17 Players Who Could Make or Break Cap and Trade

Are Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, and Van Jones hot? Or not? You decide.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


By year’s end, world leaders are to negotiate the successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol climate agreement in Copenhagen—our last chance, many experts say, to reverse the disastrous course of global climate policy. Here’s how the battlefield is shaping up in Washington.


Nancy PelosiNancy Pelosi: The speaker of the House has said Congress may not be ready for a cap-and-trade bill this year. But enviros say she’s just managing expectations. They see some kind of climate legislation passing this year, though it could be incremental—think carbon targets in a broader energy bill.

John Boehner: With about a dozen Senate Republicans likely to support cap-and-trade legislation, the gop‘s chances of blocking it may rest on the few surviving moderate Republicans in the House; look for the minority leader to blast cap and trade as too costly for an economy in crisis.

Henry Waxman: Under former chairman John Dingell, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce was where energy legislation went to die. Under Waxman, the committee’s mix of liberals and Blue Dogs could craft a bill with wide appeal.

Lawrence SummersLawrence H. Summers: As Bill Clinton’s deputy Treasury secretary, he argued that stemming climate change too quickly would drag down the economy. As head of Obama’s economic team, he’ll square off against the White House’s progressive climate czar, Carol M. Browner.

Lisa Jackson: Obama’s epa administrator is in a position to move forward on carbon even if Congress won’t—by regulating CO2 as a pollutant, for example, an avenue opened by a groundbreaking 2007 Supreme Court ruling.

TOM kuhn: As president of the Edison Electric Institute, which represents most of the nation’s electric utilities, Kuhn routinely makes The Hill‘s annual list of the capital’s most powerful business lobbyists. Last year he spent $5.5 million lobbying Congress, in part to water down the Lieberman-Warner climate bill. But watch for up-and-comers like the increasingly powerful American wind energy association to give him a run for his money.

The United States Climate Action Partnership: With members ranging from the Natural Resources Defense Council to Dow Chemical, it aims to broker a climate compromise. “When we rolled this out in January 2007, it really shook up Washington,” says Manik Roy of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a founding member of the group. “All of a sudden, you could not say this is industry versus the environment.” But when it was revealed that some partnership members were also funding efforts to block mandatory carbon cuts, environmental groups such as the Sierra Club cried foul.

David Hunter: A former staffer to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), he now lobbies on behalf of the International Emissions Trading Association to promote carbon offsets, arguing that allowing US industries to retrofit a power plant in China is more efficient than forcing companies to cut emissions. But experts say the bona fides of specific offset projects are hard to verify.

Van Jones: Oakland’s evangelist for the green-collar economy will battle the industry-backed alliance for energy and economic growth, which says a carbon cap would be disastrous for blue-collar America.

John Doerr: In January, Silicon Valley’s best-known clean-tech investor told a Senate committee that the single most important thing it could do to boost his sector was pass a climate bill. No Republicans attended the talk.

Rick Boucherrick boucher: The Blue Dog Democrats will be crucial to passing cap and trade in the House, and Boucher (D-Va.) is the most climate savvy of the lot. A shrewd bargainer for coal interests in his Virginia district, he’s pushing for heavy subsidies for carbon capture technologies, followed by deeper cuts to emissions if and when coal cleans up.

Steven Chu: Obama’s energy secretary loves next-gen biofuels and the oil companies researching them almost as much as he hates climate change. A Nobel laureate, he’ll have the president’s ear as few others will—and might even cure corn-fed Agriculture Secretary tom vilsack of his addiction to ethanol.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly 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