You could make a pretty simple argument that the fate of the world rests with the United States Senate Republicans:
1. It takes 60 votes to pass a climate bill in the U.S. Senate (assuming it won’t be done through budget reconciliation). Getting the votes of all 58 Democrats and two Independents will be just plain tough, as they might say in the Blue Dog states.
2. It takes 67 Senate votes to ratify an international climate treaty. That requires Republican votes.
3. The international community isn’t likely to pass a climate treaty without the cooperation of the United States.
4. The world needs the Senate Republicans.
The hope is that enough of the most (relatively) independent-minded ones can be peeled away from the obstructionist line and cajoled into supporting a first-step climate bill. That’s why it’s problematic that John McCain (R-Arizona) is acting like anything but a maverick on the issue.
There’s been some interesting reporting on the McCain front today.
Before his most recent presidential run, McCain had long been a leader on taking climate change seriously and doing something about it. He and Joe Lieberman authored the first major climate bill in the Senate in 2003 and introduced new versions in 2005 and 2007.
POLITICO summarizes his about-face:
Now the Arizona Republican is more likely to repeat GOP talking points on cap and trade than to help usher the bill through the thorny politics of the Senate.
McCain refers to the bill as “cap and tax,” calls the climate legislation that passed the House in June “a 1,400-page monstrosity” and dismisses a cap-and-trade proposal included in the White House budget as “a government slush fund.”
The shift even has former McCain aids “mystified.” Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), the only Senate Republican who’s shown real interest this fall in working with Democrats to craft a climate bill, tells POLITICO, “I wouldn’t be here on this issue without him … He’s the guy that introduced me to the climate problem.”
More bad news: McCain is vulnerable to a primary challenge from the right, according to a new Rasmussen poll. Matt Yglesias concludes:
This seems like pretty much terrible news for the world. The most likely path between Point A and Senate passage of a reasonable climate bill is for McCain to rediscover his interest in the issue. But that’s not the sort of thing a Senator worried about a right-wing primary challenge is likely to do.
For more on the way it used to be: Grist’s interview and overview of McCain’s environmental record from last year’s campaign show how he’s changed his position on a climate plan.
And don’t expect the Republican dynamic to change soon, according to Greenwire. Reporter Alex Kaplun takes a look at upcoming primaries and finds candidates courting the Republican base by taking hard-line positions against a climate bill. His sources say “the general trajectory of the Republican Party as whole for the foreseeable future will be toward opposition of the climate bill.”
All this still amounts to reading tea leaves on where McCain will be if the Senate ever gets around to voting on a climate bill. Maybe he’s still working through some post-election blues. Maybe, over time, he’ll be drawn to playing a constructive role again.
What are the chances of a cap-and-trade system being established in the U.S. this year?
U.N. climate chief raises the temperature with racy novel
Comments
View as Flat
SusanKraemer Posted 5:38 pm
20 Nov 2009
http://www.matternetwork.com/2008/9/mccains-50-votes-against-clean.cfm
The only 4 Repub votes in the recent years that have been pro clean energy are Collins, Snowe, Smith (voted out, replaced with a Democrat - Oregan) and Coleman (voted out - replaced by Franken; MN)
So, really, we have only 2 Republican votes; Collins and Snowe. I doubt Graham will stick around. He's never voted with us before. And we have lost Landrieu and Nelson from the D side on clean energy votes.
So total we are about 58 for Copenhagen.
I wish George Soros would pay a few billion to about 10 Senators in return for their votes.
Permalink
LDAV Posted 7:58 am
21 Nov 2009
Permalink
jestbill Posted 4:55 pm
21 Nov 2009
Rather than paying for votes, I think both Cap & Trade and Health Care Reform should fail on straight party line votes.
Then Soros can spend his money primary-ing the anti-reality Congressmen.
Between the teabaggers nominating Republican idealogues who will lose in the general elections and Progressive prodding actual Democrats (not DINOS) we may eventually reach a point where the glass is half full.
Permalink
randino Posted 8:35 am
22 Nov 2009
The climate crisis neatly dove tails into a crisis in American society. A crisis that too few recognize. We would prefer to paint a pretty partisan picture of obstructionist Republicans, and cowardly Democrats. If only that was the real problem! It would much easier than to take a look at a far more disturbing reality. Our problems are built into the very design of our constitution. We are dysfunctional by design. American society is about as capable of doing what it needs to do to survive the 21rst century as a three year old is capable of comprehending quantum physics. We are seeing a classic example of a society that has reached a dead end, whose previous successes has set it up for the fall. The kicker is that it can take the rest of humanity down with it.
I have no idea what is going to blow this log jam, but on the climate issue as well as a lot of other items on America's "must do" list, let us hope that whatever it is, it hurries up.
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
Tinman Posted 11:20 am
23 Nov 2009
Permalink
jestbill Posted 5:56 pm
26 Nov 2009
Suppose the next election goes against them (I know, it would be unexpected) and they decide to do away with the filibuster?
Permalink
SusanKraemer Posted 9:47 am
22 Nov 2009
"We are dysfunctional by design. American society is about as capable of doing what it needs to do to survive the 21rst century as a three year old is capable of comprehending quantum physics".
Back then it seemed fair and reasonable, but as populations have concentrated in technologically developed states (which require college education to make a living in), now it gives some very unbalanced representation to those left behind in states with populations under 5,000 and little exposure to any media other than Fox and Rush.
Permalink
randino Posted 5:01 pm
23 Nov 2009
Randy Cunningham
Permalink