As the climate bill begins to wend its way through the sausage grinding factory Senate, President Obama praises the bipartisanship -- really, are we surprised? -- shown by Senators Kerry and Graham in their now-famous bipartisan op-ed. More to the point, Obama appears to support the specific bipartisan solutions suggested by Kerry and Graham -- nuclear power and environmentally sound ways to use domestic oil and gas. Analysis below the fold.
On Thursday in New Orleans, President Obama told a townhall crowd that he'll push the climate bill (Clean Energy Jobas and American Power Act, aka CEJAPA, aka Kerry-Boxer bill, aka S.1733) once Congress finishes its work on healthcare. Or so the New York Times reports the story. The big news is Obama's specific comments:
"What I think we need to do is increase our domestic energy production," Obama said in response to a question about environmental policy from an audience member. "I'm in favor of finding environmentally sound ways to tap our oil and our natural gas."
.... "There's no reason why technologically we can't employ nuclear energy in a safe and effective way," Obama said. "Japan does it and France does it and it doesn't have greenhouse gas emissions, so it would be stupid for us not to do that in a much more effective way."
Progressives are approaching a fish-or-cut-bait time: support the bill, advocate some changes and oppose others, and get the bill passed; or hold out for a pony. The only way a climate bill will pass is by including, to a greater or lesser degree, some or all of the Kerry-Graham bipartisan elements: nuclear power, natural gas, "clean coal," and "environmentally sound oil." (Trust me when I say that some Republican support will be necessary due to the presence of a handful of Democrats who will probably vote against the bill.) Barbara Boxer, normally the staunchest anti-nuclear stalwart in the Senate who voted against a prior climate bill because it included nuclear energy, has already conceded the necessity of some nuclear power by including a small nuclear title in the Kerry-Boxer bill.
Graham's motives are already being questioned by the right and the left. Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones points out his financial ties to, and voting record in favor of, the nuclear power industry. Friends of the Earth has gone on the record in opposing all of Graham's ideas on the climate bill:
On the whole, however, environmental groups have been noticeably mum on Graham's nuclear demands. Last year, a coalition of ten environmental organizations sent a letter to senators criticizing attempts to add more nuclear pork to the Climate Security Act. This time around, most groups have been hesitant to criticize the nuclear components that Graham and others Republicans are seeking—most environmental organizations contacted by Mother Jones declined to comment on Graham's nuclear requests.
Advocates of the climate bill are likely staying quiet because they're hoping Graham will forge a path to securing 60 votes in the Senate for the climate bill. He could entice other sympathetic Republicans to sign on and provide cover for fence-sitting Democrats, many of whom hail from fossil-fuel dependent states.
Graham's game-changing op-ed may already be working. Last week, I predicted that Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) may follow Graham across the aisle if nuclear and drilling provisions are expanded, and today she tells C-Span3 that she's open to voting for the bill if nuclear and drilling provisions are expanded. (For the record, I take no credit, or blame as the case may be, for any of her comments -- but do wish to point out the usefulness of adopting Senators in predicting their votes.)
Impressive arguments on all sides have been made as to whether nuclear technology, in the abstract, is a safe, clean, and inexpensive technology or whether it's a dangerous boondoggle. Rather than opine, I'm simply pointing out some political reality. With Republican and Presidential support, a climate bill has a chance of passing. Without bipartisan support, ramifications go well beyond one bill, to the United States' ability to negotiate effectively at Copenhagen, and thereafter to a rapidly warming world.
Obama may be playing a different game on the chimeras of environmentally sound oil and gas and clean coal. For example, I've previously diaried speculation that the White House may be using the National Oceanic & Atmosphere Administration to raise the bar of environmentally sound offshore oil drilling.
The climate bill was usually described as "facing an uphill battle" until the Kerry-Graham op-ed (and even after that, Politico seems stuck on the "uphill" label). However, it now looks like the bill has a solid chance of passing with both Presidential and Republican support.