Collins, Grassley, and Snowe crossed party lines to vote for the final bill.
Popular support for offshore drilling has been plummeting like a paralyzed peregrine. A CBS poll released last week now has an absolute majority (51%) agreeing that the risks of offshore oil drilling outweigh its benefits. Public opinion is now split equally (45% each) between those who see Oilpocalypse as a symptom of a larger problem and those who see it as an isolated incident; as little as three weeks ago, 51% saw it as isolated and only 35% saw the forest for the trees. A BP-free climate bill will be more politically popular with voters than one expanding Bad People's access to offshore oil.
Our best revenge against BP will not be in nationalizing it or seizing its assets, but in making it obsolete.