There’s an old saying my granddad was fond of. “Dave,” he’d say, rocking his chair, puffing his pipe, squinting into the distance, “don’t be such an a**hole.”
Wise words. On reflection, my post about Tom Friedman’s column ended up unnecessarily heated and confrontational, even insulting. I stand by my take on the column, but Friedman is a sharp guy who’s done yeoman’s work legitimizing green issues (his book was great). He’s pursuing goals we share. If he’s doing so in a way that I find politically counterproductive in this case, he deserves to be addressed in a spirit of fraternity, not ... blogginess. (Not for the first time I rue the fact that 95 percent of my published work consists of hastily written first drafts.)
It’s worth the time to explain, to Friedman and the wider world, why I and many others are so frustrated right now. Interestingly, reaction to my post was sharply split. From insiders—Congressional aides, legislative liaisons, folks inside the process—the reaction was “right on!” From readers and semi-engaged outside observers, the reaction was a bemused, “why so angry? He seems sensible to me.” (One exception: Kevin Drum, who gets it.)
What explains this dissonance? Why are people immersed in this stuff so frustrated, to the point that a simple op-ed column makes them want to chew their own faces off? Why so angry?
The moment
To understand the anger it helps to imagine, for a moment, that you are Rep. Ed Markey.
During the Clinton administration your green ambitions were thwarted by a Republican Congress. Then came six long years of ignorance and inaction under unified Republican rule, even as the science of climate change grew ever more dire and urgent. Finally, in 2006, your party regained Congress. Energy and climate were top priorities of your new Speaker, and she put you in charge of a special committee designed to publicize expert testimony, shift public opinion, shift business and elite opinion, and educate other members. All the learning, research, and planning greens had done underground for over a decade surfaced, and an honest-to-god process of moving toward legislation began. At last!
Then in 2008, history happened. A transformational candidate was elected president. Your majority increased in Congress. After a bruising battle, fellow green and top-notch legislator Henry Waxman was put in charge of the Energy & Commerce Committee, and you were placed atop the subcommittee on energy. Together, the two of you felt out the new landscape, talked with various lawmakers and members of the business community about what they’d need in exchange for their support, talked with minority groups and social justice groups and green groups and talked and talked and talked. A delicate dance, on a complex problem, with multiple competing interest groups, inched slowly forward.
Finally, after years of stifling inaction, you construct what you think is the strongest possible bill that can garner enough support to pass. Along with your Congressional leadership, you realize that this is the moment: a popular president in his first year, weakened opposition, and unprecedented public awareness.
It could all go away. If the economy worsens, Dems could get booted out in the mid-terms. Obama could lose in 2012. Energy and climate could fade from public consciousness as short-term suffering increases. Climate science makes clear that the time for efficacious action is growing perilously short. A looming international meeting in Copenhagen represents what may be the last real chance to shift the global trajectory.
This is the moment. You may not have a moment like it again any time soon. So you go big, piling all your energy/climate ambitions in to One Big Bill. It’s got historic changes in energy, energy efficiency, and the grid, not to mention the carbon cap and trade system that greens have been discussing for decades. You realize the cap-and-trade stuff is wonky and nobody outside DC understands or much cares about it, so you lead with the energy/jobs/economy stuff, which polls through the roof.
Finally. It’s here. The real fight begins! Time for everyone to call their armies and start marching! This is what everyone’s been waiting for! Right?
The Republicans
Nobody told Republicans that history happened. Despite all the talk about bipartisanship and cooperation from Obama, Congressional Republicans quickly made it clear that there would be no cooperation. No Republican votes for the White House agenda. Not even from Republicans in districts and states that Obama won by a hefty margin. It was going to be pure, uncut, implacable opposition. Even the hesitant steps some Republicans had taken toward sanity on climate (including John McCain) were erased, and House Republicans got back in the game of disputing the very existence of climate change. Republicans in both houses immediately attacked any effort to address climate as an economy-destroying tax.
The Democrats
Nobody told “moderate” Senate Democrats that history had happened. They immediately set themselves up as gatekeepers of Obama’s agenda, trimming billions (and millions of jobs) out of the stimulus bill. They voted to foreclose the option of passing the energy/climate bill as part of budget reconciliation (which requires only a 51-vote majority, not the 60 required to overcome a Republican filibuster). They criticized the decision to package energy and climate together, jealous of their jurisdictional prerogatives. They talked incessantly about the dangers of reducing carbon emissions to taxpayers in their states, and said nothing about tax rebates, energy efficiency, or the danger of climate change.
Obama’s team
Obama’s great messaging on green stuff during the campaign went out the window as his administration turned its focus to the banking crisis. Energy Secretary Steven Chu was out telling reporters that fundamental technological breakthroughs would be required before climate could be solved, and that the administration was leery to push a carbon cap during a recession (which implicitly concedes that it’s a blow to the economy, not the economic renewal Obama discussed on the trail). At the first hint of pushback from big business, Obama and science adviser John Holdren backed off on the administration’s pledge to auction 100 percent of the pollution permits under a cap, a clear social and economic justice concession. Holdren talked about how the administration was taking the hail-mary pass of geoengineering seriously. Obama and his team tripped over themselves to talk about how hard climate policy is and how willing to compromise they are.
The public
Obama and the Dems ran on a crystal clear platform of three priorities: energy, health care, and Iraq. Energy was, as Obama repeated several times, the first priority. Green is all the hype everywhere. So you might think that the public would be engaged in this push.
But polls find public interest as low as ever, and opinion about climate and energy policy as inchoate and incoherent as ever. There are no rallies. There are no emails and letters and phone calls streaming into Congressional offices. There is no real social movement behind energy/climate action. There’s nothing to push a recalcitrant member of Congress in the right direction.
The media and opinion leaders
This brings us, finally, to the group of people that has some ability to rally public action, to pressure Congress, to reinforce positive messages, and to educate a body politic that remains abysmally ignorant about both the problem and the range of possible solutions.
But even here, there’s no support. Congressional Dems put forward a bill that is fronted by historic, job-creating, national security-enhancing action on energy, efficiency, and the national grid. What does the media do? Even the progressive media? Cover it as a “cap-and-trade bill.” If you hadn’t read the bill itself, you’d have trouble telling from the media coverage that there were other provisions in it.
Do green journalists and bloggers and activists focus on the economy-reviving aspects of the bill? No. Almost more than the mainstream media, they obsess over the wonkiest, least popular aspect: carbon pricing. Even there, it is to bash cap-and-trade —a consensus policy position a decade in the making—in favor of a carbon tax. A huge new tax! This new progressive love of the tax code is bolstered by a bizarre mythology wherein a tax is simpler, and more popular, and more authentic, and downright heroic. Progressives bash Congressional Dems as greedy sell-outs and cap-and-trade as some kind of Wall Street-driven monstrosity. They focus attention on other bills that have zero chance of passing. They advocate scrapping a carefully wrought compromise built over four years by some of Congress’s savviest operators and replacing it with high taxes, on the premise that such a radical, disruptive strategy is better politics. Because everyone in America thinks like affluent, white, hyper-educated internet wonks, right?
In other words, when a serious climate bill is finally in play, its worst enemy turns out to be the left.
After decades of inaction, something is finally underway and nobody is fighting for it. Republicans are undermining it. Democrats are undermining it. Greens are undermining it. The public doesn’t give a damn. Imagine you are Markey. Imagine how you’re feeling.
Friedman
This, then, is the backdrop from which Friedman’s column emerged. The only sensibly green opinion leader with the reach and influence to clear up some of these confusions, focus some of this diffuse energy, pull the message back to stronger ground ... does the exact, diametrical opposite: reinforces the worst messages, ignores the non-carbon parts of the bill, disses the people pushing the bill, and advocates for some other bill that has no chance of passing. It’s all the worst tendencies and messages, distilled to their essence, at the worst possible moment.
I wish Friedman had reached out to me, or Joe Romm, or someone on Markey’s staff. Any of us would be willing, nay, desperate to help.
Regardless, my tone was unnecessarily pissy. When the battle to pass energy/climate is joined in earnest, later this year, Friedman will fight on the side of the angels. And it’s a good thing. They’ll need all the help they can get.
What to make of the new climate poll
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Comments
View as Threaded
Karl Posted 5:14 pm
10 Apr 2009
So I'd say your frustration was warranted.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:29 pm
10 Apr 2009
Permalink
A Siegel Posted 7:59 pm
10 Apr 2009
Appreciated the rant ... and the quite thoughtful 'placing it in context' apology. 1. At least some of the critiquing (Romm & myself included) has given good grades re energy and energy efficiency elements of the bill, while raising questions about the climate section. 2. This is a "discussion draft" ... discussion not allowed? Only cheerleading?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:34 pm
10 Apr 2009
Our only hope to save the climate now is a green energy economic boom. that looks likely. Tom amd David fiddling back and forth really won't make much difference. mass production and mass adoption of renewable energy could make the difference. Economic confidence is returning, now we need investment in all the well identified solutions. A tempest in a teapot while the polar ice caps melt? Not very effective.
http://twitter.com/amazingdrx
Permalink
Rip Van Winkle Posted 9:51 pm
10 Apr 2009
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:18 am
11 Apr 2009
Permalink
Ken Johnson Posted 1:18 am
11 Apr 2009
Friedman said cap-and-trade amounts to a tax. So what? Why is that such a bad thing? Can you identify specifically what characteristic of a tax makes it so much more politically reprehensible than cap-and-trade? I'm not suggesting that it isn't, I'm just questioning whether you can explain why it is. Taxes and cap-and-trade both put a price on emissions. With a tax, you know what the price is up front. With cap-and-trade "The price is unknowable in advance, since no one knows what it will end up costing to achieve the cap targets." So can you explain why it is that politicians and industry prefer cap-and-trade to a tax?
Permalink
Billhook Posted 3:08 am
11 Apr 2009
Permalink
Billhook Posted 3:10 am
11 Apr 2009
Permalink
Smoked_Galaxy Posted 5:43 am
11 Apr 2009
It sounds like a fairly good bill to me, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed by the media and by Americans. Isn't Friedman just promoting that discussion? If it weren't for a few columns like this, most Americans would remain oblivious that there's a 500+ page energy/efficiency/cap & trade bill being discussed right now. I'd be worried if there was a unified voice out there speaking for/about this bill.
It would be brilliant for a prominent DoD figure to become a primary spokesperson for Obama's plans. "Industry" and "Republicans" are yet to learn how to ignore and/or fault the DoD.
My beef with Friedman's article is my beef with most of the messengers. It's awfully hard to get the average American to care when you continue to talk about climate change as distant, far-off impacts. People would be willing to pay additional taxes (or whatever term you want to give any implemented scheme) for things that are happening NOW. Open a newsaper, or the front page of Grist...impacts are today AND tomorrow. And not just in distant places like the Arctic, but all around us. Make the impacts real to people, and suddenly they'll care. Combine a discussion of policy strategy with REAL impacts, and he would have had a damn good column, rather than one we just argue the merits of. But, we can't always get what we want, so....
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:16 am
11 Apr 2009
However, of course, I have to disagree with you about something -- the use of the word "green left". I'm not sure what that is (maybe another apology/context post?). Now, there is a "left", however broadly that might be defined. My experience is that people outside of the envrionmental movment who are in progressive, or even "left" wingers, don't like cap-and-trade. They don't understand why the environmental community is excited about the concept. maybe I'm talking about what you would call the "far left", or whatever word you want to use, but nobody in "there" would call Friedman a leftist, and I don't know if Friedman would call himself that either, he's radically centrist, if I'm not mistaken.The obvious alternative to carbon pricing is direct government investment/spending. The environmental community, in general, does not seem to take this route seriously, possibly as a result of being bludgeoned by conservatives for decades, but the really unfortunate consequence of this is that public transit goes off the radar because the government has to invest something to make trains work. I know there is plenty of mentions of transit, but it's obviously not a major plankof the platform.
And I repeat my request -- please point to your/grist links that go into detail about the otheer parts of the bill -- I think even the bill's defenders seem to be obsessed with carbon pricing, and don't discuss the other parts. Anyway, get mad more often.
Permalink
maryalecia Posted 10:40 am
11 Apr 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:47 am
11 Apr 2009
Permalink
ids Posted 12:01 pm
11 Apr 2009
"If only Friedman reached out to me or Romm" - it's clear the American green al-Qa'ida as represented by those like Grist doing Wash will strive for continued corporatism and catastrophe evidenced in support for climate bills now circulating the capitol.
The drama of trying to get Friedman's attention after he gave Romm such a big plug is evident, whether unconcious jealousy and ego, or purposeful. Your landscape of politics is divorced from the landscape of the environment, and that is what gristwash should apologize for.
Permalink
t jones Posted 12:44 pm
11 Apr 2009
i humble myself so that i may submit my lowly response to your epic, prolific blogging.
sir roberts, i address you as mere commoner among the ranks of the "abysmally ignorant", so please forgive my apparent audacity. although i am wholly confident that you are most knowledgeable of all the intricate complexities concerning long-term climate patterns, as well as your certain solutions to our self-made crisis, i reserve a fraction of doubt for the idea that "your" party has genuine concern for the polar bear dance floor.
however deep your faith in man-made climate change may be, my belief in an individual's rights will persistently triumph.
trevor
northwest texas
p.s. - i use enormous diesel engines to dramatically shape land for consumption and desirable development. does that bother you?
Permalink
ids Posted 12:59 pm
11 Apr 2009
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 7:53 pm
11 Apr 2009
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 12:21 am
12 Apr 2009
Permalink
Christopher S. Johnson Posted 2:00 pm
12 Apr 2009
Permalink
coffeeclimber Posted 4:39 pm
12 Apr 2009
Permalink
ids Posted 8:27 am
13 Apr 2009
I am not pure, it's obvious you're so mature and intelligent on the issues there's no telling you anything, I love humanity, maybe too much, I'm reacting to future crimes, I've never read DOE, maybe you can summarize it for me.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 2:00 am
14 Apr 2009
Uh, what other stuff?
As a member of the completely disorganized "green left" that busted our butts to get Obama elected I sure would like to know when some sort of green jobs are going to arrive in my town. What's going to happen to replace all the wildly inefficient oil-burning heaters, the 30 year old air conditioners and refrigerators, the single pane, aluminum-framed windows that suck heat out of houses and the black roofs in southern climates that require coal plants to spew forth mightily on hot afternoons to keep our houses chilly.
I go down to the local train station and the train service is poorer than what was available in 1920. GM isn't making electric cars or even hybrids that are worth a damn until sometime in the unlikely future. The big stores are all at one end of town and the houses are at the other end and a lousy bus system is all we're going to get to connect the two. When I get to the store everything is made from corn, oil or natural gas except the kosher salt.
This climate bill throws a rack of ribs to every dog in Washington but from my reading of the press we aren't going to fund much in the way of actual energy generation or conservation equipment due to this bill. If we aren't doing the installs we aren't doing anything that's worth doing. Research doesn't stop the coal trains unless the equipment gets installed.Since I only read english and not Washington double-speak I can't figure out how much of this bill is committed to installing solar panels, wind turbines, transmission lines, geothermal power and conservation retrofits. I see a big smokescreen disguised as an actual attempt to address climate change. The apology was nice but I'm still thinking Freidman has a closer bead to the wishes of the american public. We're not demanding support because we don't like the bill before us.
Permalink