But as you surely know, I was not able to include a cap on carbon emissions on that list. And it might look at first glance that the failure of “cap-and-trade” legislation, which had a multitude of corporate compromises that made environmentalists cringe to varying degrees, debunks my case.

Soon after the bill was left for dead in the Senate, 350.org’s Bill McKibben declared, “So now we know what we didn’t before: making nice doesn’t work. It was worth a try, and I’m completely serious when I say I’m grateful they made the effort, but it didn’t even come close to working. So we better try something else … we’re going to need a movement, the one thing we haven’t had.”

Since then, McKibben has moved the environmental community to focus on blocking fossil-fuel projects like the Keystone XL oil pipeline instead of building broad coalitions, which has left out previously supportive unions as well as corporations. And Naomi Klein, in a cover piece for The Nation, took McKibben’s logic several steps further and argued that the environmental movement should merge with the Occupy movement and declare capitalism itself the enemy of the climate.

But not only does their logic fail to account for the reforms President Obama did enact by working with corporations, it also fails to recognize the real reason why the climate bill failed.

It’s not because a liberal-corporate coalition was futile. It’s because at the last minute, the coalition broke apart.

The House version of the bill, known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), was a compromise that attracted just enough right-leaning Democrats and moderate Republicans to pass. Top environmental organizations and several Fortune 500 companies — including oil companies BP, Shell, and ConocoPhillips — forged the United States Climate Action Partnership (US-CAP), and the House “cap-and-trade” legislation drew from the principles it proposed. Furthermore, key Democratic reps fashioned compromises to assuage home-state industries.

Southwest Virginia’s Rep. Rick Boucher (D) made sure coal companies would receive subsidies to help them figure out how to capture carbon emissions, and prevent coal from being completely phased out. Michigan Rep. John Dingell (D) secured help for the auto industry to produce fuel-efficient vehicles. Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson (D), one week after threatening to sink the bill and insisting that a warmer planet would merely help his rural district grow more corn, changed positions after winning a long delay on tougher emissions standards for ethanol production.

It may not have been pretty, but it worked. The compromises may have weakened the bill from both an environmental and cost-effectiveness standpoint. But they did not make the bill weak. The top climate scientists at Duke University concluded that if the ACES model were adopted by America and other major economies, we would likely cut enough emissions “to avoid the most serious consequences of global warming.” Center for American Progress’ Joe Romm, who argued the bill wouldn’t cut enough emissions on its own to avert a climate crisis, still defended it, saying “it takes us off of the business as usual path, which is the most important thing, and it accelerates the transition to a clean energy economy, which is the second most important thing, and it establishes a framework that can be tightened as reality and science render inevitable.” Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the legislation would reduce the national budget deficit, with only negligible cost increases for the average household.

Beyond making sense substantively, the compromises also worked politically. Without attracting Democratic lawmakers from coal-, auto-, and agriculture-producing regions, there was no way to achieve a simple House majority. And House leaders just barely achieved that.

However, support for the bill from the corporate community was tepid. US-CAP never formally endorsed the legislation because of internal disagreements — in particular, the oil companies in the coalition were unhappy they did not receive any tailored benefits. The coal industry was never on board despite the heroic efforts from Boucher to protect them (Boucher, after serving his district for 28 years, was savaged by anonymous campaign cash for “betraying” coal, and ousted in 2010). Corporations did not lead an ad campaign in support of the bill, as the drug industry had done for healthcare reform.

House leaders had hoped that by crafting the hard compromises themselves, they would smooth the path to passage in the Senate, which typically requires a supermajority of 60 to let legislation receive a final vote. At the time, the Senate included 18 Democratic senators from the top coal-producing states, plus a few more Democrats from key oil-producing states. Failing to win their support meant failing to win a simple majority, let alone a supermajority.

Instead, the compromises the House made were ignored. Coal and oil companies lambasted the bill, while corporate supporters were not vocal. The bill was smeared as a liberal wish list that would tax everyone and destroy jobs. Several right-leaning Democratic senators panned the bill upon House passage, and it was treated as dead on arrival.

But three months after the House passed its bill, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) resurrected the possibility of a carbon cap by penning a New York Times op-ed with Democratic Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), announcing a preliminary compromise that linked a cap on carbon with expanded nuclear power and oil drilling — the twin bogeymen of the environmental movement, but also corporate constituencies that had not needed to be wooed to win majority support in the House. Expansion of offshore drilling would help secure the votes of right-leaning Democratic senators in Louisiana and Virginia, at least. Graham’s support held out the possibility that some Republican senators could be enticed by the prospect of bringing federal dollars home to create nuclear industry jobs.

The biggest environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council — which had already embraced the compromises made in the House — praised the op-ed, signaling to Senate negotiators that they would accept additional concessions on nukes and oil. As distasteful as those sources of power are to environmentalists, averting a planetary climate crisis is the No. 1 goal for all of humanity. Would it matter if there are a few more offshore oil wells, when overall greenhouse gas emissions would go down enough to save us from global warming?

Logic trumped emotion. But only to a point.

These environmental groups let Senate negotiators know they were willing to provide support for an eventual compromise that also attracted support from nuclear power companies and oil companies. However, they never communicated to their memberships that such a compromise would be necessary to win Senate passage, and that they were working diligently to achieve it.

By the spring of 2010, Sens. Kerry and Graham, along with independent Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), did hammer out that compromise. They secured endorsements from some oil companies to back a bill capping carbon emissions, for the first time ever. They persuaded the main oil lobbying group, the American Petroleum Institute, to refrain from spending money attacking the bill. They made plans for a major public announcement on April 26 showing the breadth of the liberal-corporate coalition behind capping carbon — with oil company executives standing on the stage alongside environmental leaders.

Then, six days before the planned announcement, one of those oil companies in the coalition began to spill millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

And everything fell apart.

The provision to increase offshore oil drilling suddenly became politically toxic, with environmentalist senators from New Jersey and Florida threatening to withdraw support. Graham withdrew his public support for the bill he helped draft, partly because it was no longer the right political moment to expand drilling. The press conference was postponed until the next month. BP and Shell still offered support, but only via written statement, because it was no longer politically advantageous to have them up on the stage.

Meanwhile, environmental groups, instead of coolly explaining to their memberships — both before and during the oil spill — that they had an ally in BP and other oil companies to pass monumental climate protection, reverted to form. They hoped to channel public anger into a teachable moment that would transform the political dynamic, reducing the need for corporate compromise. If BP could be demonized enough, the public would rise up and hesitant senators would be compelled to embrace green legislation.

The oil industry also retreated to its usual corner, spending its energies defending the practice of offshore drilling and doing nothing to advance the compromise following its unveiling.

By the end of the Gulf gusher, BP was plenty hated by the public. But the public did not connect that hatred to the need for passing the Kerry-Lieberman bill. And not one undecided senator moved to embrace it. Despite one of the biggest environmental disasters of all time, the attempt to change the political dynamic in the Senate without the assistance of the corporate community went nowhere.

After seeing the history of how liberal reforms pass when they attract corporate support — as with FDR, LBJ, and Obama — and falter when they stoke fervent opposition — as with Bill Clinton and health care, or Jimmy Carter and energy — ask yourself this question: Would things have been different if the liberal-corporate coalition held after the spill?

Instead of what proved to be a wasted effort to ramp up anger at BP and connect it to cap-and-trade, environmental groups could have offered a strategic olive branch to BP and its fellow oil companies: a negotiated package of drilling safety regulations and an even stronger oil company campaign for the Kerry-Lieberman bill, in exchange for the environmental groups vouching for BP — and not excoriating it — as serious about being part of the climate solution.

At the point of maximum negotiating leverage, environmentalists walked away from the negotiating table to chase the fantasy of a popular uprising. A clearer understanding of the history of liberal reform might have prevented this fatal mistake.

We have to get back to where we were on April 20, 2010, with a deal in hand that the broadest possible coalition — one that defuses opposition from the oil lobby — can heave over the finish line. A stronger movement can help, but only if it strategizes with that pragmatic goal in mind, and if it is prepared to seize the moment when the opportunity for a deal presents itself again.

Sen. Paul has been having toilet nightmares ever since he watched The Conversation back in 1974.

He seems to believe the federal government is not allowing him to own a functioning toilet. I found this strange, because I own a functioning toilet. And like the senator, I also live in America.

So, I thought, perhaps I can help the senator find some relief. But first, I needed to figure out the origin of his problem.

He blamed the deputy assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy. During her testimony to his committee, Sen. Paul exploded:

Frankly, my toilets don’t work in my house. And I blame you and people like you who want to tell me what I can install in my house, what I can do … I’ve been waiting for 20 years to talk about how bad these toilets are …

What the senator left out of his rant is that it is not the Department of Energy that dictates the water-efficiency standards for toilets. It’s the democratically elected, constitutionally empowered United States Congress and the president.

And it just so happens that roughly 20 years ago (19 to be exact) is when our democratically elected representatives passed a law, signed by President George H. W. Bush setting a 1.6 gallons-per-flush standard for newly made toilets.

The law did not force anyone to replace older, water-wasting models. But if Sen. Rand Paul has been without a functioning toilet for 20 years, I can only presume that this is what happened to him:

• In 1991, he predicted the President George H.W. Bush would sign higher standards into law the following year.
• Eager to save water, he voluntarily ran out to buy a low flow toilet.
• But in his haste, he picked a model that didn’t work well, and didn’t bother to return or replace it ever since.

The good libertarian senator should understand that he can’t expect the government to do everything for him. He has to take some responsibility and do some research if he is going to find a toilet that serves his needs.

If he had, he would have learned that it took a few years for toilet manufacturers to embrace innovation to best meet the standards established by our democratically elected representatives. As WiseGeek reported:

The first low flow toilet designs simply changed the tank size, thereby reducing the amount of water used without making any other modifications. These early models had many problems and often became clogged or required two flushes to adequately remove waste. These issues frustrated homeowners, making them reluctant to purchase the new toilets. They repaired their old ones or purchased used models instead.

These complications prompted manufacturers to make modifications and improve their low flow toilet models. Most currently available models work in a comparable fashion to older pre-1994 designs. Some of the changes that have helped include widening and straightening the trapway, and finishing the passage in a manner that reduces friction. Other models use air pressure or pumps to help the water move with added force.

This is often how government standards can spark innovation and progress. Set the bar, then allow the private sector compete to find the best ways to clear the bar.

So today, if I may use language America’s highest-ranking libertarian can understand, if he goes into a “store” that operates in the “private sector” there are many high-performing low flow toilets from which he can “choose” for his home.

But which one? Perhaps the senator is overwhelmed because there so many choices, and he remains scarred because he chose so badly the first time.

Fortunately, Consumer Reports recently tested and rated 25 different toilets [$ubreq]. The link is for subscribers only, but for the senator, I’ll offer up the goods.

Consumer Reports found that “the best performers still use the standard 1.6 gallons of water per flush. But some greener models deliver comparable flushing and save hundreds of gallons per year for the same price or less.”

The magazine particularly liked the 1.28 gallon-per-flush Kohler Cimarron K-3609, deeming it an affordable “Best Buy” after it “sailed through our tough solid and liquid waste tests nearly as well as two pricier models from the same brand.” It also had high praise the for “gravity-flush American Standard and Kohler” brands as they “vanquish waste as well as the most powerful pressure-assisted toilets, but without the wall-shaking whoosh that typifies pressure models.”

I will be emailing the senator with this information. I am confident he will be grateful for the information, and pleased to know he need not blame the government for problems he can solve himself.

Unless of course, it is Sen. Paul, and not his toilet, that is full of …

Originally published at OurFuture.org.

Also check out: David Roberts on the toilet he’s going to buy Rand Paul

That description fits the Democratic nominee Chris Coons, who is running unopposed in tomorrow’s primary, and GOP Rep. Mike Castle.

It does not fit Castle’s primary opponent, the Tea Party Express-funded Christine O’Donnell.

There is absolutely no way O’Donnell can win a Senate seat in Delaware. She is an extreme right-winger in a left-leaning state. 

And Castle, who has already served as governor and has repeatedly won statewide as he is the state’s only congressperson, presents Republicans with a golden opportunity to pick up a currently Democratic-held seat.

Castle probably couldn’t be counted on to filibuster everything President Obama supported, but he would surely filibuster more than anyone else that could get elected in Delaware. And there is almost no chance Republicans can take control of the Senate — and fully control the legislative agenda — without winning Delaware.

But apparently because Castle was one of eight Republicans that actually voted for the House carbon cap bill, conservatives are willing to throw all that away.

His “cap-and-trade” vote wasn’t the only vote Castle took that put him at odds with conservatives. But it is literally at the top of Christine O’Donnell’s list of reasons for opposing him.

And even if Castle fends off O’Donnell tomorrow, it will be because Delaware still has a significant population of Republican moderates. Today’s poll of the race shows that O’Donnell has the support of 62 percent of the state’s conservatives. 

In other words, if it was up to Delaware’s conservatives, they would put rejection of climate science over conservative control of the Senate agenda.

Prominent conservative activist Erick Erickson has said this bluntly: “I would rather 50 seats without Mike Castle than 51 seats with Mike Castle.”

Already, conservatives chose to roll the dice in Alaska in part because of global warming. 

Incumbent GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski had no chance of losing her seat in a general election, and she has been a reliable “No” vote on the president’s priorities.

She didn’t back any Democratic carbon cap legislation. She even sponsored legislation to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. 

But because she had the temerity to acknowledge global warming is real, met with the president to discuss compromises, and has sponsored carbon cap legislation previously, Joe Miller made her climate record “Exhibit A” in his successful primary challenge.

Miller may still win the general election — Alaska politics is far more unpredictable than Delaware politics. 

But it is indisputable that conservatives took a safe Republican seat in Alaska and made it competitive for Democrats, in part because of their irrational inability to accept climate science.

This is the nightmare that GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) said he wanted to avoid back in October 2009 when he struck a preliminary climate compromise with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). Speaking to a group of angry South Carolina conservatives right after the climate announcement, Graham said: “I’m going to grow this party. I’m not going to let it be hijacked by Ron Paul. I’m going to find people in Maine, Delaware, Illinois, other places that can win as Republicans, and I’m going to go up, and we’re going to move this party, and this country forward, and if you don’t like it, you can leave.”

Since then, Graham bailed on the climate talks. Climate science denial is running rampant on the right. And that’s making it harder for Republicans to build a broad governing coalition.

Originally posted at OurFuture.org

This week, Wisconsin Republican primary gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker caught the attention of Washington pundits with his latest ad, because it features the candidate attacking President Obama with smug condescension and sarcasm.

But I was struck because Walker is betting his campaign on stopping Wisconsin’s planned high-speed rail link. Even though it would create jobs. Even though it has already received federal funds. Even though the project has already begun. In fact, as the Wisconsin State Journal reported, Walker believes “the state giving back millions of dollars, even money that’s already been spent, would be better than finishing the rail project.”

Walker has even created an separate online campaign called NoTrain.com, in keeping with the Republican “No We Can’t” theme.

While Walker has taken the most audacious stance against federally-supported high-speed rail among gubernatorial candidates, California’s Meg Whitman and Ohio’s John Kasich have also announced opposition to projects in their states.

Is this a trend? Is there real conservative populist backlash? Could high-speed rail (HSR) opposition determine the outcome of governor’s races and stall the Obama administration’s efforts to modernize our nation’s infrastructure?

First, it’s too early to say there’s an anti-HSR trend in governor’s races. 

Conservative candidates in other states receiving federal high-speed rail funds such as Florida, Iowa, Oregon, Missouri, Illinois, and Michigan have not prioritized the issue, at least not yet.

But are Walker, Whitman, and Kasich on to something? Is their collective finger on the pulse of a brewing backlash? 

The evidence is scant and mixed, but offers a cautionary note for progressives pushing for robust public investment.

In Wisconsin, Walker is hanging his hat on a single poll of the Milwaukee area showing only 41 percent support the rail plan, down from 57 percent last year. It appears support for the plan has been bruised because state officials initially oversold the job creation estimates and later scaled them back.

But in California, two years ago voters approved a major bond measure to fund high-speed rail. A poll last month found a whopping 76 percent of voters still support the project, but some of the support is soft. A plurality of 42 percent want the system built but have “concerns” about cost. 

That tension within the political middle of the electorate — between wanting bold public investment and worrying about wasteful government spending — is a perennial obstacle to progressive reform.

Fortunately, the desire to create jobs and revitalize American manufacturing is broadly shared by the electorate. 

The widely reported poll by The Mellman Group on behalf the Alliance for American Manufacturing showed huge support, 86 percent for “invest[ing] in our infrastructure — using American made materials — to integrate new smart electrical grid technology, generate power by building wind turbines, and create a modern network of high-speed passenger railways.”

But the Mellman Group cautioned that “strong” support for “new” infrastructure — including high-speed rail — only reaches 47 percent, whereas strong support for “old” infrastructure such as roads and bridges hits 58 percent. 

Conservatives are comfortable making this a false choice between “old” and “new” infrastructure. Walker’s ad argues for taking the federal stimulus funds for high-speed rail and diverting to roads and bridges. 

But he doesn’t mention that in addition to the high-speed rail funds, the federal stimulus already gave Wisconsin over $100 million for roads and bridges which helped “build an extra 959,000 square feet of bridge decks” and “lay 2 million more tons of asphalt.”

We not only can do both, we just did. 

But because there is an opportunity for conservatives to put supporters of old and new infrastructure against each other, it is essential that progressives reject any false choice between repairing existing infrastructure and modernizing our infrastructure.

Furthermore, progressives cannot shrug off concerns about cost, but we can’t succumb to them either. 

As pollster Stan Greenberg discerned from the poll he executed on behalf of Campaign for America’s Future and other progressive groups, voters are concerned about both job creation and deficit reduction, and see a connection between them.

Therefore, it is possible to make the case that public investment to create jobs and grow the economy will also help reduce the deficit. But it is also possible to spew out misleading numbers to convince a skeptical electorate that a certain public investment project will waste taxpayer money.

Walker and Kasich have both done the latter. 

Walker tries to argue high-speed rail is a vastly inefficient way to create jobs: ” … according to the federal government’s own estimate, the total number of permanent jobs created will be 55. That’s $14.5 million per job, not including any hidden costs!” But that ignores the nearly 5,000 jobs that would be created during the construction phase, during this period of economic struggle, not to mention the environmental, safety, and broader economic benefits that make the investment worth the money.

Kasich is trying to deride the planned Cleveland to Cincinnati link by arguing it will run an average of 39 mph, slower than driving. But the Associated Press said Kasich was being “misleading” by using the time it would take for a route with many stops, not an express train with limited stops.

Pushing back on these arguments is potentially difficult while the federal stimulus is being unfairly scapegoated as the cause of the stagnant economy. Many are quick to accept attacks on government ineffectiveness.

But the ultimate answer to our economic struggles is to do more, not less. To say “Yes,” and not “No.”

It is by no means a certainty that this trio of conservative candidates is able to
spark an anti-train backlash. Their position cuts against America’s optimistic impulses and desperation for job creation.

But if we cannot credibly portray an thriving America powered by a revitalized infrastructure, and beat back bogus arguments, to give people a reason to say “Yes,” then we risk a “No Train” conservative populist backlash that could stifle our ability to recover from the recession and compete in the 21st global economy.

Originally posted at OurFuture.org

Candidate Obama announced his willingness to compromise on coastal drilling quite dramatically during the campaign. And the Senate climate bill talks have been premised on expanded coastal drilling ever since last year’s New York Times op-ed from Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). The outlined drilling-nukes-carbon cap deal has long received tacit support from most environmental groups, while keeping business lobbies intrigued. There is no surprise in Obama is making this move. The only surprise is that he did before a climate deal was in place. Is this a sly move on the path for a grand compromise for a carbon cap? Or is it boneheaded capitulation that can only at best lead to a paper-thin ineffective climate bill? I don’t think we can predict that until the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham climate compromise effort has finished. Opening the door to more coastal drilling could be something-for-nothing … if the climate talks collapse, or the resulting bill is a greenwash that doesn’t establish a framework for cutting carbon. But it could also be nothing-for-something. During the 2008 “Drill, Baby, Drill” conservative frenzy, it was regularly pointed out by myself and others that the primary arguments against expanded coastal drilling were there just isn’t much oil there, and what little is there wouldn’t get touched for at least 10 years.

And while the oil lobby has desperately wanted to end the moratorium for political reasons, it’s not at all clear oil companies fervently want to actually drill for this oil for business reasons. As Climate Progress’ Joe Romm (who vehemently disagrees with the political logic of Obama’s move today) said in 2008:

…the constraints on offshore drilling have little to do with the price of oil, but a lot to do with timing. Once the leases are available, it is a 5 to 10 years before you get to exploratory drilling. There is a tremendous shortage of drilling rigs and manpower. Plus, offshore drilling is so expensive, you don’t want to make any mistakes. So you spend do a lot of seismic analysis to minimize your chances of a dry well.

And it is probably another five or more years from drilling your exploratory well to getting significant production from the area — and that assumes you didn’t dig a dry well. If you did, then you are probably going to be even more cautious. And all that assumes you have developed a pipeline infrastructure for delivering the oil. But the Atlantic Coast lacks such an infrastructure, so who knows how long it would take to get its oil?

So, if this move doesn’t actually lead to significant coastal drilling, but calms the oil lobby — which was already expressing openness to a climate compromise that levies a carbon tax on them instead of an emissions cap — and helps cobble together a Senate supermajority around a workable bill, then it would be nothing-for-something.

I can’t tell you today which is right. If this is something-for-nothing, or nothing-for-something. If Obama is being sly or stupid.

I would suggest that debating Obama’s political skills is a waste of time. The die is cast.

The environmental fight to be had today is the same one as yesterday: the debate over the climate bill itself.

Originally posted at OurFuture.org

Today’s Politico headline from Copenhagen is: “Climategate distracts at Copenhagen.” This seems based on a very low bar for what constitutes a distraction.

Is the international summit torn now between resolutions saying global warming is a moral imperative or a dastardly hoax perpetrated by the sinister scientist conspiracy? Hardly.

Is there one country that previously was open to a climate agreement, and now is suddenly abandoning it? Nope.

Is there one U.S. Senator changing his or her position on a cap-and-trade bill after the ginned up right-wing hysteria? Not a one. Politico‘s basis for the headline is: “‘Climategate’ has muddied the good green message that was supposed to come out of the United Nations climate change talks here, forcing leaders to spend time justifying the science behind global warming when they want to focus on ending it.”

That’s evidence for summit participants being distracted by bored reporters waiting for real news to materialize as negotiators do their work. Much like the “Swift Boat” attack against Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), even after the Climategate allegations have been debunked, much of the media still keeps recycling the charges in unprofessional he-said-she-said style.

But I don’t want to malign the media too broadly. Most the news coverage out of Copenhagen I’m seeing is about the jockeying between the countries. “Climategate” is, literally, a sideshow. The criminals who stole the emails and the right-wingers who then blatantly took the contents out of context have had a good media run the past few weeks — many reporters are suckers for right-wing bait. But the Right has little to show for it.

Conservatives have not derailed the possibility of international agreement. If negotiators do come up short it will be because of aid to poor nations, not because of sudden doubts about climate science.

Conservatives have not derailed by the possibility of American legislative action following Copenhagen. Rare conservative realist Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is still working on legislation with President Obama and Sen. Kerry.

And American public opinion polls still show strong majorities in favor of a carbon cap. There is a bump in global warming denial, but that happened before the climate scientists’ emails were stolen, and it only reflects a consolidation of opinion among the right-wing minority.

The “Climategate” cranks will surely be an annoyance throughout Copenhagen, but they have yet to become a substantive distraction. A better headline from Politico would have been: “Debunked Psuedo-Scandal Sputters Out At Copenhagen.”

(Originally posted at OurFuture.org)

Spread the news on what the føck is going on in Copenhagen with friends via email, Facebook, Twitter, or smoke signals.

President Obama announced today that he will attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, raising the stakes for himself and all participating nations.

The initial goal for Copenhagen was to forge a binding treaty. But that ambitious goal has been scaled back. With American climate protection legislation bogged down in the Senate after clearing the House, Obama can’t put enough commitments on the table to secure a final agreement. Division over how to financially help developing nations respond to global warming also remains far from resolved.

But the participating nations do not want Copenhagen to be an exercise in vague rhetoric and meaningless communiques. What would constitute a success? What could come out of Copenhagen that would help us avert a climate crisis?

President Obama laid down that marker yesterday, in his joint appearance with the Indian Prime Minister:

…it’s … essential that all countries do what is necessary to reach a strong operational agreement that will confront the threat of climate change while serving as a stepping stone to a legally binding treaty. And to that end, Prime Minister Singh and I made important progress today. We reaffirmed that an agreement in Copenhagen should be comprehensive and cover all the issues under negotiation. We resolved to take significant national mitigation actions that will strengthen the world’s ability to combat climate change. We agreed to stand by these commitments with full transparency, through appropriate processes, as to their implementation.

In other words, for Copenhagen to be a success, all nations have to get started on cutting actual greenhouse gas emissions.

We don’t have to agree on the exact targets, timeframes and total financial assistance. But we have to get moving, because the planetary clock is ticking.

President Obama going is a sign of American commitment. Hopefully, before Copenhagen, Obama’s decision will be backed up by a tripartisan deal from Sens. John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, so it will be fairly clear America is on the verge of acting, and not making excuses.

Control of Copenhagen’s outcome is far from being solely in Obama’s hands.

China and India, always using America as an excuse for irresponsible growth, need to step up on emissions targets.

The EU, always crowing about its emissions targets, needs to step up on financial assistance to developing nations.

Yet Obama has set the benchmark for success. And he has put his own national and international credibility on the line to achieve that success.

It’s always a political risk to set goals that you can’t achieve unilaterally. But that’s what leaders do.

Originally posted at OurFuture.org

Today, Graham made a deal all but inevitable.

Final compromise language is far from complete. But for the conservative South Carolinian to explicitly back “aggressive reductions in our emissions of the carbon gases that cause climate change” (!) in a joint op-ed with Massachusetts liberal Sen. John Kerry (!!) published in pages of New York Times (!!!), Graham has already done all he could to infuriate the conservative movement and many voters in his conservative state.

In other words, Graham has already assumed the political risks for doing a deal. And there’s no point in taking those risks unless you actually do the deal. He has crossed the climate Rubicon.

(Though perhaps he can get away without anyone finding out. Amazingly, Sen. Graham appeared on NBC’s Meet The Press today and failed to get a single question on the landmark op-ed. The long-standing Sunday show aversion to environmental issues remains stupefying.)

Climate Progress’ Joe Romm predicts that Sen. Graham’s support would bring along as many as six other Republican senators. While the Democratic caucus remains split along geographical lines, that level of Republican support would make it extremely likely that 60 senators would at least vote to cut off any filibuster attempts.

(Note that the Senate earlier rejected any possibility of passing climate legislation through Senate budget rules that preclude filibusters. It is truly sixty or Bust.)

Also striking, Sens. Graham and Kerry promote a “border tax” to pressure other exporting nations “that do not accept environmental standards” because “we cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas.”

The House climate bill has that provision, but President Obama spoke out against the carbon tariff upon passage, I believe under the presumption the “free”-trade loving Senate would never go for it. Sen. Sherrod Brown earlier stated the opposite was true: a carbon tariff is politically necessary: “I don’t think there’s any way we get to even 50 votes if we don’t deal with manufacturing in the climate change bill … We need some sort of border equalization: temporary, not permanent…”

The Massachusetts and South Carolina senators have clearly reached the same conclusion.

Get Energy Smart Now understandably expresses caution that the devil is always in the details. But Romm enthuses: “I expect the final bill will have no deal-breakers for progressives.” I would think the latter to be true. I said last week, as unpleasant as compromises on nuclear power and coastal drilling may be, they are unlikely to trump the power of a carbon cap.

Romm observes if Senate deal is forged before December’s U.N. climate meeting in Copenhagen, even if the Senate can’t quickly move to a formal vote, the U.S. will have much stronger bargaining leverage to seal an international agreement. With Kerry and Graham in agreement on the basic outlines, reaching such a deal by mid-December looks very plausible.

What was that again, oh wise Washington Establishment purveyors of conventional wisdom, about being unable to handle health care and global warming at the same time?

Originally posted at OurFuture.org.

But Alexander quickly buried that possibility, setting wildly impossible goals for nuclear and ramping up intellectually incoherent attacks on the House climate bill.

Now, the possibility of Republican support for “cap and trade” legislation is getting renewed attention. GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham explicitly raised the possibility of a deal, involving more nuclear power and offshore drilling, and Democratic leaders are hearing him out. ClimateWire reports:

Key Senate Democrats signaled yesterday they are willing to negotiate with Republicans on nuclear power and expanded domestic oil and gas development if it helps in nailing down the 60 votes necessary for floor passage on a comprehensive global warming and energy bill. … “A guy like Senator Kerry is looking for coalitions,” Graham said. “If you had a bill that would allow for responsible offshore drilling, a robust nuclear power title, I think you could get some Republican votes for a cap-and-trade system.”

Graham made similar comments to the Houston Chronicle, which suggested what a deal may look like:

“To get a bipartisan bill on climate change, you’re going to have to make it attractive for Republicans to vote for a cap-and-trade system,” Graham said.

“There’s a way to grow Republican support but it is a give-and-take. Republicans have to give in the area of recognizing that climate change is real and a cap-and-trade system is part of the solution. I’d ask our Democratic colleagues to give on the idea that you can’t be serious about climate change solutions if you exclude nuclear power.”

Kerry has been in talks with Graham and other Senate moderates over possible compromises.

The current Kerry-Boxer bill includes a modest nuclear section focused mainly on worker training. But nuclear advocates want to see the measure include loan guarantees to propel new plants — the last one was built in 1990 — and solutions for one of the biggest issues confounding the industry: how to store spent fuel rods.

I am no shill for nuclear power. We still don’t have a nuclear waste solution (nor does nuclear-loving right-wing favorite France), and new plants are extremely costly, not exactly small problems.

But I am also not blind to the fact that we already have nuclear power and it’s not going away any time soon. So sinking a climate bill over a nuclear compromise will do nothing to change our current reliance on nukes, while also doing nothing to cut carbon emissions.

The Republican whining about nuclear power has always been strange, because the House climate bill already supports nuclear power. A House aide who worked on the bill said, “twice as many new nuclear plants would be built by 2025 under [the House bill] than without the legislation.” All we are debating about is “how much” more nuclear, not “if any.”

Coastal drilling, it’s a similar story. Is it a waste of time to do more? Of course. There just ain’t that much oil.

But we already do some coastal drilling. The question is if we can find a way to permit a little more (note that it would take years before any actual hole got drilled anyway, so it may not be that big a concession) without creating significant environmental problems in exchange for a comprehensive plan to sufficiently cap carbon once for all.

Do I have great confidence that a few conservative Republicans are willing to face down the Teabagger fringe and strike a hard bargain? No. But any feeler is worth exploring.

Do I relish the nature of these potential deals? No. But the climate crisis threat is imminent. And it will be impossible to get the Senate to pass a real carbon cap, as it was in the House, without some unpleasant compromises.

The carbon cap is the ultimate big fish, so we should keep our eye on the ball.

Originally posted at OurFuture.org