Comments on: Stern vs. Chu http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5432 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: jae http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5432&cpage=1#comment-14062 jae Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:16:32 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5432#comment-14062 "I’m not sure what the odds are, but I’m taking Chu in a knockout." This article seems to support your pick: http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/03/ceq-nancy-sutley-obama-to-stake-political-prestige-on-passing-us-climate-bill/ “I’m not sure what the odds are, but I’m taking Chu in a knockout.”

This article seems to support your pick:

http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/03/ceq-nancy-sutley-obama-to-stake-political-prestige-on-passing-us-climate-bill/

]]> By: dean http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5432&cpage=1#comment-14058 dean Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:20:30 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5432#comment-14058 The question is whether this is intentional or not. It wouldn't be the first time that different messages were sent intentionally, given that difference audiences are listening. Many in Congress are using China as an excuse to oppose us doing something, while others recognize that the US must lead if China is going to be convinced to do something serious on the issue. This could allow the administration to tell the Chinese in private (they like private communications so much) that Chu''s statement are the real policy and Stern's are for domestic politics (a position the Chinese will understand) while at least holding Congress off for a while with Stern as they await that clarification. Getting the Chinese to agree to act might depend on whether W-M dies or not, irregardless of what we think of its merit. I'm not saying that I think this is what they are doing. I have no idea. Just that is is one strategy that is not unusual. But maybe they just are confused. How quickly the administration moves to clarify this may be the answer. If clarification is slow in coming, it might indicate that the split message is intentional. Or it could indicate an internal debate. However, a fast clarification would tend to indicate a lack of communication internally. The question is whether this is intentional or not. It wouldn’t be the first time that different messages were sent intentionally, given that difference audiences are listening.

Many in Congress are using China as an excuse to oppose us doing something, while others recognize that the US must lead if China is going to be convinced to do something serious on the issue. This could allow the administration to tell the Chinese in private (they like private communications so much) that Chu’’s statement are the real policy and Stern’s are for domestic politics (a position the Chinese will understand) while at least holding Congress off for a while with Stern as they await that clarification. Getting the Chinese to agree to act might depend on whether W-M dies or not, irregardless of what we think of its merit.

I’m not saying that I think this is what they are doing. I have no idea. Just that is is one strategy that is not unusual. But maybe they just are confused. How quickly the administration moves to clarify this may be the answer. If clarification is slow in coming, it might indicate that the split message is intentional. Or it could indicate an internal debate. However, a fast clarification would tend to indicate a lack of communication internally.

]]>