Comments Bill Scher has made

  • Before people conclude President Obama is half-assing it by scheduling his appearance earlier in the summit, I'd suggest waiting to see the final result. Successful diplomacy requires much creativity and finesse, and it's not a given that the most effective use of the American president's political capital is to be directly involved in face-to-face negotiations in the final days.On Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success posted 2 days, 15 hours ago 39 Responses
  • I believe 17% is based on the assumption that the Senate will pass a cap-and-trade bill similar to the House, which is a plausible assumption (if not a certainty) since Sens. Kerry, Lieberman and Graham have already made significant concessions to each other in pursuit of a compromise.On Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success posted 4 days, 13 hours ago 39 Responses
  • The bill's defeat would not leave us in a stronger position because a hypothetical defeat would largely be the result of hesitancy to do anything significant on climate from right-leaning Blue Dog Dems, not because of mass defection from the Progressive Caucus. That would leave Blue Dogs with the increased leverage, not us.


    I suppose your dream scenario would be such a mass defection, but I would argue that would not negate the Blue Dog dynamic. It would just add to it, and leave us at a stalemate.

    On Wanna strengthen the climate bill? Get this one passed. posted 5 months, 1 week ago 26 Responses
  • When I say "grassroots," I am not referring to the work of enviro groups, I mean literal grassroots, individual citizens. Congresspeople were not feeling the heat from constituents en masse making calls and sending letters demanding a strong global warming bill, during the legislative process. They rarely do. But if you want to counter the influence of special interests during the legislative process, maximizing grassroots pressure is the only way, because that lets congresspeople know they have a significant number of constitutents passionate about the issue who are watching their vote, and may not vote for their re-election based on their position.

    I have no complaint with the efforts of any particular enviro group. I only note that their lack of coordination with each other on matters of policy substance makes it harder to maximize grassroots pressure earlier in the process.

     

    On Wanna strengthen the climate bill? Get this one passed. posted 5 months, 1 week ago 26 Responses
  • SETB, no I have not read the full bill. I am not a policy expert and do not claim to be. Like most citizen-activists, I rely on policy experts to help me make judgments on complex legislation. My understanding of these final compromises, and new pages yet to be released is that they are basically on the margins and would not fundamentally alter the bill's ability to get us under 450.

    On Wanna strengthen the climate bill? Get this one passed. posted 5 months, 1 week ago 26 Responses
  • 1. I'm not criticizng the grassroots. It's just a fact they were not engaged early in the process, which I attributed to the lack of coordination/agreement among environmental orgs (giving the grassroots a clear focus for their energy), and lack of attention paid by the traditional and liberal media (letting the grassroots know when their energy would be most productive).

    2. I don't expect anyone to get behind any bill s/he deems to be "crappy." My point there is we in the grassroots need to be engaged BEFORE the deals get done, if we ever want to avoid grappling with tepid compromises, and trying to discern if they constitute incremental progress or woeful crappiness. I don't think that is an easy problem to solve (see #1), but that is the missing piece in my view.

    On Wanna strengthen the climate bill? Get this one passed. posted 5 months, 1 week ago 26 Responses
  • Thanks! Those words you put in my mouth were quite tasty. Much more so than what I actually wrote.

    I do not believe that the most recent deal-making has altered the bottom line question whether or not the approach, if globally adopted, has a reasonable chance of keeping us below 450. (There is no correlation between number of pages and parts per million!) And I made an argument mid-way in the post that the bill passes a basic threshold in regards to substance: not necessarily perfect, but well enough in the ballpark that it moves us forward.

    My final, perhaps counter-inituive, point was that at this moment in the process, "from a political perspective" the final-final details of the House compromise (read: the most recent changes) don't matter, that passing this version on a wave of grassroots support (as opposed to grumbling) will provide fresh political leverage that can be used to substantively improve the bill later in the legislative process.

    If you would like to disagree with my actual analysis of the political dynamics, please do so.

    On Wanna strengthen the climate bill? Get this one passed. posted 5 months, 1 week ago 26 Responses
  • Hysterical headline, bad poll analysis

    This is an hysterical headline based on bad poll analysis.

    The Pew poll asks what should be a "top priority ... THIS YEAR."

    It is not surprising at all that in the midst of a media pounding that the entire economy is in a meltdown, that people across the ideological spectrum will be more inclined to say we should focus on the economy this year. While that speaks to a relative softness in support for environmental issues, that far from abandoning support in droves.

    Further, this analysis ignores that some of the strongest messaging in support of the stimulus was the green jobs message (See http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/on-stimulus-its-ea ... ). That broad message was a massive success in ending the false choice between environment and economy, critical to garner necessary broad support for a comprehensive climate bill.

    Bill Scher blogs for Common Sense at commonsense.ourfuture.org

    On Understanding polling in terms of core vs. general public posted 9 months, 1 week ago 13 Responses
  • Dingell & Carbon Tax

    Welcome back. You missed Dingell saying his support of a carbon tax is completely disingenuous. Check out these posts:

    http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/dingell_playing_troublem ...

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/detroit_congres_1 ...

    http://www.blueclimate.com/blueclimate/2007/07/john-dinge ...

    http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2007/07/08/counting ...

    http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/07/08/dingell-will-prop ...

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/7/225335/8594

    http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/2007/07/playing-to-lo ...

    http://www.tothepeople.com/2007/07/dingells-first-good-pr ...

    http://proctoringcongress.blogspot.com/2007/07/john-dinge ...

    Bill Scher blogs for Common Sense at commonsense.ourfuture.org

    On A few random observations before getting back to work posted 2 years, 4 months ago 25 Responses
  • no vote Wed. night

    Domenici just said on the floor that they were not expecting a vote on either Bingaman's or his amendment tonight.

    Bill Scher blogs for Common Sense at commonsense.ourfuture.org

    On Make your opinion heard posted 2 years, 5 months ago 5 Responses
  • Amendment being debated now

    Both Bingaman and Domenici introduced their amendments today (Wed. afternoon) and made their arguments. The Senate is continuing debate on those amendments now I believe (though as of 2:45 PM, the Senate is currently in a "quorum call," waiting for a Senator to take to the floor).

    Bill Scher blogs for Common Sense at commonsense.ourfuture.org

    On Make your opinion heard posted 2 years, 5 months ago 5 Responses
  • Roberts: conservative judicial activist

    The Roberts dissent shows the kind of Court he wants to lead, a conservative activist court that seeks to undermine laws passed by a democratically-elected Congress. His convoluted arguments about "standing" were an attempt to prevent citizens from accessing the courts to uphold the law. He was not named by Bush by accident. Any notion that he has "no agenda" and simply wants to "call balls and strikes," as he claimed in his hearing, should be put to rest.

    Bill Scher blogs for Common Sense at commonsense.ourfuture.org

    On This is a game changer posted 2 years, 8 months ago 19 Responses