Kate Sheppard

Reporter

Kate Sheppard is a staff reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. She was previously the political reporter for Grist and a writing fellow at The American Prospect. She can be reached by email at ksheppard (at) motherjones (dot) com.

Full Bio | Get my RSS | Follow @kate_sheppard

Her work has also been featured in the New York Times' Room for Debate blog, the Guardian's Comment Is Free, Foreign Policy, High Country News, The Center for Public Integrity, the Washington Independent, Washington Spectator, Who Runs Gov, In These Times, and Bitch. She was raised on a vegetable farm in southern New Jersey (yes, they do exist), but has adapted well to life in the nation's capital. She misses trees and having a congressional representative with voting power, but thinks DC is pretty great anyway.

Swing-Vote Dems Fire Warning Shot on Copenhagen

—By Kate Sheppard

| Mon Dec. 7, 2009 9:55 AM PST

In a letter to Barack Obama late last week, nine swing-vote senators outlined a set of demands that any climate action—domestic or international—must include in order to get their votes. The letter can be read as a warning to Obama as he heads to Copenhagen about what these key senators will and won't support.

The five-page letter acknowledges that the goal of action should be to limit global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, that a 50 percent reduction in global emissions by 2050 is necessary, and that developed nations must cut emissions by 80 percent. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Mark Begich of Alaska all signed onto the letter. These senators, who mostly hail from Midwestern and fossil-fuel dependent states, are all seen as on the fence when it comes to a climate bill. They listed a set of specific conditions needed to win their support for any climate measure:

[Read more in the MoJo blog]

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Copenhagen: What Would Success Look Like?

There won't be a binding treaty. But here's what the climate summit could achieve.

—By Kate Sheppard

| Mon Dec. 7, 2009 4:00 AM PST

Over the next two weeks, world leaders will gather in Copenhagen to discuss the future of the planet. We already know that the summit will only produce a political agreement, not a binding treaty. But that doesn't mean the conference will be a total wash. Here's what the historic meeting in Denmark can—and should—accomplish.

The White House's surprise announcement late Friday afternoon that the president will delay his arrival until the conference's final day on December 18—rather than December 9, as he'd previously planned—is a very good sign. It's unlikely Obama would risk a repeat of his failed Olympics pitch in October if there was any danger that negotiations would fall through. His late appearance signals that the administration is confident that the assembled leaders can hammer out a solid deal.

[Read the full article]

A Carbon Tax Hail Mary?

—By Kate Sheppard

| Fri Dec. 4, 2009 5:39 PM PST

On both the left and the right, there are mutterings that the Senate should ditch cap-and-trade legislation in favor of a carbon tax. But is a carbon tax the silver bullet its supporters claim, or simply a product of wishful thinking?

At an Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on climate policy this week, Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Bob Corker of Tennessee repeatedly suggested that a carbon tax would be simpler and more transparent than a cap-and-trade scheme. Corker has also argued that a tax could return the revenues to consumers via rebates.

For carbon tax fans, these kinds of remarks are signals that their favored policy isn't a lost cause. That's the case made by the US Climate Task Force, a project founded by former Clinton administration officials Robert Shapiro and Elaine Kamarck.

[Read more in the MoJo blog]

Blowing In The Wind

John Kerry is leading the climate fight in the Senate. So why won’t he support a major renewable energy project in his own backyard?

—By Kate Sheppard

| Fri Dec. 4, 2009 4:00 AM PST

Cape Wind, the bitterly contested proposed offshore wind farm in Massachusetts’ Nantucket Sound, is approaching a critical juncture. After eight years of delays, the project will likely be approved or denied before the end of 2009. If it proceeds, the 24-square-mile, 130-turbine wind farm could generate enough electricity to power 420,000 homes—and kick-start an offshore wind industry in the United States.

But opposition to the project has been fierce, and Cape Wind needs all the help it can get. So where is the state's senior senator? John Kerry is among Capitol Hill's most ardent advocates of addressing climate change, but he has refused to weigh in on one of the most significant debates over the future of alternative energy—and one that’s occurring in his own backyard.

[Read the full article]

Robert Byrd: Tough on...Coal?

—By Kate Sheppard

| Thu Dec. 3, 2009 4:00 PM PST

Throughout his long political career, 92-year-old Robert Byrd has been one of the coal industry's staunchest defenders. But in a significant shift, he's now arguing that the industry needs to face facts and "embrace the future."

"[T]he time has come to have an open and honest dialogue about coal’s future in West Virginia," Byrd wrote in an op-ed on Thursday. Byrd acknowledged that coal-industry jobs had been declining in the state, that mountaintop removal mining comes with environmental and health problems, and that some regulation of carbon dioxide emissions is inevitable.

Byrd took aim at the industry's denial of climate change. "To be part of any solution, one must first acknowledge a problem. To deny the mounting science of climate change is to stick our heads in the sand and say 'deal me out,'" he wrote. "West Virginia would be much smarter to stay at the table." Coal-producing states "hold some powerful political cards," he continued, and can play a part in shaping policy—but only if they are "honest brokers," he wrote.

Byrd also hit back at the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce's attempt to get him to block health care legislation until the Obama administration eases regulations on the coal industry. "I believe that the notion of holding the health care of over 300 million Americans hostage in exchange for a handful of coal permits is beyond foolish; it is morally indefensible," he wrote. "It is a non-starter, and puts the entire state of West Virginia and the coal industry in a terrible light."

This is a major change of heart for Byrd, who just last year was the only Democrat to vote against even proceeding to debate a climate bill. In the past, he's opposed most climate legislation, usually out of concern for coal interests. While he still sees a major role for coal, he's recognizes that it's not going to be as abundant or as cheap as it has been in the past. "West Virginians can choose to anticipate change and adapt to it, or resist and be overrun by it," he concluded. "The time has arrived for the people of the Mountain State to think long and hard about which course they want to choose."