Adopt a Senator for Climate – Lisa Murkowski
15 10 2009
“Adopt a Senator for Climate” is the whip project at DailyKos to track and influence the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill as it moves through the Senate. Volunteers target particular Senators, ascertain and diary the Senator’s likely vote on the climate bill, and track the Senator’s position as the bill moves through the Senate. This is a great project. Mark Begich is still waiting to be “adopted.” Interested? Contact me or leave a comment. RLMiller did a great job with the adoption of Senator Lisa Murkowski. The diary is reprinted here.
By RLMiller
The vast state of Alaska is big enough to hold two very high-ranking female politicians, although Some Politician hogs the limelight. The other one will have a chance to vote on the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act – but will she vote to keep her state mired in last century’s pollution, or north to the future for her vulnerable state?
Lisa Murkowski, the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, understands the consequences of human-caused global warming, has favored past caps on carbon emissions, and thus might vote for the climate change bill — as long as it’s not “energy vs. environment,” where she always sides with her oily donors. Her initial comments on the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill indicate that she may follow Lindsey Graham’s lead across the aisle, but her support will be conditioned on offshore oil drilling and nuclear power.
Even though I’m not a resident of Alaska, I enjoy reading Alaskan authors such as Dana Stabenow, planning the tour of Alaskan national parks that I will take some day, and eating sustainable, wild-caught Alaskan king salmon. In fact, Alaska’s state constitution requires sustainable management of all replenishable resources, including salmon: “Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses.” With that principle in mind, one wonders how any Alaskan elected official could possibly oppose sustainability of her state’s replenishable resources — including its people.
Senator Murkowski compares favorably with Some Politician from her state:
* Senator Murkowski speaks in complete sentences.
* Senator Murkowski’s political career may have begun with nepotism, but she hasn’t used and abused her office to benefit her friends and family.
* Senator Murkowski hasn’t become a national trainwreck by quitting midway through her job. Instead, she’s garnered a reputation as a hard worker and is now is the Ranking (Republican) Member on the Energy & Natural Resources Committee – which makes her an important Senator on climate change legislation.
* Senator Murkowski acknowledges the threat from climate change to her state, not just the polar bear and the walrus, but to its people.
A. Murkowski’s views on human-caused climate change:
Murkowski has broken with high-ranking Republican orthodoxy and acknowledged the impact of climate change on her state in a moving and honest fashion. In 2006, she acknowledged the impacts of climate change on her state, affecting native whaling capatins, snow packs, and salmon; warmer, drier air has allowed the voracious spruce bark beetle to migrate north, devastating forests almost the size of Connecticut. The same year, she told law students that “I believe it is a reality that man is contributing to the current warming trend. Accordingly, it is appropriate, and quite frankly our responsibility, to take steps to curb the growth of greenhouse gases.” Although her website’s Issues and Priorities omits any discussion of climate change or environmental issues, her September 30, 2009 press release on the Kerry-Boxer bill (discussed further below) again acknowledges the need to decrease emissions.
B. Financial contributions, voting record, and recent political actions:
When issues are framed in terms of energy vs. the environment, Senator Murkowski always sides with energy interests. For example, along with fellow oil queen Mary Landrieu (D-LA), she introduced S 1517, the Domestic Energy Security Act of 2009, to open up oil drilling off the coast of Florida. She consistently votes for expanding oilfields, contending that oil and gas drilling off Alaskan shores can be done in an environmentally responsible manner. Not surprisingly, the energy and natural resources sector — both electric utilities and the oil & gas industry — loves her. So far in 2010, she’s the Senate’s top recipient of energy and natural resources money. She faces reelection in 2010; to date no prominent Alaskan from either party has challenged her.
Senator Murkowski played a large part in drafting the American Clean Energy Leadership Act (ACELA), the renewable energy bill passed by the Senate E&NR committee in June 2009. After crafting it to benefit Alaskan interests, she was one of 15 votes for it (8 voted against it). Her website praises ACELA, although others consider it weak and toothless. It’s supposed to be merged in some murky fashion with CEJAPA once something is ready for the Senate floor.
In 2007, Murkowski joined a group of moderates in drafting a Low Carbon Economy Act to reduce emissions without sacrificing economic growth (the bill died). And in May 2008, Murkowski spoke to the Alaska Municipal League, favoring a cap and trade approach over a carbon tax and noting the far greater costs of adaptation.
Murkowski has recently initiated a public feud with the Environmental Protection Agency. Last month, she made headlines with a significant amendment to a boring bill, that of appropriations for the Interior Department (HR 2996). Her amendment would have barred the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases from stationary sources (e.g., power plants, not cars) for one year. Her rationale had the usual cliches regarding the economy; shorter and more accurate, from climate blogger Joe Romm: Murkowski proposes to fiddle while Alaska burns. As late as October 10, she opined in the Anchorage Daily News that Congress, not the EPA, should take the lead in crafting climate policy without harming the economy. The feud appears to be the public manifestation of two separate Republican fallback positions (Murkowski is not acting alone; Senator John Thune (R-SD) cosponsored her EPA amendment, which never made it to the floor) who privately acknowledge the inevitability of greenhouse gas regulation. First, they want the chance to water down CEJAPA and get something toothless passed that strips away EPA’s authority. Failing that, they want political fallout of the EPA regulations to be unacceptably high.
C. Economic effects of climate legislation:
Oil and gas jobs make up a surprisingly small percentage of the Alaskan economy: 12,600 or 4% of all Alaskan jobs, says the state (pdf); by comparison, the seafood industry supports 38,000 jobs in Alaska (p.18 of 22 pg pdf). However, oil’s impact on the Alaskan economy goes beyond jobs. Royalties from oil severance taxes go into the Permanent Dividend Fund providing payouts to every resident of Alaska. Murkowski has a huge financial incentive to keep the oil, and thus that fund, flowing. Simply put, dirty energy jobs pay every Alaskan, so the “clean energy jobs” aspect of CEJAPA is unlikely to move either Murkowski’s or Begich’s votes.
Economic analysis of climate legislation always includes the costs of enacting the bill. Rarely are other economic aspects considered: the costs of doing nothing, the benefits of enacting the bill, and the benefits of doing nothing. In Alaska, the costs of doing nothing will be enormous, because so many seaside Native Alaskan villages are threatened by climate change in the form of rising oceans and eroding land.
The State of Alaska’s Climate Change Sub-Cabinet for adaptation and mitigation has already begun to calculate some costs. For example, by one count, 31 remote villages are imminently threatened by flooding and erosion (p.10 of 22 pg pdf). A separate Army Corps of Engineers report lists 178 communities, including Anchorage, threatened by erosion. The cost of moving three of the most threatened villages is up to $455 million, or $2 million per household in Newtok (photo shows Kivalina, one of the other two villages). Murkowski sympathizes, analogizing them to Native Americans being forced on to reservations in the 19th century.
I would not be surprised to see Murkowski and Begich demand federal funds to help pay for the relocation of Native Alaskan villages. And if this humanitarian issue were the only legislative goodie needed to trade for both votes, I’d consider it a fair deal.
D. Murkowski’s reactions to the Kerry-Boxer bill:
On September 30, Murkowski put out a press release complaining about a “massive bill with massive costs”: “We must determine how to balance environmental progress with economic growth…. We’ve got to be honest with ourselves if we are truly going to decrease emissions,” Murkowski said. “Nuclear energy must be a part of our energy mix if we are going to do so.”
Up to October 11, I saw no reason to believe that Murkowski would place her vulnerable state’s long term interests above those of her oily donors and the the Permanent Dividend Fund. Then Lindsey Graham and John Kerry coauthored the now famous New York Times op-ed: Yes We Can Pass Climate Change Legislation. By October 14, Murkowski was singing the praises of bipartisanship and hoping the Kerry-Graham framework for climate policy “would mark a turning point in the climate debate”: “Instead of cutting emissions at any cost, we should be working on policy that incorporates the best ideas of both parties – a policy that accounts for our near-term energy needs, limits costs, and is flexible enough to work under different economic circumstances,” she said.
So what changes were made from CEJAPA to the Kerry-Graham op-ed that won Murkowski’s praise? Expansion of nuclear power and offshore drilling. This diary is already long, and thus won’t opine on whether these are pragmatic compromises or Faustian bargains; I’ve already started to consider issues associated with expanded oil drilling here. Suffice to note, as David Roberts of Grist has, the irony of those opposing the climate bill, ostensibly because of its costs to voters, demanding changes to it that will raise household costs for corporate benefit. Electric utilities who can transition to nuclear power will reap massive benefits from the bill; along with the oil industry, they’re Murkowski’s biggest donors.
In conclusion, Murkowski may follow Graham across the aisle to vote for the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, if and only if nuclear power and offshore oil drilling provisions are expanded.
October 15th, 2009 at 9:03 PM
Lisa, I think the pointy tops of that chain link fence is biting into your britches…
October 15th, 2009 at 9:04 PM
“are” biting…
October 15th, 2009 at 10:03 PM
The Senator have to realize that some people move to Alaska, for health reasons. The cold, crisp and clear air is more beneficial for them. But what does she care??
October 15th, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Has Alaska ever had a representitive who hasnt sided with the oil companies?
Politicians always take care of there donors first, and in Alaska that seems to be big oil companies. It seems to me she is just another drill baby drill crier. I thought that people would have learned some lessons from the Valdeez spill. It is such a beautiful and unique place, it just seems sad that alot of people just want to rape the land, get what they can and move on. Makes me sad.
My daddy always said money talks and Bullsh*t walks.
On a side note, i always thought SP would try and run against Murkowski jr.
i mean she beat the dad why not the daughter……
Just a thought.
October 16th, 2009 at 1:58 AM
Alaska is such a natural ally in the climate fight. The people who vote for representation at all levels must realize that a lot more is at stake than what happens to oil companies and their trickle down profits. Let’s hope Lisa M. finds the courage to really protect the people of Alaska from economic devastation that more melting will bring.
October 16th, 2009 at 5:46 AM
@5 lemonfair Says:
“Alaska is such a natural ally in the climate fight. The people who vote for representation at all levels must realize that a lot more is at stake than what happens to oil companies and their trickle down profits. ..”
———————————-
While I agree folks OUGHT to recognize the stakes are much higher than the current prevailing notions about economics allow for , I think far too many do not- here in Alaska and all across America.
I don’t know where you are from but a few trips to the east coast since my son married my wonderful DIL ( whose only fault is that she wants to stay in her native Maine…) have helped me gain a perspective I have found useful .
We have so much in common in this country, as humans and as Americans, especially with the advent of instant communication like these here ‘tubes’ that I think we are in danger of missing large areas of difference of experience and backdrop.
In this instance, regarding climate change, if one steps back a half step and looks at the accelerating melt of ice and permafrost here it seems obvious that something is changing dramatically. The best answer we have currently is that human behavior has added significantly to this event.
However- far too many of us don’t, can’t, won’t step back -even that half step.
I found, talking to a lot of everyday folks , from Boston to Maine, on trips, that that part of the east has a generally wider grasp of some of the issues which surround this situation. I have ideas about the why but it is the distance from the situation which concerns me here…physical and emotional.
For those of us with our faces right up at the face of the glacier, so to speak, there are far too many who are simply advancing a step with each foot of melt and denying the retreat because we can still keep our noses on the ice… these are the folks who try to keep climate change conversations in the realm of something to believe or disbelieve as opposed to something which has no correlation to belief systems but rather all to do with thinking.
There are those who , for all the lovely language in our state consitution , think that “sustainable’ is offset by “thar’s more over the next hill, boys!’- a western holdover of frontier mentality.
Western battles still turn on resources- the states are large and the resources vast and , by and large, with the exception of California now, relatively few folks for the land…
It is only beginning to dawn on a part of the west coast that many of these resources are finite and/or that ’sustainable’ means something distinctly different than there’s-only-4-people-here-so-we-can-do-whatever-we-want-cuz-there’s-not-enough-of-us-to-make-an-impact.
Many battles in the west, especially Alaska, turn on the vast areas still owned by the fed and folks’ notions of how that land ought to be managed.
All this is by way of saying that representatives, like Senator M , do represent a large number of their constituients.
Whether I like it or not.
——————
Dear Senator M-
I never thought I would enter the conversation about species overlap at this level but I find I have come to believe that , given your outdated notions about economics, dinosaurs not only did but still roam the earth with humans. You are a dinosaur… I apologize for sounding mean but I think it is true.
We are stuck, with your notions, a weak response to large concerns . Economics are a human invention. We can make changes when our values change. We do that all the time.
We survived shifts in values on child labor, 40 hour work weeks, family leave.
We survived busting up monopolies like Standard Oil…
We survived busting up ATT…
We are changing our values about how we produce energy…
We are changing our values about how we do a lot of things.
Please, get aboard or step aside…
This Alaskan does not apply for and therefore does not receive a PFD as I think, amongst other things, that it has put a large portion of Alaskans to sleep on issues which we need to stay wide awake on. I am proud of the many neighbors who collect the PFD AND keep their eye on the prize but I lack the fortitude myself… without a hard and fast line … so I have drawn my own line.
It is scary to contemplate retraining ourselves but people do it all the time.
It is time for us to put economics as you define it on the table and see what pieces we need to leave behind. I can see 5 or 6 my own lil self…
Thank you-
Alaskan who seriously doubts nuclear power is truly viable because we won’t get real about the waste- will we?
October 16th, 2009 at 6:13 AM
Well, I guess the citizens of Alaska can either choose to keep their PDF checks or their pristine Alaska. Simple as that.
October 16th, 2009 at 6:22 AM
Well, I guess the citizens of Alaska can either choose to keep their PDF checks or their pristine Alaska. Simple as that.
—————
Nope- Say No…
not as simple as that…
PFD is a fund which is self sustaining (sorta) now by virtue of being managed like an investment fund.
Also- contrary to to what people think Alaska is NOT prisine…
hasn’t been for awhile.
There are still plenty of bits and pieces which are but, no, it’s not pristine.
THAT notion is something AK REALLY needs to dump …
October 16th, 2009 at 6:24 AM
PFD…….
Alaska PI, very good points. We all need to be talking to everyone we can about climate change. Keep the conversation in the forefront, we need more people convinced it’s really happening and on board for real change.
October 16th, 2009 at 6:44 AM
You are right Alaska PI, it’s not as simple as that. It’s just that I expect people and our leaders to put the environment before drilling, mining, nuclear waste or money. I expect our leaders to put citizens interests before big corporate interests.
Sorry, I’m not very awake this morning…….foggy head.
October 16th, 2009 at 8:40 AM
@10 Say No to Palin in Politics
I do too… I have the same expectations of the folks we hire to conduct our public business as you do.
I don’t think Senator M realizes that the watered -down convoluted logic she is bringing to this set of questions regarding climate change and business may well spell failure to achieve anything meaningful on either front .
By hanging onto the ideas which are part of what we need to change AND accepting , to some extent , that the climate change model has merit she becomes a roadblock to the hard questions we need to address. She APPEARS, to some folks, to be balanced in her approach and so… here we are , again, urchy-scurching our brakes and trying to edge around another clump of cement in the road…
By AK hanging onto the idea we are still pristine we lose some of the sense of urgency to march out and really look at what’s going on… from indicators of climate change to damage over the next hill done by resource extractors who soothe us with tales of corporate responsibility and stewardship…
AKM-
This guest post here that we are on ( adopt-a senator-our Murky ) is pretty sensible . Thanks!
The one thing which may elude folks away from AK is that if Senators M and B ask for more assistance for moving villages affected by climate driven change, it will likely be in the context of the special federal relationship with tribal entities which exists as opposed to an Alaska-centric request.
October 16th, 2009 at 9:09 AM
In Senator Murkowski’s responses to my many letters to her over the years, she always takes the tone of a concerned parent to her well-meaing, but clueless child. She offends me. She talks all sweetness and light, but in reality she wants the status quo. She has done very little bi-partisian work, and consistently votes against the interests of the rural communities.
Lisa won her re-election pretty handily last time she ran. I’m hoping that her next election campaign will be much tougher.
October 16th, 2009 at 9:43 AM
alaska pi…. lovely post. you said it all. if you send her that letter she will feel insulted for a moment but perhaps in that moment she will also feel ashamed of herself and her actions.
October 16th, 2009 at 7:04 PM
Alaski Pi not only Lisa but palin also.If she so wanted the best for Alaska would she not also do as you have done and not sign up for the PDF.I do realize that for many it is a life line but for some like Palin it is not.
October 17th, 2009 at 5:03 AM
” . . . as long as it’s not ‘energy vs. environment,’ where she always sides with her oily donors.”
That’s about all you really needed to say about Lisa Murkowski. She talks a good game at times, but she ALWAYS votes the straight Republican line. She said nice things about Sotomayer and then voted against her confirmation.
October 17th, 2009 at 7:43 AM
bubbles- as hedgewytch is entirely correct about Senator M’s PATERNALISTIC responses to constituents and merlinAK is entirely correct about Senator M’s behavior I, sadly, think sending this letter wouldn’t ruffle one wave in her coiffure…sigh.
jojobo1-
my remarks about the PFD came from 2 places-
1- I’m an at age where I whiz right out the door without my lunch, my shopping list, etc and find I need to set booby traps and draw deep lines to keep myself on track with what I ought to be doing…
2-it wasn’t explicit enough perhaps, or only to Alaskans, but most of my concerns about the PFD have to do with the alarming number of Alaskans who don’t pay one bit of attention to what our state or federal representatives do AS LONG as it does NOT endanger, diminish, or threaten their dividend in any way.
In relation to Senator M- it is not only her “oily donors” she is appealing to… it is an altogether too large a number of voters who don’t give a darn for anything except their own lil selves.