Party Politics and Peter Rouse (Obama's new Chief of Staff)

The History:
The very first day of my Environmental Law & Policy class, my (undisclosed party) professor brought up the topic of environmental party lines. I had never cared to look into before; it was assumed that besides the occasional crossover, Democrats were for environmental issues and Republicans were against. Obviously, it's not that simple. Which party do you think was responsible for environmental protection and emissions control? Who were the original environmentalists? Contrary to what I always thought, they were Republicans.

1st National Park (Yellowstone): President Theodore Roosevelt, Republican, 1872
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): President Richard Nixon, Republican, 1970
Clean Air Act (extension): President Richard Nixon, 1970
Clean Water Act: President Richard Nixon, 1972
Endangered Species Act: President Richard Nixon, 1973
Resource Conservation Recovery Act:  President Jimmy Carter, Democrat, 1976
CERCLA (Superfund): President Ronald Reagan, Republican, 1980

Or were they? Although legislation was passed under Republican presidents, environmental legislation had the support of both Republicans AND Democrats. Environmental safety and protection was common ground. So, where did we go wrong? What caused the bipartisanship of the past to yield the ugly divide that exists today? Our class brainstormed some answers, and these were my favorites:

• Unobservable consequences - In the past, signs of environmental degradation and threat to human health were clear as  rivers catching on fire. With climate change, the effects are less obvious. Different regions will experience different symptoms and to different degrees.
• Hard economic times - In the 70's, 80's and 90's, environmental issues were not clouded by today's economic depression, which causes us to focus on personal and financial issues.
• No united national front - The generations that lived through WWII and the Cold War shared a common national experience, which bonded them and fostered collaboration. Now, the parties are at each other's throats.

Today:
Climate change legislations just can't seem to come through. The promising bill proposed by Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham was like a Senate hot-potato. People showed interest but didn't want to get burned, and Obama's absence was palpable. While two wars couldn't unite us, I had hoped climate change would. Instead, it proves to be one of the most divisive issues of them all.

A Democrat, a Republican, and an Independent walk into a bar...
Three unlikely friends came together to form a climate super team, nicknamed the "Three Amigos": Kerry (D), Lieberman (I), and Graham (R). These three politicians set aside past rivalries and hurt feelings to fight, tooth and nail, for the passage of a climate bill. They fought hard for votes in the Senate. They called up T. Boone Pickens and big oil. They compromised. By offering to include legislation such as offshore drilling allowances, nuclear loan guarantees, and natural gas benefits, KGL (Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman) were able to accrue support from both industry and Senate Republicans. So, why are we not currently in the process of instituting cap-and-trade? While the Senators were negotiating hard behind the scenes, Obama stole any ounce of bargaining power they had by announcing nuclear loan guarantees and the expansion of offshore drilling rights. Ryan Lizza said it best, "Obama had served the dessert before the children even promised to eat their spinach." Once the phrase "carbon-tax" caught hold, a YouTube viral video accused Graham of being gay, and KGL lost G, the climate bill was in all practical sense, dead.

Left to Right: Graham, Lieberman, and Kerry

I highly recommend this New Yorker article that comments on the politics and actions of involved parties.

So, why did the climate bill fail so impressively? Why couldn't these dedicated Senators get the votes? Why didn't the White House back the bill whole-heartedly? I'll give you one guess; it's because of us. That's right: we're a democracy, and we, as the people, actually have an immense impact on decision-making. Near the beginning of the year, citizens ranked climate change as the last priority of 21 issues. Rising sea level, droughts, floods, and extreme biodiversity loss lead most people to think, "I can't feel it. It doesn't affect me right now. I don't care."

New Hope for the Future:
After listening to chatter about Rahm Emanuel on NPR for 3 straight hours last Friday, I had heard enough. What I needed was a good laugh.

Who doesn't love a little Jon Stewart tearing up someone's character?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Rahm-A-Gone
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

I honestly can't say much about the effectiveness of Emanuel so I'll leave it at that. All I know is that Lizza (from the New Yorker) describes Emanuel as a man who was all about the win. If the votes weren't already there, he wasn't going to support it. The votes weren't there for the climate bill, so he didn't push it. His replacement, however, serves as new hope for climate activists everywhere. His name is Peter Rouse.

Peter Rouse

'"He's very green," said Eric Washburn, who helped write the energy bill of 2002 as [Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's] legislative director. "He's someone who I think has deeply held views about [climate change], but he's also someone who can temper them" to get the "best [outcome] the political system can deliver at that moment."' - Lehmann


I guess we'll have to wait and see. With more Republicans in the Senate, there will be quite a bit to overcome.