The New Yorker: How the Senate and White House missed their best chance to deal with climate change

[bananas]

Joe Romm discusses the New Yorker article:

http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/03/the-new-yorker-as-the-world-burns-how-senate-white-house-missed-best-chance-climate-bill/

The New Yorker: How the Senate and White House missed their best chance to deal with climate change
October 3, 2010

<snip>

But the White House didn’t merely fail to try hard enough, fail to twist arms with Senate Democrats, fail to become engaged in the process enough to make a workable deal. It did some genuinely incompetent things, as the New Yorker explains:

On March 31st, Obama announced that large portions of U.S. waters in the Gulf of Mexico, the Arctic Ocean, and off the East Coast—from the mid-Atlantic to central Florida—would be newly available for oil and gas drilling. Two days later, he said, “It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced. Even during Katrina, the spills didn’t come from the oil rigs, they came from the refineries onshore.” From the outside, it looked as if the Obama Administration were coördinating closely with Democrats in the Senate. Republicans and the oil industry wanted more domestic drilling, and Obama had just given it to them. He seemed to be delivering on the grand bargain that his aides had talked about at the start of the Administration.

But there had been no communication with the senators actually writing the bill, and they felt betrayed. When Graham’s energy staffer learned of the announcement, the night before, he was “apoplectic,” according to a colleague. The group had dispensed with the idea of drilling in ANWR, but it was prepared to open up vast portions of the Gulf and the East Coast. Obama had now given away what the senators were planning to trade.

This was the third time that the White House had blundered. In February, the President’s budget proposal included $54.5 billion in new nuclear loan guarantees. Graham was also trying to use the promise of more loan guarantees to lure Republicans to the bill, but now the White House had simply handed the money over. Later that month, a group of eight moderate Democrats sent the E.P.A. a letter asking the agency to slow down its plans to regulate carbon, and the agency promised to delay any implementation until 2011. Again, that was a promise Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman wanted to negotiate with their colleagues. Obama had served the dessert before the children even promised to eat their spinach. Graham was the only Republican negotiating on the climate bill, and now he had virtually nothing left to take to his Republican colleagues.

Most of the people I know engaged in the day-to-day process of trying to get a climate bill were utterly baffled by the drilling and loan guarantee moves. The New Yorker piece is dead on here. Who is to blame? The piece continues:

<snip>

Earlier this year, Think Progress wrote about Obama's State of the Union Speech:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4248625

<snip>

Demoralizing His Supporters, Obama Calls Nukes, Coal, And Oil Drilling ‘Clean Energy Jobs’

President Barack Obama’s discussion of energy policy in his first State of the Union address pandered to corporate interests while demoralizing his progressive supporters. Though Obama made a strong case that real investments in clean energy such as solar technology, advanced batteries, high-speed rail and efficiency are critical to job creation and international competitiveness, he also offered sops to established corporate polluters. Republicans, who spent much of the address refusing to applaud Obama’s call for economic reforms, ecstatically applauded his praise of polluting industry. Embracing the language of the John McCain campaign, Obama described nuclear power, offshore oil and gas drilling, and coal as “clean energy jobs”:

<snip>

Although Republicans lauded Obama’s praise of heavily subsidized, polluting industries, they scoffed at energy legislation that would address climate change. Unlike Rudy Giuliani, Rep. David Dreier (R-CA), Mitt Romney, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Obama’s actual supporters were dismayed.

About 12,000 MoveOn members participated in a “live online dial-test of President Obama’s State of the Union speech.” While Obama’s mentions of clean energy innovation were some of his most popular moments, his paean to polluters was by far his worst moment with progressive activists:



Nukes, oil, and coal just aren’t clean. If Obama really is committed to “tough decisions,” he’ll take on the coal companies who are tearing up the Appalachian mountains, the nuclear companies who want taxpayers to take all the risk for accidents and waste, and the oil companies who are burning up the planet for their own profit. And that’s something the people who put him into office could support.

[kristopher]

1. But hey, that same dip probably gave the Repukes an erection

Obama has delivered a lot of short term juice into the renewable and energy efficiency effort, I have to give him credit for that. But you can count me as another who thinks the strategies pursued by the White House have beenvery poorly thought out.

To play Monday morning quarterback - I think a strong case for jobs could have been made by more effectively linking both energy efficiency/renewables and health care to that problem. One big deterrent to striking out on your own in a small business is the problem of health care - a public option would have made that issue disappear for entrepreneurs, and the energy efficiency/renewable landscape is a gold mine of opportunity for the same very small business sector.

A tripod is usually more stable than three pogo sticks.

[Nihil]

2. That would have been a good idea ...

> I think a strong case for jobs could have been made by more effectively linking
> both energy efficiency/renewables and health care to that problem. One big
> deterrent to striking out on your own in a small business is the problem of
> health care - a public option would have made that issue disappear for
> entrepreneurs, and the energy efficiency/renewable landscape is a gold mine
> of opportunity for the same very small business sector.

As you say, tying those together would have made a very strong, stable strategy.

Unfortunately, as the OP quote said,
>> the White House didn’t merely fail to try hard enough, fail to twist arms with
>> Senate Democrats, fail to become engaged in the process enough to make a workable
>> deal. It did some genuinely incompetent things

There comes a point where tolerance for "poorly thought out strategies" grows thin.

I'm thinking it was less of an "unfortunately missed" opportunity and more of
a "successfully avoided" one.

:shrug:


(Edited to clarify that my title was a response to your post, not your title!!)

[depakid]

3. "Obama had now given away what the senators were planning to trade."

An all too familiar pattern.

[pscot]

4. I'm having doubts

about the intelligence of the Prez and the people around him. We hired a guy with a compelling vita, but the mistakes just keep on coming.