Senator Lindsey Graham has walked out on the bill– saying he can’t go forward because the Democratic leadership is now playing politics with immigration policy.(Photo courtesy of the US Senate)
A climate and energy bill was supposed to be introduced in the Senate this week. But Mark Brush reports… politics are getting in the way:
Transcript
A climate and energy bill was supposed to be introduced in the Senate this week. But Mark Brush reports… politics are getting in the way:
Senators John Kerry – a Democrat – Joe Lieberman – an Independent – and Lindsey Graham a Republican have been working on a climate and energy bill.
There have been months of delicate negotiations.
But Senator Graham has walked out – saying he can’t go forward because the Democratic leadership is now playing politics with immigration policy.
Dan Weiss is the Director of Climate Strategy for the Center for American Progress – a liberal public policy group. He says all these delays come with costs:
“Every day that we wait to reform our energy policies, we buy a billion dollars worth of oil from other countries… Iran will earn an extra hundred million dollars in oil revenue… China will get further ahead of us in developing the clean energy technologies of the future.”
The House passed a climate and energy bill last year, but a Senate bill has been repeatedly delayed.
Oliver Houck is a Professor of Law at Tulane University in New Orleans.
(Photo by Paula Birch, Courtesy of Tulane University)
Every once in a while, we
hear politicians using a
term that everybody thinks
they understand, but people
define differently. Lester
Graham talked with an expert
about one such term heard
a lot these days:
Transcript
Every once in a while, we
hear politicians using a
term that everybody thinks
they understand, but people
define differently. Lester
Graham talked with an expert
about one such term heard
a lot these days:
Lester Graham: I got to thinking about that when I heard Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma call for “sound science” at a recent subcommittee hearing, and then moments later senator David Vitter repeated that call for “sound Science.”
Vitter: “I think the answer is exactly what senator Inhofe and others have been saying—“sound science” complete focus on, complete reliance, on sound science above all else.”
Graham: So sound science, I think most of us think that means well researched, unbiased, verifiable, science. Joining us now, is Oliver Houck, he is a professor of law at Tulane University. So professor, what’s that term—sound science—mean to members of congress?
Oliver Houck: It means whatever they want it to mean. The first thing you have to understand is sound science is not a scientific term at all. It has no scientific definition. It’s like saying sound congressman or sound senator. It’s in the eye of the beholder. In the legal world, everyone knows what sound science is—it’s the science that supports your client’s position, and bad science is the science that’s on the other side. So, in the real world, it’s a very cynical term, and it’s very cynically used. That isn’t to say there isn’t junk science, but in the political world, this is a political term. Frank Lutz, the republican strategist in the early 2000’s sent a very well-known memorandum out to all republican congressman and senators saying that the coming issue was climate change, and the world consensus that this was urgent and something had to be done was overwhelming and irresistible. The only loophole—the only point of attack would be to attack the science. And so they did, with great success.
Graham: Has this term ‘Sound Science’ always been attached to this political baggage?
Houck: Yes it has, but it’s come in different forms, and it’s not always been purely environmental. The term was actually invented by Phillip Morris, and the tobacco institute back in the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s when the tobacco wars were going on and the industry was denying any addictive effects and any carcinogenic effects. And so Phillip Morris had the audacity in 1992 to set up something called the “advancement of sound science committee” and that was, of course, its lobby to pick apart scientists whose findings were otherwise. While of course Phillip Morris buried all findings of the same effects, and burying that ultimately lead to civil suits and brought it down—but only a peg. This has always been the blast back—if you can stop this thing at the beach by discrediting the science, you don’t have to deal with any regulatory or any other requirements. So-
Graham: So calling for sound science is a delay tactic.
Houck: oh, clearly so, clearly so. And they know it, and they know it.
Graham: Oliver Houck is a professor of environmental law at Tulane University in New Orleans, and author of the book Taking Back Eden: Eight Environmental Cases that Changed the World. Thanks very much.
Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, Collin C. Peterson from Minnesota (Photo courtesy of the House Committee on Agriculture)
A dispute about bio-fuels could put passage of a climate change bill at risk. Lester Graham reports corn ethanol is at the center of a dispute among some Democrats:
Transcript
A dispute about bio-fuels could put passage of a climate change bill at risk. Lester Graham reports corn ethanol is at the center of a dispute among some Democrats:
Conventional wisdom in Washington these days is: it’s not a good idea to use food for fuel, so corn ethanol should be replaced by cellulosic ethanol – made from crops such as switchgrass.
The chairman of the Ag Committee, Democrat Collin Peterson, believes the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress are putting rules and legislation in place to put corn ethanol at a disadvantage to cellulosic ethanol.
He says they’re forcing changes on corn ethanol makers and farmers that could ruin the future of the bio-fuels industry.
“They are setting this up to guarantee there will never be second-generation ethanol or bio-diesel.”
Congressman Peterson says the Climate Change bill is just more of the same. He says he won’t vote for it and he doesn’t think any of the 46 members of the House Agriculture committee will either.
Senator John A. Barrasso from Wyoming (Photo courtesy of the United States Congress)
Conservative bloggers, radio talk show hosts, and even Republican leaders are making a big deal about a White House memo. Lester Graham reports the White House seems surprised by the furor:
Transcript
Conservative bloggers, radio talk show hosts, and even Republican leaders are making a big deal about a White House memo. Lester Graham reports the White House seems surprised by the furor:
During a hearing Republican Senator John Barrasso waved around a memo he said was proof the Obama administration was moving ahead with the regulation of global warming gases without having the science to back it up.
“It’s here, nine pages. This is a smoking gun, saying that your findings are political not scientifica (sic) — not scientific.”
The memo was part of a larger document from the White House Office of Management and Budget.
It’s routine to get opinions about potential regulations from different agencies.
We called the Office of Management and Budget repeatedly, asking which agency wrote the unsigned memo. No one would go on tape, but instead referred us to their blog – which basically said: this opinion is not a big deal; the EPA is operating under the law, and the science backs up any potential regulation of greenhouse gases.
Democrats in the Senate are talking about climate change policy. (Photo courtesy of NASA)
Democrats in the US Senate are talking about climate change legislation again. But its fate is uncertain. Tamara Keith reports from Washington:
Transcript
Democrats in the US Senate are talking about climate change legislation again. But it’s fate is uncertain. Tamara Keith reports from Washington:
Barbara Boxer is the senator who chairs the Environment and Public Works committee. The committee will be putting together the climate change legislation. A climate bill didn’t get anywhere last year in the senate, but Boxer says things have changed since then.
“A lot of those who voted against us are no longer here.”
But what’s not changed is the argument over how sweeping controls on carbon emissions could affect the economy. Those opposed call climate legislation a job-killer. Steve Cochran with the Environmental Defense Fund argues the opposite.
“If those of us who want to see strong climate policy are effective and articulate and persuasive on the jobs argument then I think we can actually get this done. And if we’re not I don’t think we will.”
Boxer said she didn’t know when the full senate would take up the legislation.
George W. Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. (White House photo by Chris Greenberg)
The energy bill signed by President Bush has a little bit of something to make almost
everyone happy. Lester Graham reports on some of the highlights:
Transcript
The energy bill signed by President Bush has a little bit of something to make almost
everyone happy. Lester Graham reports on some of the highlights:
The Energy Independence and Security Act is massive, but it can be boiled down to
just a few numbers. First, 35 miles per gallon by 2020… That’s when automakers
have to increase the fleet average by ten miles per gallon.
Second, 36 billion gallons by 2022. That’s when ethanol producers have to increase
production by a factor of five. And two-thirds has to come from sources other than
corn.
And these numbers – 100 watts, 60 watts – those kinds of incandescent lightbulbs
are to be phased out, replaced by more energy efficient lighting.
Most environmental groups can find something to like in the bill. Farmers like it for
the ethanol mandates. And big oil companies like the Act for what’s not in it:
billions of dollars of proposed taxes blocked by Republicans in the Senate.
President George W. Bush’s recent State of the Union address was noted for not saying much about the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
President George W. Bush’s recent State of the Union address was noted for not saying much
about the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
After President Bush’s speech, environmental groups and others noticed the President barely
made a reference to the environment. Wayne Fields is a professor at Washington University who
studies State of the Union speeches. He says that’s not typical.
“Well, especially in the last 30 years, issues of air quality, water quality have been very high in
the State of the Union agendas for both parties.
Fields says since the State of the Union speech highlights a president’s accomplishments and
plans, no mention of the environment says a lot about President Bush’s priorities.
“The fact that it wasn’t there suggests that it’s not an issue that he thinks is terribly important to
his constituency nor terribly important to his reelection since this is an election year speech.”
The Democrats’ response to the President’s State of the Union address also failed to mention the
environment.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
The recent elections mean that there’s a power shift in the region. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports that a group made up of Great Lakes states governors will change dramatically:
Transcript
The recent elections mean that there’s a power shift in the region. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports that a group made up of Great Lakes states
governors will change dramatically:
Of the eight Great Lakes states, five of them have elected new governors. And most of
the new governors are from a different party than their predecessor.
“Actually, this is the largest turnover in one election cycle that the Council’s had in its
twenty-year history. ”
That’s Maggie Grant with the Council of Great Lakes Governors. The council deals with
issues surrounding the Great Lakes and trade in the region.
“We don’t see major policy shift, although, we look forward to the new energy and ideas
of our governors that they bring to the table.”
Coming to the table are a lot more Democrats. Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and
Pennsylvania all elected Democrats to replace their Republican governors. Grant says
party affiliation isn’t that important to the group – fighting for the Great Lakes region is.
For the Great Lakes Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
Seven of the eight Great Lakes states have governor’s races next month. One analyst says the results of those elections could affect how well the states work together on the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
Seven of the eight Great Lakes states have Governor’s races this month. One analyst says
the results of those elections could affect how well the states work together on the
environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports.
There will be at least four new governors in the Great lakes region, due to incumbents
stepping down. Political scientists say a fifth incumbent may be voted out of office.
Barry Rabe is a professor of environmental policy and public policy at the University of
Michigan. He says the eight governors have traditionally agreed on some issues like
diversion of water. But Rabe says the upcoming elections could affect more contentious
issues.
“I think where other challenges emerge are on issues like air pollution – where you
literally may have prevailing wind patterns so that say, the pollutants that begin in Illinois
may wind up in Michigan and other states – and how states could work cooperatively to
resolve those issues.”
Rabe also says more of the Great Lakes governors may soon have to work together on
water quality and global warming. Democrats hope to gain several governor’s seats in the
region. But Rabe says for cooperation purposes, personality may be more important than
party label.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.
Liberals often claim the environment as an issue that gives them leverage over conservatives, but Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Mike VanBuren says conservatism should equally embrace environmental protection as a fundamental part of its vision for America:
Transcript
Liberals often claim the environment as an issue that gives them leverage over conservatives. But Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Mike VanBuren says conservatism should equally embrace environmental protection as a fundamental part of its vision for America.
Rush Limbaugh calls me an “environmental whacko.” I’m one of those people who believe in saving energy, preserving wild areas, and treating the earth as a finite resource that should be handled with care. I get alarmed when I hear about air pollution, food contamination, and oil drilling under the Great Lakes.
Rush seems to hate this. He likens me to a nazi extremist. He says I don’t understand the world’s bounty, or the simple principle of supply and demand. Worse yet, he’s convinced I’m one of those “whining liberals” who use environmental scare-tactics to push big government.
The funny thing is, when it comes to most social issues, I’m a fairly conservative guy. There are few so-called “liberal” ideas that I support. Yet, I often find myself walking hand-in-hand with left-leaning Democrats in battles to protect our natural heritage.
I wonder why that is. Shouldn’t Republicans join the fight? After all, there are few things more “conservative” than trying to conserve our resources for future generations.
I know there are some members of the so-called “political right wing” – whatever that is – who feel as I do. REP-America, for example, is a national grassroots organization that claims to be “the environmental conscience of the Grand Old Party.” Members believe we can preserve our environment – and boost our economy at the same time.
But many Republican leaders don’t seem to be listening. They want to scrap laws that have cleaned up air and water, preserved natural areas, and prevented the extinction of native species. What’s that all about?
Anybody with the smarts to get elected ought to be able to see that more – not less – needs to be done. While significant environmental progress has been made during the past few decades, we can still benefit from cleaner air, water, soil and food supplies. And reducing wasteful consumption today will bring greater benefits tomorrow, including greater economic performance?
You’d think more conservatives would be leading the way to safeguard these natural resources – rather than fighting against the liberals who are. If ever there was a bipartisan issue, this is it. Few modern social concerns are as vital to our health, recreation and economic prosperity.
Human progress should not be measured solely on the basis of dollars and development, but also on what we have preserved and protected.
Republican Theodore Roosevelt called conservation “a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of ensuring safety and continuance of the nation.”
Roosevelt, of course, may have been the first “environmental whacko” to be elected President of the United States. Maybe it’s time for another one – along with several others at all levels of government.
And there’s no good reason they couldn’t be conservatives.
Senator Lindsey Graham has walked out on the bill– saying he can’t go forward because the Democratic leadership is now playing politics with immigration policy.(Photo courtesy of the US Senate)
