The White House’s Weak Response to the Climate Bill Delay


Yesterday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters that the climate bill may have to wait till next year—which in Senate-speak means it’s basically dead till 2010. What did the White House have to say about this? After all, a congressionally approved plan to cut US emissions is key to the success of international climate talks in Copenhagen this December. David Corn asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs about the delay yesterday at the daily press briefing. And Gibbs couldn’t come up with much of a response:

 

Well, I obviously haven’t seen Senator Reid’s comments. I know the House took important legislative action earlier in the year. Senator Kerry and Senator Boxer are working on a proposal in the Senate. The President will take part in Ban Ki-moon’s discussion on climate next week at the U.N. And we hope to continue to make progress leading up to Copenhagen, understanding that we are one part of what has to happen internationally, and understanding that we are working through years and years of an issue that hasn’t been at the forefront of many different agendas here in the White House. We’re seeking to change that, and we have no doubt that that will take some time.

But is the delay a setback? Gibbs again:

No, I think we can continue to make progress. We’ve got to make progress, and the international community has got to make progress getting China and India and developing nations and evolving world economies like Brazil on board. This is not just a one-country solution. There has to be an international effort to address this.

It’s hard to see how the administration can “make progress”—either on cutting back emissions or persuading other countries to do so—without any actual legislation. About the only other option it has is to crack down harder on greenhouse gas emissions via EPA regulations. Over at Grist, David Roberts has a really handy primer on the possibilities and limits of this approach.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.