AP interviews Kerry

on energy bill.

He is really doing a great job trying to find something that will do significant good - in spite of the decline in belief, due to well funded lies and self interest.

thing. Nuclear waste is still an important issue that needs more attention, but I consider nuclear power to be a practical part of the energy mix.

to some degree. Before a huge expansion, you need a viable solution to the waste. In addition, there is a LONG lead time before a new plant is up - so they do very little quickly. I think if all technologies are given resources, nuclear which is not economically as cheap as the others might end up being smaller than they anticipate - just because of market forces.

and has to act like it is only a jobs/national security bill.

Tough days for the Senator. He cares about the environment but has to pretend he doesn't.

David Roberts of Grist on Twitter:





It tells us how sad a state Washington is in when one of the greatest champions for the environment in Congress can't talk about the point of a bill he authored, saying climate change is "only along for the ride".

And, I agree it is a shame he has to accentuate other aspects of the bill and tone down the climate change initiatives because of the caustic nature of Washington right now on this issue. We have lost the publics trust and interest on this issue because, as Senator Kerry has said, talk radio has just dismissed it all as a hoax-using such examples as the scientists' who twisted the facts to prove their theories and the huge snow storms this year. Every time I went out to shovel snow, I had a neighbor comment on it by saying, "hey some global warming, huh". I provided facts to one neighbor, but I think I made him angry by correcting him. You and I are informed about climate change, but there are a lot of people who are too lazy to do some research or just don't care. They are happy to believe the college drop outs Limbaugh and Hannity on this issue.

I actually don't even feel qualified to rebut someone saying that about global warming. I feel like that is the job of scientists. But now scientists are viewed with suspicion by too many people in this country (and really, by the left just as much as the right -- see the nutty vaccine/autism "debate"). People think that because they have Google or are listening to some loudmouth on the radio, that they can find the REAL TRUTH; that somehow experts telling them something they don't want to hear are part of some big conspiracy. That is beyond my understanding. I actually like it when my assumptions are questioned. It keeps me honest. But others will do everything in their power to hold onto beliefs even if they have been proven false.

It just, well, hurts to see Kerry have to back away from what is something he feels passionately about, because things are so screwed up in Washington.

the argument that even if they were wrong on climate change, saying cleaner air, cleaner water, better health, getting the new technology jobs (something we are quickly getting behind other countries on) and national security. Also, it is a bit melodramatic on Roberts' part to say it is Kerry listening to the message mavens. He is not speaking to the choir here, he is speaking to the people who are skeptical and giving them alternative reasons to do this.

The damage done by the well funded lies and their propagation by the right's echo chamber have done an amazing job. I suspect that part of the ease was that many on our side never 100% believed it. Otherwise the coal states would have argued that they needed to be compensated for bearing the greatest burden of the needed changes, not that coal power plants should get a pass.

This is a harder time to do this than it would have been last summer, now the science is less believed, the expectation of the economy reviving is oddly lower - even as the fist signs that we not only did hit bottom, but are coming back up are proven, and the the elections are coming up. Yet last August the chance of a bill was said to be dead.

It is Kerry's perserverance that has kept this issue alive and last fall what he given credit for was that he had won over important military people on the National Security issue and the business community wanting the certainty of passed law to create more incentive, need and money for new technology. Kerry's comment is in line with earlier comments and though climate change is clearly what motivates him the most, I do think he is sincere in arguing that even without it, there are reasons to do this.

When you look at new polls that now show less than half the people believe the science, Kerry needs to gain support for something that does have economic impact using the other arguments. I still expect that he will speak of climate change and the need to do something - as he has for years. However, when speaking to people unwilling to buy that reason, he is smart in arguing things they will accept.

Would Roberts have been happier if Kerry acted like a taller, better looking Kucinich speaking in purist terms and basing everything on the need to fix climate change? If Kerry and the others are able to pass a bill which cuts carbon by 17% (or even less), it will be an incredible achievement that will be of some (though not enough) help on climate change.

And really, it is more a commentary on Washington, than Kerry. Do you not agree that Kerry was advised to emphasize certain aspects of the bill and to downplay others?

arguments that will work with his colleagues. This was one interview and not a very comprehensive one at that. If seems reasonable to make the arguments that gain the most traction. Now, had Kerry said the science was not settled or that climate change was not an important issue - I would agree - but, here I don't see anything wrong.

I also agree that it was more directed at DC, but I don't think Kerry is a puppet who is told what to say - and he has always made the case partially by arguing that there are major side benefits that come from doing the right thing.

Here is a BG article on the belief in climate change - http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2010/03/08/errors_thefts_eroding_confidence_in_climate_science/?page=2



Now, you can argue that Kerry should be making the case for climate change whenever he gets the opportunity. He stands more of a chance getting this passed based on the arguments he is making and with the intent of passing it this year, this may be the way to go. It would be better if scientists made the case on climate change. Kerry was very good in the Finance committee when he refuted the AEI scientist by speaking of himself as a person who legislates policy based on the overwhelming evidence from the scientists who he has spoken to.

This is a tough legislative climate.

The fact is that Republican voters are less and less inclined to believe climate change. The media have done everything to cast doubt on the scientific evidence, including the ridiculous spin of the recent snow storm.

What is clear is that people still believe in energy independence, and job creation is a great selling feature.

Kerry has always made the point that even if the advocates of global warming are wrong, what can it hurt to do something beneficial for the planet?

I applaud him for staying focused, and that is what is encouraging.

There is no way that a Senator can think up talking points all the time. He or she simply does not have the time for that. There are political stragists on every staff who know what may work and what won't work. They relay this information to the Senator who can agree or disagree with a particular point he is being advised to tell the press.

John Kerry has advisors who help him with this sort of thing! He doesn't do it all by himself!! This does not make him a puppet but someone who knows how to delegate when he simply does not have the time to do everything. It is interactive. Some politicians like Sarah Palin are pretty brain dead and just do what they are told. Others like John Kerry will work WITH his advisors, but he is still given ideas for what to say that is I am sure based on some poll data.

Let's be clear here: I don't like what he said!! It was lame and just threw climate change out the window. But I GET why he did so. Because Washington DC is totally messed up. And he lives in that village, has advisors who live in that village, and he has to get legislation through that village. But I don't live there, and feel I can express my disappointment on how low this whole thing has gone. To Kerry's credit he is not giving up. But to a certain extent he has already lost. The good bill was killed and is dead. Now we're stuck with a fairly toothless bill that STILL may fail.

It would be completely impossible for him to be the sole person doing all that comes out of his office - in addition, it would mean a lot of people doing nothing. What I was trying to say was what you said here - "They relay this information to the Senator who can agree or disagree with a particular point he is being advised to tell the press."

Here my point was that Kerry has been working on this issue meeting with a substantial number of his peers. So, he has seen directly which things seem to move people towards their side.

I don't take his comment as "throwing climate change out the window" To me, that would mean him saying it wasn't important or him just dropping this whole issue. In fact, it is ONLY because of the international treaty that his committee even has any jurisdiction - thus having the ability to have hearings.

Although I am disappointed because it is clear that he won't be able to get a bill as good as he wanted last summer out of the Senate, I certainly don't think it is fair to call it a loss if they get a bill out that makes substantial steps in the right direction - especially in the current environment. You were right when you said Kerry/Boxer was dead when it was rammed through the environmental committee with no Republican support. This is not new.

I agree that they could very well nd up with nothing or something far weaker than needed. However, it won't be because Kerry does not speak of the dangers of climate change or because he is not committed or even not skilled enough. Look how difficult HCR is and that was initially supported by a huge % of Democrats -in and outside of Congress.

What everybody agreed to was "access to affordable healthcare"? (whatever this means - I am sure the GOP agreed with that too - who would not) This is what was mostly in the platform of the Democrats in general.

Now, how this would be implemented is something few Democrats agreed with one another, and this is probably why it is so hard to pass. Had they agreed with a clear vision, it probably would have been done, but given the various flavors of it, from mandate and subsidies (at a higher or lower level), strong public option, full single payer, part single payer with complementary private insurance, price control or not and every flavor in between, and no clear agreement what affordable means and what you do with those who cant afford it (how do waiver solve the problem exactly?), there was no agreement on what this meant.

In fact, there is a better agreement on what climate change would involve, but there is no political will to do so. Some simply dont think it is that important, some are justly concerned that solutions would hurt workers, and some are concerned that big business would be hurt or that parts of their local industry would suffer, and for all, immediate gratification is more important than dealing with future problems (nothing new, this is how problems are fixed in this country: when you cant do otherwise).

This is why I think Kerry should continue to talk about climate change. If you dont, the plan he, Graham, and Lieberman are proposing is meaningless, and you can go with the Bingaman plan, because you lose all justification for some entire parts of the program.

I think the plan that he is working on does more for climate change than the Bingaman plan and it has been Kerry who has kept the need for pricing carbon in it. I do concede that without climate change, it is unlikely the same things would all be done together - leaving this a climate change bill without stating what it is - which was Beachmom's point. I can see that I was wrong.

But I doubt that Kerry will stop speaking of climate change altogether and I really don't think this brief set of comments indicates that he is moving in that direction. More likely it was a less elegant version of what he has always said - that doing what these things has good side benefits. Maybe turning it a bit too much.

Both re the respective bills and re JK's rhetoric. He's never shied away from talking about environmental issues, even when it was not popular. I, too, believe that this was a single response to a single situation, politically calculated to move him toward a very difficult victory. I don't doubt that we'll be hearing a lot more about his very clear commitment to turning this boat around.

Democrats are running for the hills trying to save their seats, and therefore dont want to talk about any serious issues. Result: even with a bill that has already been watered down again and again, sponsors have to avoid saying the truth, but have to talk about something else. (Yes, this bill will create jobs, but if it is for going to an environmental catastrophe in 20 years, what is the point).

I have to say I have been skeptical of what would come of Kerry's efforts to talk with Lieberman and Graham, and the more I hear them speak, the more skeptical I am that they can pass a bill that is still worth something, but I appreciate that the senator continues, particularly knowing he will do that being attacked by his own side for being a corporate sell-out, and by the other side for being a treehugger.

just proves his determination and convictions that something must be done now to ease climate change and start to put and end to our dependency of foreign oil.