This past weekend, about 500 people gathered at Wesleyan College in Middletown, Conn., for the Pricing Carbon Conference. But most of the participants weren’t excited about pricing carbon via cap-and-trade; they were all about carbon taxes.

During a debate about whether to implement a cap-and-trade policy or a carbon tax, Dan Lashof of NRDC, proponent of a cap (though an awfully mild proponent: “So I’m supposed to be here as a die-hard believer in cap-and-trade …”), had but one or two lone supporters in the large audience.

The conference was a virtual who’s who of carbon-tax supporters. Four members of the U.S. House spoke — Reps. Bob Filner (D-Calif.), Bob Inglis (R-S.C.), John Larson (D-Conn.), and Jim McDermott (D-Wash.). So did author and 350.org activist Bill McKibben, climate scientist James Hansen, Carbon Tax Center founder Charles Komanoff, and EPA lawyers and cap-and-trade rebels Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel.

It felt like a gathering of greens who don’t fit within the confines of mainstream environmentalism. Absent were big green groups like the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, and the League of Conservation Voters.

A major question over the weekend was how radical the carbon-tax movement should become. Panelist and activist Tim DeChristopher declared that we must “overthrow the corporate power structure.”  An audience member asked, “Do we even want to have a military in a sustainable world?” On the other side, panelists Bill Shireman of The Future 500 and outgoing GOP Rep. Inglis each stressed the importance of gaining business support and framing a tax in terms of how much profit companies will gain by “going green.”

The conference fell far short in terms of addressing the political obstacles that have been blocking climate legislation. Virtually absent was talk about Senate obstructionism, the inane and perpetual use of the filibuster, and the possibility of passing legislation through reconciliation, issues that David Roberts has covered at length (and with good reason). Many conference participants may see such issues as being outside their realm of expertise, preferring instead to talk about how methane affects ozone which then contributes to … zzzz. Yet even the three congressmen who headed a panel on “Politics and Other Realities” avoided mention of the Senate, focusing on micro-issues like gas stamps and impossibilities like “bringing America together” instead of ways legislation could feasibly get passed by a supermajority in the upper chamber of Congress. When I asked about the structural problems in the Senate, McDermott admitted it was an issue and then launched into talking about America being “addicted to oil.” Luckily, McDermott has three Priuses, so oil addiction isn’t much of an issue for him.

The conference also fell short in terms of diversity. The attendees were overwhelming young, overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly liberal, and, IMHO, overwhelmingly upper-middle-class. When one man mentioned “the elephant in the room,” referring to global population issues, another stood up and said, “I thought he was talking about me. I think I’m the only Republican here.” Gaining a broader base would undoubtedly help not just the carbon-tax movement, but all environmentalists.

Despite its weaknesses, the conference brought together a fantastic group of public-minded citizens and activists to thoughtfully discuss where to take the movement from here.

Cap-and-trade isn’t the only game in town, they stressed. Not if they have anything to do with it.

The majority of Americans prioritize the development of energy supplies over the protection of the environment, a new Gallup poll has found, the first time this has happened in the question’s ten-year history. Conducted in early March, before President Obama’s announcement that he would open much of America’s coastlines to offshore drilling, the poll’s results are consistent with the recent historical support for environmental issues, which peaked in 2007 and has been steadily declining ever since. Looking at the complete reversal of environmental and energy priorities over just three years, it’s hard not to wonder if Obama was in tune with the shift–and if it played a role in his decision to reneg on his campaign promise to ban offshore drilling.

Since coming out in support of climate legislation in October, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has faced a lot of vitriol from groups on the right, including Tea Party activists in Charleston. This criticism culminated in a formal censure from Charleston County that lambasted Graham for subverting “Republican leadership and party solidarity for his own benefit” and defiling “the ideals of freedom, rule of law, and fiscal conservatism.”

But one unlikely group is coming to Graham’s defense: the Christian Coalition. The group released a radio ad last week defending the senator’s actions.

The ad begins with an audio clip of President George W. Bush lamenting America’s addiction to oil as a “serious problem.” (You can listen to it here.) It continues with narration from Roberta Combs, president of the Christian Coalition:

President Bush was right: our addiction to foreign oil threatens our national security and economic prosperity. America spends almost a billion dollars a day on foreign oil and a lot of that goes to countries that do not like us and harbor terrorists. Washington’s failure to act puts our national security at risk, and drains our economy. I’ve heard from so many Christian Coalition supporters that energy is one of the most important issues we face today. America is a can-do country. We’ve got to take the lead to explore energy alternatives and protect our national security. We have to make our country safer by creating jobs with the made-in-America energy plan. I would like to ask you to call Sen. Lindsey Graham and encourage him to continue fighting for our families.

Could the Christian Coalition give fledgling climate legislation the leg up it needs?  The organization boasts 2.5 million supporters, largely conservative Republicans; if they embraced the cause, they could give a big boost to efforts to build a bipartisan coalition for a clean-energy and climate bill. 

Meanwhile, dozens of South Carolina veterans are also saluting Graham for his climate activism in an ad [PDF] running in local South Carolina newspapers, funded by the Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate:

As U.S. military veterans, we share Senator Lindsey Graham’s strong belief that our national security depends on more than troops and arms. America must also reduce its dangerous dependence on foreign oil and develop its own alternative energy sources.

Blanche Lincoln

Environmentalists and progressives have it in for Lincoln, angry over her opposition to high-profile Democratic issues like a public option in health care and cap-and-trade. The Sierra Club is running ads bashing her for trying to stall new fuel-economy rules on behalf of Big Oil. (She’s been the top recipient of campaign contributions from the oil and gas sector for the past five years.) MoveOn is sending emails calling Lincoln “one of the worst Democratic senators” and urging its members to donate to Halter.

Recently named to the League of Conservation Voters’ “Dirty Dozen,” Lincoln has taken heat for working to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse-gas emissions. She was also one of 10 Democrats who contributed to the downfall of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act in 2008. Along with other swing-vote senators, Lincoln signed a letter [PDF] outlining the reasons she would not support the bill. (Kate Sheppard has more on Lincoln’s climate and energy record.)

Meanwhile, Halter seems to be getting somewhat of a free pass. MoveOn, unions, and other liberal groups have helped him amass a war chest of more than $5 million, but he’s managed to get this far with little mention of the environment. His campaign website is decidedly ambiguous on climate and energy, focusing instead on education and jobs.

Bill HalterIn an interview with Talking Points Memo, Halter glosses over environmental issues. He gives a blunt “no” when asked if he would share Lincoln’s position on blocking the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, but remains vague about cap-and-trade, a point not lost on TPM:

On the issues, Halter often came down on the left-hand side of the line. He told me he likes candidates that talk specifics and in most cases he put his money where his mouth was, offering detailed answer on a number of policy fronts. One notable exception was cap-and-trade, where … he didn’t offer a specific policy stance, instead talking at length about developing alternative energy resources to better the environment and the economy. But he said “there are significant changes that need to be made” to the House cap-and-trade bill before he could support it. Halter ended our interview before he had a chance to elaborate on what those “significant changes” are.

Whoever wins the nomination will face a tough general-election race against the likely Republican nominee, U.S. Rep. John Boozman (R), who is currently polling well ahead of both Lincoln and Halter. 

Mark Warner

Sen. Mark Warner recognizes the need to take action on climate change, but wants to ensure that legislation will not negatively impact the economy.

Warner seems a safe bet to support the Kerry-Boxer climate bill. In recent months, he has underlined the severity of the climate crisis and the steps necessary to solve it. Speaking to the National Energy Summit and International Dialogue in September, Warner strongly emphasized the need to take immediate action: “The idea that we’re going to, for one more year, delay trying to take action on this critically important issue around energy would be a competitive, financial and potentially environmental disaster.” Soon thereafter, he stood with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) as they unveiled their climate bill, signaling his support for the legislation..

As Warner told Grist during his 2008 Senate campaign, he favors a wide-ranging approach to energy issues: support for renewables and next-gen hybrids, much higher fuel-efficiency standards, a big boost for energy R&D, government-funded research into carbon-capture-and-sequestration technology, “a fresh look at nuclear,” and expansion of domestic oil and gas production.

In this letter sent to a Grist reader in early November, Warner sounds generally supportive of climate legislation, but again emphasizes the importance of protecting the economy in the midst of the current downturn:

Dear [Constituent],

Thank you for contacting me about global warming and related legislation.  I appreciate hearing your views on this important issue.

In order to best protect America’s citizens and environment, I believe that we need to develop a comprehensive energy policy that both reduces our emissions and utilizes alternative sources of energy.  Doing so would not only help to preserve the environment, but would also create green jobs and ultimately lower domestic energy costs.  Any discussion of our national energy policy must also consider the international scope of this challenge as individual nations confront problems such as the finite supply of fossil fuels, overhauling outdated energy infrastructures, and many other important environmental challenges.

Members of the relevant Congressional committees are currently working on legislation that would address climate change on a national level, and I look forward to participating in this debate during the 111th Congress.  Though the science surrounding this issue supports the need for dramatic changes in policy, any comprehensive legislation to address climate change must balance this interest with the need to keep our economy viable during this challenging time.

Thank you again for your input on global warming.  Please be assured that I will continue to monitor related legislation and will consider your views as the Senate debates and votes on relevant legislation.  I very much look forward to serving the Commonwealth during the 111th Congress.

Sincerely,
MARK R. WARNER
United States Senator

In a 2008 campaign video, Warner lays out his plans for addressing energy concerns and climate change:

Track the climate debate and take action

Do you know what your senators think about climate legislation?  Ask them, then tell us what you find out.

Find out about other senators by clicking on their names in the right column.

Kay Hagan

When asked in mid-October if she would support a climate bill with cap-and-trade, the senator replied, “We’re certainly talking about it. The Kerry-Boxer bill is … out there but it’s not complete yet. So I’m certainly going to have to wait to look at the bill. I certainly say that climate change is real; I am extremely concerned about it. And I want to do what we need to do to be sure our country and the rest of the world is on the right track to reduce the CO2 emissions.”

The transition from candidate to senator seems to have affected Hagan’s environmental agenda: in 2008, her campaign website called for reducing carbon emissions 60 to 80 percent by 2050, but the energy page on her Senate website doesn’t mention climate or greenhouse-gas emissions at all, instead making vague calls for energy independence, energy efficiency, and cutting-edge energy technologies. In April, the senator, along with 25 other swing Democrats, voted against using the budget reconciliation process to pass a climate bill.

In a letter to a constitutent in early November, Hagan appears optimistic about climate legislation in general but stresses that she will closely review any bill before making a decision:

Thank you for contacting me regarding global climate change and federal efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions nationally and internationally. I greatly appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue.

On June 26, the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act of 2009 (H.R.2454). Similarly, on September 30, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S.1733) was introduced in the Senate. It has since been referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for further review.

Both pieces of legislation would regulate carbon emissions by establishing a cap on greenhouse gas emissions from large U.S. sources like electric utilities and oil refiners. The goal of both bills is to reduce emissions through a system of tradable permits modeled after the successful Clean Air Act program to prevent acid rain. If emitters are unable to reduce their emissions, they will be able to purchase allowances from other sources that have excess permits. This market-based approach is preferred because it provides economic incentives to reduce carbon emissions at the lowest cost to the economy. The bills would also invest in renewable and clean energy, provide incentives to encourage increased energy efficiency, and create thousands of high-paying jobs that cannot be outsourced.

Like you, I believe that we must work together to address the potentially devastating impacts of climate change. As a state senator, I worked to place North Carolina at the vanguard of energy independence and sustainability by requiring local utilities to utilize renewable resources in the production of electricity. I was also a strong proponent of the North Carolina Biofuels Center, as well as cutting-edge energy research and development throughout the University of North Carolina system. I believe that North Carolina can become a leader in the new energy economy, and I support a commonsense approach to meeting emerging energy challenges while protecting economic competitiveness for our nation’s workers and industries.

With this in mind, I anticipate the opportunity to work with my colleagues in the Senate to craft comprehensive energy legislation that will address vital environmental concerns while placing North Carolina and the nation at the forefront of the 21st-century energy economy. I believe strongly that we must work to ensure that the impact of any federal energy initiative does not fall disproportionately on North Carolina or low-income citizens, and will work with my colleagues and affected communities to achieve this goal. While comprehensive energy legislation has not yet been considered by the full Senate during the 111th Congress, I will review any proposal carefully to ensure that federal efforts to reduce greenhouse gasses do not negatively impact the citizens of North Carolina.

Again, thank you for contacting my office. It is truly an honor to represent North Carolina in the United States Senate, and I hope you will not hesitate to contact me in the future should you have any further questions or concerns.

Track the climate debate and take actionSincerely,
  
Kay R. Hagan

A Dear Kay website invites North Carolinians to send Hagan a message in support of clean energy and climate action.

As a state senator, Hagan earned an 85 percent rating [PDF] from the Conservation Council of North Carolina and helped to pass a renewable portfolio standard requiring the state’s utilities to meet targets for use of renewable energy.

Do you know what your senators think about climate legislation?  Ask them, then tell us what you find out.

Jon Tester

In late October, Tester expressed interest in Sen. Maria Cantwell’s (D-Wash.) climate bill, which thus far hasn’t gotten any traction in the Senate: “I’d like to see what Maria’s got. I’m not real happy with [Kerry-Boxer]. I don’t want something real, real complicated.”

But Tester does believe action on climate change is necessary, as he told the Montana Audubon Society in June: “I think climate change is real, and we need to do something about it. We also have to do it right, and that starts with promoting clean, green renewable energy. Montana is the mother lode for renewable energy. Wind. Solar. Geothermal. Bioenergy from crops that don’t compete with food. We’ve got it all.”

As president of the Montana Senate, Tester sponsored a successful bill that established a renewable energy standard for the state. During his campaign for Senate in 2006, he promised to “fight to end America’s addiction to foreign oil, by investing in bio-fuel technology and wind power development, creating a national renewable standard and promoting energy efficiency and conservation.” More recently, in an interview with fivethirtyeight.org, Tester expressed his support for clean-coal technologies as well as renewable energy. “[Coal] ain’t going away,” Tester argued. “So let’s figure out a way to burn it better.”

Tester sent the following letter to a climate skeptic in March, arguing that climate change is a serious problem and affirming his intent “to be a part of the solution”:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your skepticism regarding global warming. I appreciate your perspective on this important issue facing our nation, but respectfully disagree with your conclusion.

Climate change is causing devastating effects on our environment. In Montana, we are witnessing the disappearance of the glaciers in Glacier National Park, a lengthy drought, and wildly shifting weather patterns.

In north central Montana, we haven’t had a “Montana” winter in nearly 30 years. Worldwide, the increasing frequency and intensity of wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, and snow storms threatens our safety and burdens global economics as we witness irregular precipitation patterns.

Because of my concern for our safety, economic well-being, and environment, I am committed to reversing the effects of climate change.

Congress will consider several important pieces of legislation this year on global warming, and I intend to be a part of the solution to global climate change. Promoting conservation efforts, reducing emissions from industrial sources and developing renewable fuels are just a few of our options, and I will look closely at all of them.

Your input is an incredibly important part of the process. I hope that you will contact me again in the future if you have any further questions or concerns.

Sincerely,
Jon Tester
United States Senator, Montana

Do you know what your senators think about climate legislation?  Ask them, then tell us what you find out.

George LeMieux

He said after his appointment that he would want to study specific climate legislation before coming down on one side or the other, while also stressing that the nation needs to “move toward renewable energy,” which he said includes nuclear power.

LeMieux previously served as chief of staff for Crist, who emerged in 2007 as one of the nation’s most proactive Republican governors on climate change.  While working under Crist, LeMieux organized a high-profile Climate Summit in 2007, at which Crist signed executive orders calling for the state to cut its greenhouse-gas emissions and increase energy efficiency.  Said LeMieux in 2007, “There might have been a time where the jury was out [on climate change], but the jury is in now, and we know this is an issue. We can’t afford to ignore it and be wrong.”

LeMieux also worked with Crist to lay the groundwork for a statewide cap-and-trade program to reduce emissions.  LeMieux wrote on his website at the time, “As the second fastest growing state with respect to annual increase in greenhouse gases (GHG), the creation of a cap and trade program was necessary and timely to address the challenge of climate change.”

LeMieux’s Senate appointment drew positive reactions from green groups like the Ocean Conservancy, which said it was “optimistic” about the new senator because of “his strong record on climate change.”

But the situation is complicated by the fact that LeMieux is essentially acting as a placeholder for Crist, who is running for the Senate seat LeMieux now occupies.   Crist, who faces a conservative primary challenger, recently backed away from his support for cap-and-trade, not wanting to be seen as too liberal.  LeMieux, a loyal Crist backer, may feel pressure to withhold his support from the Kerry-Boxer climate bill. 

Track the debate and take action >>>

On the other hand, LeMieux might be more inclined to back a climate bill now that Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) has teamed up with Democrat John Kerry (Mass.) to push for moderate climate legislation. 

Do you know more about this senator’s stance on climate legislation?  Tell us.

Find out about other senators by clicking on their names in the right column.