It was great to see The New York Times give front-page treatment to the unexpected weight that President Obama put on climate change during his second inaugural address on Monday.
It sends a message that regardless of what happens next, news outlets should keep close tabs on what the White House is and isn’t doing to live up to Obama’s promise to “respond to the threat of climate change.” After all, he made a similar promise after the first time he was elected and didn’t live up to it, and reporters let it drop.
That can’t happen again, and hopefully it won’t. The eight sentences that Obama spent on climate change—“more than he devoted to any other specific area,” according to the Times—drew a lot of attention, although there wasn’t much variety in the coverage.
Articles like those from Politico and The Washington Post recapped what was and wasn’t achieved during the president’s first four years in office, as well as what is and isn’t likely in the next four, but there was little analysis of what could be done to change the fact that the view is the same in both directions, with efficiency and emissions regulations in the realm of the possible and carbon-pricing legislation a perceived non-starter.
It was surprising, for instance, that nobody mentioned a controversial report released this month by Harvard sociologist and political scientist Theda Skocpol, which basically absolved Obama of any responsibility for the failure of cap-and-trade legislation in Congress in 2010. Instead, Skocpol blamed environmentalists for failing to foresee that the Republican Party, pulled to the right by the Tea Party, would become unremittingly opposed to action, and for failing to organize the type of broad-based political coalition that could override that intransigence.
The assessment re-ignited the debate about what went wrong at a time when Democrats seemed to have the upper hand, but it didn’t get much coverage outside of environmentally oriented blogs. Most of the conversation took place at Grist.
Philip Bump kicked it off with a straightforward write-up before the site’s top gun, David Roberts, weighed in with a three-part series. For the most part, Roberts agreed with Skocpol’s analysis of what went awry, although he doubted her prescription for legislative progress in Obama’s second term, arguing that success of carbon-pricing would require “fixing” US politics (eliminating the power of the filibuster, for instance) and not just a broader, more committed political coalition.
Climate activist and author Bill McKibben also found Skocpol’s report “insightful” and “useful,” explaining at Grist how groups like his, 350.org, have started to carry out the type of grassroots-to-gilded-halls mobilization that she called for.
Others were less impressed. Eric Pooley, another author turned climate activist, took issue with Skocpol’s criticism of the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a consortium of environmental organizations and corporations that was a major player in the push for cap-and-trade legislation. The idea was that if green groups could get big business to go along, big business would bring Republican votes. It didn’t work, and Skocpol derided the effort as “insider grand bargaining” that ignored the need to build a broader constituency for climate action.
Pooley, now a senior VP at EDF, one of those environmental organizations, disagreed. In an essay for Grist, he argued that green groups did not dismiss grassroots organizing, and that the decision to focus on the Beltway approach “was based on a hardheaded view of what presented the best opportunity at the time.” Skocpol’s argument rests on the benefit of hindsight, Pooley said, and while USCAP did not succeed, it did more than anyone else to promote climate legislation:
The climate campaigners understood from the outset that USCAP was necessary but not sufficient. They knew that increased partisanship and well-funded opponents were going to make this fight extremely difficult. Skocpol concludes that since these alliances failed to become significant, the climate campaign must have had no interest in them. This is mistaken. The campaigners worked hard and came up short. The real problem was execution, not strategy.