When Is a Climate Bill Not a Climate Bill?
As I noted earlier, I was at the White House for President Barack Obama's remarks on the pending energy bill. The fact that he held this event was widely seen as a sign that the White House is worried about tomorrow's vote in the House on this cap and trade measure. Actually, this wasn't really an event. Obama just came out to a podium set up in the Rose Garden and spoke into a television camera. There were a couple dozen reporters standing and watching. But we were not the audience. Viewers at home probably thought the president was speaking before an important group of legislators or citizens who had been assembled at the White House. But no, he was talking to those viewers themselves, trying to gin up support for the bill.
What was noticeable was the number of times he used the phrase "climate change": none. Or the number of times he referred to the bill as cap and trade legislation: none. He depicted the legislation as a jobs bill--using "jobs" nine times in the short statement. He was explicit:
Now, make no mistake -- this is a jobs bill. We're already seeing why this is true in the clean energy investments we're making through the Recovery Act. In California, 3,000 people will be employed to build a new solar plant that will create 1,000 jobs. In Michigan, investments in wind turbines and wind technology is expected to create over, 2,600 jobs. In Florida, three new solar projects are expected to employ 1,400 people.
The list goes on and on, but the point is this: This legislation will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy. That will lead to the creation of new businesses and entire new industries. And that will lead to American jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced.
Everyone knows, I suppose, this is also a climate change bill, and that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is necessary. But in the face of opposition from GOPers and others who claim this "cap and tax" measure will wreck the economy, Obama stayed away from an overly enviro-ish argument for the legislation. It's not about saving the planet; it's about getting you or someone you know a job.
Perhaps this is a politically savvy tactic. It is worrisome a bit, since scientists say that greater reductions than prompted by this bill will be needed to redress climate change. Obama is hardly teeing up the ball for that sort of debate.
When the president was done, he quickly trotted off, without taking questions from the correspondents. ABC News' Jake Tapper did shout at him: Are you satisfied with a bill that auctions off only 15 percent of the carbon credits, not 100 percent? (On the campaign trail, Obama supported the 100 percent mark.) The president didn't acknowledge the question. He kept on walking back to the Oval Office.
******
Meanwhile, it was not all serious policy and political stuff at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue today. Tonight is the annual congressional picnic, which has been turned into a luau on the South Lawn. One feature at this party will be a dunk tank--with Rahm Emanuel as the to-be-dunked prize. Good marketing. Plenty of House members probably want to try to hit that target. But at the afternoon press briefing, Robert Gibbs managed to talk his way into being dunked by the press corps. presuming any of the reporters could throw a good pitch.
So at 5:30, before the official festivities were to begin, reporters were escorted to the backyard of the White House for the potential dunking. As we walked through the rear of the Rose Garden, I spotted Obama at the other end of the garden, sticking his head out a door to the West Wing. "Come on," I shouted at him. "Join us. Take a throw." He smiled, shook his head. "Just one pitch!" I said. "Show us your arm." He waved and said, "They won't let me take a shot at him."
We proceeded to the South Lawn, and there was Gibbs perched in the tank. Four reporters got the opportunity to dunk him. Bill Plante of CBS scored. So did an AP reporter. Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times threw hard but missed, as did a Fox News correspondent. Gibbs laughed his way through the ordeal, as TV camera people and photographers recorded the event. It was a great PR move for him: what a good sport.


Then our minders quickly rushed us away, as preparations for the luau continued--and White House aides, no doubt, went back to worrying about the pending vote on the cap and trade bill.

You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
If AGW is so certain and the
If AGW is so certain and the scientific community is completely in consensus, then why do the contents of the bill have to be lied about?
Why can't you liberals figure out that the scientific case for AGW, and more important, the case for creating a government bureaucracy to enforce new rules has not been adequately made.
The reason it has not been believed is the evidence is not there. Give up and start again and stop crying wolf.
show your work
"Why can't you liberals figure out that the scientific case for AGW, and more important, the case for creating a government bureaucracy to enforce new rules has not been adequately made."
In this most recent professionally conducted survey, over 80% of earth scientists who responded find that "human activity is a significant factor in changing the global-mean temperatures." 97% of those who identified climate science as their area of expertise found this to be the case.
More importantly, though, the scientists who find human activity to be driving climate change have submitted their work for peer review. All the world loves a skeptic, because nobody should believe anything without questioning, but climate change skeptics are distinguished by a lack of peer-reviewed literature supporting their position. It would seem that their case hasn't been made.
Obama: The Great
Obama: The Great Compromiser....
Consider your priorities
Mr. Corn -
Since you have taken over from Kevin Drum, do you realize that you have done almost nothing but pile on Obama?
In almost every case, you've expressed your disappointment with him for not living up to your "ideals." In almost all cases, I have faith that Obama has the same goals, but has the skill and foresight to get them done.
It seems that you would have him destroy his own political viability by pursuing "pure" agendas that would take chunks off of his working coalition. I have the sense that if he were to follow your advice, you would turn him into Jimmy Carter by December.
For the first time in my adult lifetime, we have a president who is not only progressive, but politically wise. Now, if only his supporters would give him a little breathing room.
I can hardly wait for Kevin to come back...
A new Rene Decartes?
John Hansen, your logic is breathtaking! Such brevity, such power! I am in awe.
But I think I'll continue to cry wolf all the same. 'cause that's just how I roll! Oh, yeah, and the science. There's that.
As for Scrooge McDuck, I dunno. I was a supporter of Candidate Obama and am a supporter of President Obama. All the same, he deserves to be called out on DADT, and while I support the clean tech jobs patter, and believe in practicing Safe Sound Bites, he does have a unique platform to educate. Maybe not the John Hansen's of this world, but, you know, others.
Isn't the day before a vote
Isn't the day before a vote kind of late to be ginnning up public support?
Continue Dumping
Conservatives made a huge mistake trusting Bush. Progressives should not make the same error. There should be constant pressure and criticism on Obama to push a progressive agenda. The forces on him to moderate are enormous.
By the way, Little Richard outlived Michael Jackson. Who would have guessed that?
climate change skeptics are
climate change skeptics are distinguished by a lack of peer-reviewed literature supporting their position. It would seem that their case hasn't been made.
Every sky-is-falling prediction from AGW supporters has failed to materialize. Many anti-AGW studies have been peer-reviewed and accepted; of course, finding outlets to print them is hard to find. The AGW cartel is strong - the "science is settled," of course.
Luckily, people are smarter than eco-libs and AGW supporters think. Australia came to its senses and backed off its global warming legislation. Many Americans are growing skeptical, especially when Democrats try to ram over 1700 pages of Cap-n-Trade legislation down the country's throat without even a cursory review of what's in the bill.
Hell, even Greenpeace says the legislation is crap.
Cap-n-Tax is DOA.
And to think how many poor trees suffered and died to make all those copies of a bill that would do nothing but harm the economy further in these stark economic times.
If you think this is dumping
If you think this is dumping on Obama,
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.


