|
|
|
|
Advertisement
Was last week's Senate climate debate a wasted opportunity? Did the Senate further the climate discussion and lay the groundwork for passage of a bill in 2009? During today's OnPoint, Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, gives her take on last week's Senate debate on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. She addresses possible mismanagement of the bill, what the most contentious issues were, and what the discussion means for the broader climate debate, moving forward. Claussen looks ahead to 2009 and discusses whether last week's discussion puts the Congress in a better position to pass legislation next year.
Monica Trauzzi: Welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. Joining me today is Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Eileen, thanks for coming back on the show.
Eileen Claussen: My pleasure.
Monica Trauzzi: Eileen, we're coming off of a week where climate change legislation was in full focus in Washington. Overall, what's your assessment of how successful the Senate debate was in terms of the broader climate change discussion in the U.S.?
Eileen Claussen: Well, I think we learned something from the last week and some of that should be useful in crafting a bill for next year or even worse, but possible, the year after. So, I think it was a good experience, even though we didn't have the kind of debate that I wish we had had.
Monica Trauzzi: What did we learn?
Eileen Claussen: Well, I think one of the first things we learned was that there are more than 60 senators who support the idea of a cap and trade, a mandatory cap and trade on greenhouse gas emissions. And that's the first time I think that we ever saw that. I mean there were 48 senators who voted for cloture. There were another six who made statements saying had they been there, they would have. If you add to those some who did not vote for cloture, but either supported the Bingaman-Specter solution or the McCain Lieberman bill way back in 2003, you add up to more than 60. So I think we have some validation of the concept. That said, not everyone who voted for cloture would have voted for the Lieberman-Warner bill. And so I think we also learned that that bill was not going to be it and that there were a lot of legitimate issues raised by different senators that are going to have to be addressed in some final bill that will get passage.
Monica Trauzzi: So, the sponsors of the bill were very positive after the cloture vote, saying that there has been progress since the last time a climate change bill was voted on. So they were right to ...
Eileen Claussen: I think so.
Monica Trauzzi: ... be positive about it?
Eileen Claussen: They were right, but, again, some of those who said, "Oh, my goodness, this bill is not going to be the kind of thing we're going to vote on," they were right too.
Monica Trauzzi: A lot of people say last week was a wasted opportunity. What was your take on the Republicans forcing the clerk to read the bill? Not a whole lot of actual debate happening.
Eileen Claussen: No and I think that's really unfortunate, because all of the issues that were raised, whether they were raised by senators on the floor or whether they were raised in press conferences as if it were separate, whether they were raised in the 10 Democratic senators' letter, which raised a series of issues, those were all issues that actually it would have been nice to get some serious debate on so we knew better or sort of what the parameters are and what kind of compromise might work. But you have to credit Barbara Boxer, in a way, because she put out a very detailed bill and it certainly got people who support the concept in general to focus on some of those details and talk about what they did and didn't like about it.
Monica Trauzzi: She's also gotten a lot of heat. There are people who have said that she's inexperienced and that she mismanaged the bill, didn't handle it well, and that's why it ultimately failed. What's your take on that?
Eileen Claussen: Well, I mean nobody is perfect. She did, I think, some things, to craft a bill of this kind is extremely complicated and she really did do that. Could it have been managed better? Sure. Could we have worked it out so that there was a better debate? I think it would have been possible. In a sense, it is a lost opportunity because the more discussion we can have and the more people can express views and concerns, the better we're going to be able to deal with it when we craft another bill for 2009.
Monica Trauzzi: So, which issues emerged as the most contentious that we're going to have to look out for heading into 2009?
Eileen Claussen: Well, as you might imagine the whole issue of cost and cost containment and how you handle that, particularly in a time when the economy is not doing well, when gas prices are really high, obviously, we're going to have to deal with that. And that comes about in a lot of different ways, what's in the bill itself, what you do with some of the revenues that you generate? How do you allocate and to who? All of those issues which really have to do with cost are going to be central, I think, as we move forward.
Monica Trauzzi: And so there's all this talk and pressure essentially on next year's Congress and the next president to pass this bill in 2009. Do you think that last week's discussion puts Congress in a position where something can pass next year? Or did not enough debating happen that this might be pushed until 2010?
Eileen Claussen: Well, I don't think enough debate happened, but I think it is possible that the next president, whether it's Senator Obama or Senator McCain, might be able to put forward either a bill or some principles that could be the basis for a new bill to come out of the Senate or the House. So, with some leadership from the White House, I think we have a shot in 2009.
Monica Trauzzi: So, what needs to be the focus for the remainder of this year and going into 2009 for Congress to ensure that there's movement next year? What's the path forward?
Eileen Claussen: Well, it's hard to know what you might do in the Senate, because it's not clear whether anyone has the appetite for much more. I would actually look to the House and see some discussions there. I mean, Congressman Dingell has said he's going to have some hearings on some bills. There is still a chance, I think, maybe not a big one, but a chance that there will be a marker bill as you could call it. I mean something introduced not for votes, but at least it puts something out on the table so that people can have something to think about coming from the House. That could be very helpful. I think there are going to be a lot of discussions among senators as well, maybe not in a formal kind of way, but what it would take to actually put together a coalition. And we shouldn't forget that, of course, we're going to have an election between now and 2009. And so there will be some changes in the makeup of the Senate and that could also have an effect on the bill.
Monica Trauzzi: Speaker Pelosi has not sounded too hopeful in recent days though about the prospects for a bill hitting the floor. Why do you think there's been such a dramatic shift on her part from what she was saying last year, that climate change was a top priority, she was going to get a bill to the floor, to now, where she's less hopeful?
Eileen Claussen: Well, I think it's really a realistic view of what can be done this year, which is to say you're not going to get a bill to the president's desk this year. And you certainly saw what happened in the Senate, so maybe you don't do that. Maybe you continue to have discussions in the committee, maybe you have more hearings, you put out more papers, you lay the groundwork so that you can hit the ground running in 2009. And I really think that's what needs to be done in both the Senate and the House.
Monica Trauzzi: You watch these issues closely. Did anything surprise you from last week's discussion?
Eileen Claussen: No, I thought there were some things that were almost interesting and humorous in a way. On the interesting side, I think it is interesting that there was not a lot of discussion about the science. There was a lot of discussion about how you deal with reducing emissions and with a lot of different points of view. But the issue of is this real or not didn't really come up in a serious way and I think that's worth noting because that's the first time that we haven't had that kind of a debate. Then there were some things that I think were sort of interesting. At the time, when the bill was being read on the floor, there were alarms going off in the Senate because of possible tornadoes. On the day that cloture was voted on, there was a report in the morning on the weather. This had nothing to do, of course, with climate change, but there were 30 tornadoes and 400 extreme events the day before. And while you can't really take any of those single events and say this is climate change, it is a harbinger of what we're in for if we don't actually address this. So, in a sense, that was sort of an interesting juxtaposition of the non-debate in the Senate and what was really happening in the real world.
Monica Trauzzi: What does this all mean for international talks that are happening this year, the G-8 conference, the UNFCC? Does the fact that little progress is being made in Congress in 2008 impact the discussions on the international level?
Eileen Claussen: Well, I'm not sure that anyone seriously thought that we would have a bill in 2008. I mean, in many of my overseas trips I would say it's possible, but not likely. It's much more likely 2009, almost inevitable 2010. And so I don't think anyone was expecting it. That said, I think it would've been a real push forward had there been something. But, you know, this is the end of a year that's going to have an election in it. We're going to have a new president. We're going to have one who believes in mandatory cap and trade. And no matter who is elected, we'll have a new face internationally on how we deal with this. And I think everyone is really waiting for that and didn't have great expectations on 2008.
Monica Trauzzi: OK, we'll end it right there on that note. Thanks for coming on the show again.
Eileen Claussen: My pleasure.
Monica Trauzzi: This is OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. Thanks for watching.
[End of Audio]
Advertisement
watch video
email video
