Al's well that ends well

Franken win means another likely Senate vote for climate action 15

Al FrankenPhoto: Al Franken for SenateLooks like Al Franken may, at last, be sworn in as the newest senator from Minnesota, after more than seven months of litigation. The Minnesota State Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Democrat Franken narrowly won the race over incumbent Republican Norm Coleman back in November; and news breaking on the wires now says Coleman will abide by the ruling.

Grist talked with Franken during the campaign last summer. Here are a few excerpts, and you can read the whole interview.

On capping emissions:

The 111th Congress will need to accelerate the progress on clean energy policies, by adopting legislation to cap and mandate reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions. An average reduction of 2 percent each year would achieve the goal of an 80 percent total reduction by 2050. To reach an 80 percent reduction by 2050, permits to emit carbon should be auctioned—not given away. Auctioning off permits is the most effective way to cut emissions, drive investors to clean energy options, and push the market to demand least-cost alternatives such as efficiency.

On a global climate treaty:

We can start by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. One of the dumbest things that President Bush said—and that’s a high bar—is that Kyoto would cripple the U.S. economy. I think the opposite is true. A commitment to reducing emissions will spur the manufacturing sector to produce the necessary technologies. A recent study finds that creating the renewable energy capacity to achieve such an emission reduction would create over 18,000 jobs in Minnesota alone. We need a new global agreement on emissions and climate change and we need to engage the entire world. The only way that countries like China and India are going to come to the table on an agreement is if the United States does it first. We must return to the days when we were a shining example for the rest of the world.

Does this mean Franken would vote for a Waxman-Markey-like bill? It’s probably a safe bet, yes, but only time will tell.

Read the whole interview.

Kate Sheppard is Grist’s political reporter.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Decker's avatar

    Decker Posted 4:35 am
    01 Jul 2009

    Good luck keeping this Kook under control. What's with the Minnesotans, wasn't Jesse Ventura bad enough?

    Permalink

  2. veritone Posted 6:09 am
    01 Jul 2009

    That "Kook" was also a serious math jock at Harvard and will make a formidable Senator. And as for comedy, I recommend you find the YouTube clip of British Parlimentarian Galloway tearing strips our of the now defeated Norm Coleman over Iraq. Now that's truly funny to behold.

    Permalink

  3. Oneworld Posted 6:43 am
    01 Jul 2009

    Kind of a non-story story here.  Norm Coleman was also very much a "likely Senate vote for climate action".  As for the kook/non-kook debate, have fun hashing that one out.

    Permalink

  4. drd4U Posted 8:16 am
    01 Jul 2009

    Is the real question the person, the position, or...the power?  This provides a certain faction some vocals that weren't there prior to this election- my question is, are we seeing behind this election to the real issue being outed, or, are we asleep at the wheel, yet again vis-a-vis WOMD?  Hey...it's just a question...

    Permalink

  5. steve7138 Posted 2:09 pm
    01 Jul 2009

    Find it interesting that Democratic Sen. Menendez of New Jersey praised the new presence of Mr. Franken [from a top-ranked environmental quality state: Minnesota] on The ED Show, yet Menendez and Democratic Sen. Lautenberg voted like Deep South Republicans on providing major federal assistance to improve Jersey's ecological status.Anyone traveling across Jersey's cities [especially those closest to NYC] can see heavy piles of rotting trash and litter along streets, sidewalks and parks--scenes expected to be found more from the third-world than in our "first-world" nation.Maybe Al can teach these two (and numeorus state, county and township) "public servants" a thing or two, to get their filthy, inhumane environmental conditions across the so-called "Garden State" in first-nation order by voting for tougher federal cleanup mandates to states and localities.

    Permalink

  6. Tyler Durden Posted 2:32 pm
    01 Jul 2009

    "Does this mean Franken would vote for a Waxman-Markey-like bill?" is the wrong question.  What should be asked is, will he work to strengthen this bill that has been so weakened that it will probably create more harm than good in its present form?

    Permalink

  7. Oneworld Posted 6:00 pm
    01 Jul 2009

    Pushing to "strengthen" Waxman-Markey in the Senate, instead of supporting the bill's passage. That is probably the fastest way to cause another climate bill to fail in the Senate. And then big polluters can continue to pour all the CO2 they want in to the air for absolutely free. 

    Permalink

  8. Christopher S. Johnson's avatar

    Christopher S. Johnson Posted 7:33 pm
    01 Jul 2009

    ONE WORLD,False choice.  Its not an "or" question.  Its an "and " question.  Where is this body of knowledge that says it cant be done?  Nowhere.

    Permalink

  9. splashy's avatar

    splashy Posted 2:31 am
    02 Jul 2009

    As I see it, comedians are often more intelligent than other performers, because they have to get their timing, looks, and other things just right to pull it off. Comedy is hard, especially if it's not physical comedy.Franken will make a fine Senator. I'm hoping he will be able to actually pull things to the leftward side. He has the intelligence and ability to talk that will be needed.

    Permalink

  10. Global Changes Posted 4:36 am
    02 Jul 2009

    "We can start by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. One of the dumbest things
    that President Bush said—and that’s a high bar—is that Kyoto would
    cripple the U.S. economy. I think the opposite is true. A commitment to
    reducing emissions will spur the manufacturing sector to produce the
    necessary technologies. A recent study finds that creating the
    renewable energy capacity to achieve such an emission reduction would
    create over 18,000 jobs in Minnesota alone." I think we missed a huge opportunity to help prevent climate change as well as aid the failing US economy during the banking crisis. Instead of funding failed businesses we should have invested in new technologys that would create new jobs, and a sustainable future.

    Permalink

  11. Decker's avatar

    Decker Posted 5:07 am
    02 Jul 2009

    Mathematicians are often leaders in the realm of Kookdom.

    Permalink

  12. Tyler Durden Posted 12:45 am
    03 Jul 2009

    The bill as it stands will do nothing to solve the problem and will probably cause more harm than good.  Considering that, why do you support its passage so strongly that you oppose trying to strengthen it so it actually does more good than harm?

    Permalink

  13. Tyler Durden Posted 12:49 am
    03 Jul 2009

    "Instead of funding failed businesses we should have invested in new
    technologys that would create new jobs, and a sustainable future."
    Correct.  But that's what we get for electing a president who is more loyal to the crapitalist system than to the Earth or to the average person, regardless of how he portrays or thinks of himself.

    Permalink

  14. veritone Posted 2:48 am
    03 Jul 2009

    The bill, while flawed, is better than you seem to appreciate. It needs to be improved for sure, but you might want to read the National Wildlife Federation's Toolbox assessment of the bill before you throw the baby out with the bathwater. Here's a link to a PDF file of their report: http://online.nwf.org/site/DocServer/ACES_Toolbox_Analysis_by_NWF_Final_6-15-09.pdf?docID=9801As for Obama, Paul Street continues to do an admirable job revealing his devotion to capital and dedication to empire. Noam Chomsky praised a book Street published late last year and a second papaerback edition is coming soon. Capitalism isn't going away anytime soon and we must do, what we've always had to do: accomplish important things despite it.There are opportunities to build a strong grass roots movement around the challenges we face with climate and energy. I don't think we get very far, however, by endlessing dividing ourselves in the face of an increasingly unified opposition. Beyond disputing your assessment of the bill, I daresay we would agree on much. My question to you is how are you going to help build the grass roots political will to accomplish what must be achieved prior to the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen?

    Permalink

  15. Tyler Durden Posted 12:45 pm
    03 Jul 2009

    Veritone,I suggest you read the Center for Biological Diversity's analysis of the bill.  CBD is far more credible than the National Rifle Association, er, I mean Wildlife Federation, which is basically a hunters' group and is very conservative to the point of sometimes being on the wrong sides of issues.  If this bill were merely weak I would not oppose it.  But by amending the Clean Air Act to disallow EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources, by providing subsidies to coal companies, and by amending the Clean Air Act to allow building of coal plants without additional greenhouse emission reduction requirements, this bill will likely cause more greenhouse gas emissions, not less.  Moreover, the rather tepid goal of lowering the CO2 level to 350 parts per million will not be achieved by this bill.  Altogether, this bill is much worse than useless, it's very destructive.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement