Gore to testify to Congress 11

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   Steve Bloom Posted 10:42 am
   03 Feb 2007

   Huh?Dave, not only will the committee not have subpoena powers, it won't compete with existing committees on legislation:  "The Select Committee will not have legislative jurisdiction, but will help develop information that will help us give these issues the legislative priority they demand."  In other words, the entire point of the special committee is to spur the legislating committees to action.  But the article you linked to first says, "Dingell is furious, and it's said that he's working to force a vote on the question of whether his committee or Pelosi's new creation is going to have jurisdiction over global warming-related legislation."  Somebody seems to not have their facts straight.
   So now Dingell has moved to schedule a high-profile hearing and you say "With a stroke, he sucked the air out of Pelosi's special committee. It's a reminder whose turf is whose."  Aside from the use of kind-of-offensive Beltway insider lingo, which I would hope you could avoid in future, I just don't see that there's a basis for calling this some sort of win for Dingell.  It's possible that this hearing is part of an effort by Dingell, Gordon and Waxman to show that a special committee isn't necessary, but if so that too seems like a win for the forces of light.
   Special committee or not, the real rubber hitting the road will be relative to this further remark in Pelosi's announcement:  "I am asking the committees that have jurisdiction over energy, environment and technology policy to report legislation on these issues by June.  We hope to have legislation on global warming and energy independence through the committees by July 4th, so that this year, Independence Day is also `Energy Independence Day.'"      
   
   

   Permalink

2. 

   David Roberts Posted 11:15 am
   03 Feb 2007

   Mixed and clumsy metaphor, yes ...... but offensive? You've lost me there.
   I think at this point it's less about legislation than appearance. The creation of the special committee was a bid by Pelosi to show that she's in control and expects a little party discipline (in contrast to the independent committee fiefdoms of pre-Bush-era yore, the model that Dingell is used to). Holding a high-profile joint hearing with the most high-profile guest possible is Dingell's way of pulling the spotlight back in his direction and showing that he's still in control of the subjects in his committee's purview (which he views rather broadly).
   As you say, the rubber will hit the road when it comes to legislation. Pelosi's special committee can't pass any, it can just pressure Dingell. Perhaps Dingell's calling Gore so that he can have a public come-to-Jesus moment, and give Gore the credit rather than having it look like Pelosi bullied him into action. Or perhaps he'll do what he's threatened, which is hold hearings 'til the cows come home and take his sweet time putting a bill together. That will be a very public thumb in Pelosi's eye.
   Regardless, Pelosi and Dingell are in something of a dance now, and calling Gore means Dingell will appear large and in charge for the next few months. If Pelosi's smart, she'll give Dingell his ego victory in exchange for legislation. Should be interesting to see how it plays out.
   
   www.grist.org

   Permalink

3. 

   caniscandida Posted 5:04 pm
   03 Feb 2007

   "wise leadership"?Precisely because I doubt neither Al Gore's wisdom nor his leadership in educating us all on the climate crisis, I think it is fair to assume he has a very good understanding what his appearance before the committees of Dingell and his fellow Tennesseean Bart Gordon will mean for this Congress, and for the career of Nancy Pelosi.
   My guess is, the consequences of Pelosi's blunders will never be allowed to become too horribly serious, at least during this Congress, because of her historic position as the first woman Speaker.  And, for her part, we must assume she has enough political skills and charms to prevent the old male turf-guarders from putting her in a pumpkin shell.  Anyway, her losing involvement in the rivalry between John Murtha and Steny Hoyer for Majority Leader was a more serious blunder than this one, and she seems to have got past it well enough.
   Surely Al has nothing against Nancy?  How could he possibly mean to approach the House Democrats in any other way than assuming they are all either declared or probable allies?  Depend on it, he and Nancy will be arm-in-arm before long.
   The role of poor Ed Markey in all this is less clear.  His district is one of the wealthiest and most influential in Massachusetts.  It seems hard to believe that he could be allowed to take a fall.  It would not surprise me if Al does something gracious for him.  March 21 is nearly seven weeks away.
   On balance, I rather agree with Steve Bloom, that there is no need right now to make much of any apparent conflicts.
   
   Chickens are our cousins!
   
   So are other sensitive animals!
   
   Enough is enough!
   
   No more factory farms!

   Permalink

4. 

   Steven T Posted 2:32 am
   04 Feb 2007

   Other shoe?It's interesting to see how the  automotive trade press has lately been glorifying Dingell as the man who will save them from the ravages of the Democrats.  The rhetoric is unusually shrill even for the auto industry.
   Do not assume that ANY legislative victories will be easily won.    

   Permalink

5. 

   Benny Big Eye Posted 3:03 am
   04 Feb 2007

   Hard to say what will shake outHard to say what will shake out on the Hill. But it appears that we will be in for little movement on a bill that will actually do something about capping greenhouse gases. You can already hear the growing chorus on how capping will endanger the economy, so if Dems move to do just a little bit of a cap to get the ball rolling then the chorus will switch to the Roger Pielke Jr. theme of "well, this won't really have an effect on impacts from climate change."
   So it'll probably just end up with a lot of posturing until after 2008.
   
   Benny Big Eye

   Permalink

6. 

   Ana Unruh Cohen Posted 4:13 am
   04 Feb 2007

   Markey's influenceMr. Markey will remain the third most senior Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee even if he does chair the special committee. So even though the special committee won't be writing legislation, he will still be extremely influential on whatever climate and energy bills are drawn up in this Congress. He's smart and cares about the issue so don't count out his ability to influence. And yes I'm biased because he gave me my start in DC...

   Permalink

7. 

   amazingdrx Posted 4:34 am
   04 Feb 2007

   Pelosi rules!That is a great strategy to deal with the very powerful Dingell.  A vocal GHG climate disaster denier and CAFE standard obstructionist for the auto industry in his district.
   He claims it's a union issue, but that is pure BS.  US autoworkers won't have any jobs left if Detroit keeps on its gas guzzling course.
   Only plugin hybrids rolling off Detroit assembley lines can save union jobs.
   Pelosi is the third most powerful person on planet earth for a reason.  She ought to be the most powerful.  Pelosi for president?  Why not?
   Of course maybe she can do more for US where she is.  Great work Nancy!!
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

8. 

   Steve Bloom Posted 11:55 am
   04 Feb 2007

   Predicting the futureEr, amazingdrx, I'd look into Pelosi's record on development issues in her district before getting too excited about her.
   To add to Ana's point, the advantage of having a someone like Markey leading a non-legislative committee focused solely on GW is that it will be able to bring a lot more attention to the issue.  Of course it makes perfect sense to let the existing three committees at least hold an initial round of hearings before the new one gets going.
   On the issue of legislation, I suspect there will be several bills ultimately passed, one or more of which Republicans like McCain can sign onto but at least one of which will be veto bait (i.e., something for everyone except the troglodyte Republicans).  It'll be interesting to see this play out, but absent Katrina II this summer I'd be real surprised to see anything substantial get signed into law before Bush goes.  
   When I say substantial, I mean something that amounts to a meaningful piece of avoiding the 2C temperature increase that Jim Hansen has identified as amounting to dangerous climate change.  I think it's at best an open question as to whether the Dems will pass something substantial even if they control both branches starting in 2009.  

   Permalink

9. 

   David Roberts Posted 12:49 pm
   04 Feb 2007

   The $6 million question, Steve,is whether passing something mediocre before 2009 will decrease the chances of passing something serious after 2009. For instance, if we get the watered down Bingaman cap-and-trade system set up, how are the Dems going to argue for something stronger only a couple of years later?
   Part of me thinks the Dems should just hold a bunch of hearings until the next president is elected. Then part of me doesn't. I'd be curious to hear everyone's thoughts.
   
   www.grist.org

   Permalink

10. 

    amazingdrx Posted 1:49 pm
    04 Feb 2007

    HearingsBut push tough legislation that they know the pubs will block and the prezz will veto also.  Same with the war. If they do nothing but hold hearings, the public will blame them for the environmental problems and losing the war.
    If democrats go tough and demand an end to the war now and really stringent GHG global climate disaster remediation measures,like a lot higher CAFE standards, the pubs will block them and take on the evil shroud.  
    On CAFE standards dems should take the stand that the only way to save US auto manufacturing jobs is to encourage uS auto companies to compete on higher mileage vehicles.
    Use the testimony from the hearings to justify the tough legislative proposals.  Forget building consensus with pubs by proposing laws with no effect.  But of course they need to pretend they want to build consensus.
    I know they will not do this.  But it IS the best plan in my opinion.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink

11. 

    Steve Bloom Posted 4:19 pm
    05 Feb 2007

    GW legislationThis gets to be a game of second- and third-guessing, as in whether the 2009 legislation is likely to be anything like the needed end point.  I seriously doubt that it will.  That leads me to my answer of saying that we simply push for what we know to be the necessary minimum, which is 80% by 2050.  Very obviously that has to be combined with the U.S. exercising strong international leadership, and so a little less obviously the bill needs to include a major R+D effort to provide sustainable means of energy production for China, India, etc.  
    
    

    Permalink