Can Barack Obama kill the climate pirates?

It was surprising to find on Capitol Hill this week that Obama has a good chance eventually of getting a climate bill, writes Geoffrey Lean.

By Geoffrey LeanPublished: 5:30PM GMT 13 Nov 2009
Visiting the US Congress is like stepping back in time to 18th-century Poland, I was warned before mounting Capitol Hill this week. Even stranger, the advice went on, I would find this conflated with the all-too-familiar present-day experience of British party politics. And the combination of the two was bedevilling the world's attempt to get a new agreement to tackle climate change.
Let me explain.
Three centuries ago, the Polish parliament, the Sejm, was paralysed because every member had a veto: by shouting the resounding phrase "nie pozwalam" ("I do not allow"), he could halt proceedings. The practice sprang from the principle that all the nobles who made up the Sejm were equal and should be independent – and it had originally done much to constrain the powers of the monarch and bring in a degree of constitutional government. But, increasingly, competing outside interests bought up members to block laws they did not like.
Any US Senator can similarly frustrate legislation by filibustering (the term, engagingly, comes from the Spanish word for "pirate"). Indeed, these days he or she does not even have to talk for ever, but can achieve the same effect by simply announcing the intention to do so. The threat that hard-line climate-sceptic Republicans will do this is holding up the passage of a bill introducing measures to reduce carbon emissions. And that, in turn, is stalling international agreement on a treaty to combat global warming, scheduled for Copenhagen next month, because the bargain cannot be struck without the United States.
To European eyes, the threat should be idle, since – unlike in Polish history – a filibuster can be blocked by a vote of at least 60 senators. As Barack Obama has precisely that number of Democrats in the upper house, it would seem he should be home and dry. But that is to forget the other parallels. For each of those Democratic senators cherishes political independence as fiercely as did the Polish nobles. And – let's put it politely – many are beholden to outside interests; in this case the coal, oil and car industries.
Yet Washington is used to all this, and has long managed to put together deals to pass contentious legislation. What has made things really difficult is the partial introduction of rigid, British-style, party political practice.
Since 1993 – when their then Senate leader, Bob Dole, first persuaded them to do so – the Republicans have increasingly behaved like a disciplined block, voting ideologically, while the Democrats often operate like a swarm of pedigree cats. And, over climate, the Republican leadership has even begun to part company with some traditional business backers. The nuclear industry, and even some oil companies, want it to make a deal, but it is refusing to do so. And Republicans are prepared to turn viciously on any colleague that threatens to break ranks – providing the spit, perhaps, to go with the Polish.
All this makes it hard to play the old game of reconciling interests or to find Republicans who will vote for the bill in the place of oil- or coal-state Democrats who refuse. And it puts into perspective the cliched caricature of the President as the most powerful man in the world. ("It's true if he wants to bomb somebody," as one insider put it to me, "but not if he wants to get a bill through Congress.").
So it was all the more surprising to find on the Hill that Obama has a good chance eventually of getting a climate bill. The breakthrough has come from a brave Republican Senator, Lindsey Graham, deciding to work with the Democrat John Kerry and the Independent Joe Lieberman to draw up a compromise bill, despite being subject to attack ads in his constituency.
Some 10 Republican senators – more than enough to make up for renegade Democrats – have expressed support for climate legislation in the past, and are thought to be persuadable, especially if the bill backs a big expansion of nuclear power.
No one expects this to be sorted out before the Copenhagen conference opens, but there are hopes that enough progress will be made for the US to be able to lay out a provisional offer in the Danish capital – dependent on passing legislation in the spring. And that could be enough to seal the international deal. Of course, it may well go wrong, either in Congress or Copenhagen or both. But it's worth remembering that Sejm's paralysis led to anarchy and the break-up of Poland – and that failure to control climate change would bring even greater disaster on a global scale.