Roll Call: Latest News on Capitol Hill, Congress, Politics and Elections
February 7, 2016

On Climate Change, Landrieu Stands With Coal, Against Obama

Landrieu opposes the EPA's carbon cap for power plants to reduce climate change.

Landrieu is touring a coal power plant to emphasize her opposition to Obama’s plans to cut carbon emissions to reduce climate change. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call File Photo)

Updated: June 6, 9:06 a.m. | Sen. Mary L. Landrieu will head to a coal-fired power plant Monday, to emphasize her opposition to President Barack Obama’s goal to take a big whack at coal as part of his plan to cut carbon emissions and tackle climate change.

The vulnerable Louisiana Democrat will head to the Big Cajun II coal-fired power plant in New Roads, La., according to a news release.

She’ll “meet with plant workers, take a tour of the facility and hold a roundtable discussion with power industry leaders from across Louisiana.”

Landrieu chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and is in a tossup race for re-election.

Landrieu’s opposition isn’t likely to make much of a difference in the White House’s eyes, but it gives the endangered incumbent a chance to separate herself from a president who isn’t particularly popular in Louisiana. She joins other Democrats running in red states, particularly Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky, to vigorously oppose the president’s latest push on climate.

White House counselor John Podesta has said there was zero chance Congress would be able to rein in Obama on his climate change agenda.

The Big Cajun II power plant had been Louisiana’s “largest source of illegal air pollution” before reaching a settlement with the federal government in 2012, according to the Justice Department.


Obama Takes a Big Swing at Big Coal

Senate Democrats Give EPA Climate Rule Mixed Reviews

  • Yonatan YONATAN


  • papal

    It is all part of the plan. This stuff doesn’t happen by accident.

  • papal

    It is too little too late. She supported the Obama agenda until now when she claims it goes to far. She is just worried about her re-election and then she is back with Obama. They knew where Obama was going and now act as though they didn’t know.

  • rudy46

    Anybody ever make a go at trading Oil in the later past? It’s phenomenal I value it. I’m doing the Gold Trading Academy framework, it really works unprecedented. Basically Google ” Gold Trading Academy ” you should have the ability to uncover it.

  • B Tram

    She just lost her election. There are many other things LA can do…Rebuild Sand Bars in the Gulf, Clean the Coast line, underwater moon powered fans to push out the Dead Zone. Her shares in Coal must be huge. She just let the Tea Party take over her state. She’s lost her intentions to protect herself. Wrong move, lady!

  • JohnnyAngel Advocacy Group

    Landrieu stands for getting reelected.

  • android

    Sorry Mary. You will vote for Harry Reid as majority leader and a vote for you is a vote for that agenda. You can’t run from it and you can’t hide from it. You ARE Harry Reid. and you ARE for his radical climate agenda.

  • DisgustedwithElitism

    Mary can run but she cannot hide. Repeated airings of “If you like your health insurance you can keep it, period” and the big D after her name on the ballot will be all voters need to know that keeping her in office is not in their best interests.

  • Layla

    The fact that Congress IS NOT stopping this damaging agenda is the very reason why Congress is going to be voted out.

    If you do not do your jobs, you are not needed.

  • Wareagle82

    and full desperation mode has set. Hey, Mary – you can’t run against the policies of the guy you support only when it is convenient. You think folks forgot your O-care vote and how it was bribed?
    The fatal conceit of elected officials is believing their constituents are stupid.

  • ta111

    She supports obama as president. Enough said. She is pathetic.

  • victorvictor

    I love the smell of desperation in the morning.
    It smells like victory.

  • bobw-66554432

    Her “Serene Highness” looks rather disgruntled in this picture. Perhaps she is beginning to question her 97% support of everything Obama? Mayhaps she is distraught at the thought of losing the senate seat her daddy bought her?

    Possibly it is because someone reminded her that the citizens of Louisiana own that seat, not her. The caption bubble should read “BUT THAT’S MY SENATE SEAT! HOW DARE ANYONE ATTEMPT TO DENY ME OF MY BIRTHRIGHT?”

  • PV Maro

    She opposes Obama because her opposition DOESN’T MATTER. Obama is attacking coal by regulation.

    Should she be re-elected and the Democrat Party retains a majority in the Senate, will she vote to keep Harry Reid in charge? Is HE a friend of coal?

  • Whit_Chambers

    It’s a little too late now, Mary.

    Over the last 6 years you have supported dictator Obama and dirty Harry in the destruction of America. Now it is time to be held accountable by the voters.

    Look at her face in the photo.. she looks like a woman that knows she is beat.

    Good riddance, Mary.

  • Whit_Chambers

    try the decaf

  • PV Maro

    I wish that somebody would tell me why the the Democrat Party is intent on forcing poor people to pay for this war on coal. Households with incomes of $30k or less pay one fourth of their take-home pay for energy. These people cannot afford to pay for an atmosphere that is .0000000004% cleaner.

  • juantolduso2

    with a 95 to 98% go along to get along record,agreeing with Obama and Reid policies? 3% with the people is just not enough! Hey Lou’s, have you seen enough? DOWN the stairs she should go! Please, do not vote this enabler in again!

  • notthemobnazietc

    Sure, she talks the talk before the election but after the election she throws us under the bus.

  • Nixonfan

    WaPo’s election model says the GOP has a 79% chance of taking her seat.

  • Sharon Tomalavage

    I agree with android and papal, it is too little too late Mary. You are a democrat and That is your worst mistake, however given a chance to go back to the Senate and comfortable for six years, you will vote for anything this Marxist wants!!

  • Historybuff

    Landrieu simply can not be a democrat… and represent the best interest of the People of Louisiana.

    Any democrat will have to caucus with fellow democrats… and that says it all.

  • phillyfanatic

    The article and the MSM support of Mary;s lies is from the Pit. As soon as she is re-elected, she will support every policy Bama puts forward and will be the slave of Reid. Please. Do not reward any of these Dem libs in the 14 US Senate elections that are competitive. They will lie and lie and………

  • Ronald W. Mann

    If she were not in trouble politically challenged she would be right down licking Prez zeros boots as usual

  • depressionbaby

    Obama is HER President.

  • cupera1

    Democrats that are running in coal states are getting the free pass from the administration and the MSM to criticize these environmental rules now but everybody understands that they will flip and support them whole heartedly after they get reelected. The democrats have no intension of stopping these regulations because their faith in the religion of man-made global warming allows them to do anything, lie, cheat, perjure, say anything, deny anything and promote any wild and absurd claim that refutes facts that they and anyone can see by with their own eyes. They truly believe that their faith will overcome science and observable facts.

  • jdelaney3

    Let’s be clear: Landrieu stands with Landrieu, NOT coal.

  • Eric

    You can’t claim to be against someone when you vote 90% of the time in their favor. The Democrats in the Senate have abandoned their states priorities for those of their party.

  • GlennPMorris

    Mary Landrieu: I oppose Obama (wink, wink, nod, nod)

  • bowhowdy2

    It’s all about putting the rich donors ahead of the poor people. Tom Steyer, Al Gore and other wealthy green tyoes are more important, yet the poor still vote for Obama. Go figure. I can’t say I feel too sorry for them — they voted against their own interest. Personally, I’m investing in electricity company stocks as the revenue will skyrocket as the cost soars upwards.

  • bowhowdy2

    Ask them if they care.
    No, they don’t.
    And people keep voting for them.
    No, you can’t fix stupid.
    Voters get the stupidity they vote for.
    No need to feel sorry for them.
    Without stupid voters, the Rs and Ds
    wouldn’t be in power.

  • bowhowdy2

    Tom Steyer made his fortune from dirty energy.

  • PV Maro

    You are spot-on: the Democrat Party DOESN’T care about the impact of this war on coal on the middle class.

    Before you buy up shares of electric company stock, you’d better consider the possibility that this industry might end up needing a bailout. In northern states, public utility commissions put a moratorium on shut-offs due to nonpayment. At the end of a severe winter, families can owe a thousand dollars or more in energy bills. What’s going to happen when the electric companies have skyrocketing numbers of rate-payers unable to pay, and they have to WRITE OFF those debts?

  • depressionbaby

    Type much? Of course today it’s do you keyboard much. And today grammer and speling dont kount. Common Core in action.

  • bowhowdy2

    What’s going to happen when the electric companies have skyrocketing numbers of rate-payers unable to pay, and they have to WRITE OFF those debts?

    No worries, the federal government, AKA the taxpayers, will come in and bail them out, just like they did the airlines after 9/11 or the banks after the crash in fall 2008.
    I also firmly believe that plans are under way for a voucher system to help low income home owners pay off their soon-to-be skyrocketing electric bills.
    The political pressure of millions of people going without power will be too much, even for Democrats.
    Not to worry, the debt will be run up trillions of dollars more in order to pay for all of this.
    Yes, a huge bailout is all but certain! In any case, electric utility companies NEVER go out of business nor do they ever stop paying dividends to their shareholders. It’s money in the bank!

  • Ed Taylor

    This woman has no credibility. She lied to voters about the stimulus, Obamacare, and most other issues.

    She is desperately distancing herself too late and only for political purposes. If she can con the voters again, she will be back licking Obama’s boots on November 5th.

  • geezer117

    Landrieu will say whatever will get her elected, same as Obama. Has Obama kept his promises? Neither will Landrieu.

  • tpaine1

    Obviously WRONG. Democrats have just proclaimed to the world: “We will hold the Senate.” They further proclaimed: “If you like your health insurance, you can keep it . . . PERIOD (full stop).” If you like your doctor, you can keep them . . . PERIOD (full stop).” AND “If you like your hospital, you can keep it . . . PERIOD (full stop).”

  • tpaine1

    And THAT is the sad part. The Democrats’ base – the young, minorities and the poor – have been those MOST hurt by Obamanomics.
    Do they care. Apparently not. Just more platitudes and no real jobs. Blame it on Bush instead of enacting policies (all of which are sitting on Harry Reid’s desk) that would benefit ALL Americans.
    For Democrats, it’s all about getting elected and holding onto power.

  • tpaine1

    And not for good people of Louisiana.

  • GameTime

    Well she can stand or she can shut up and sit down. Nobody trusts her to do anything. Tell us, exactly who will she vote with? We already know. Dump her, Louisiana.

  • Layla

    Wow, and they say Republicans eat their young…

  • Layla

    To Democrats, this is about the President’s legacy, their wealthy green supporters and that is all. You they could care less about. Figured it out yet?

  • Jack Hennessy

    This woman has no back bone she votes the party line..except during election year…not she runs away from her party until the voters are fooled and elect the turn coat away as fast as you can from her she is poison!

  • waxliberty

    The usual bizarre confidence that “science and observable facts” are on the side of you folks who are in open rebellion against literally every major scientific organization and academy in the world, hundreds of them covering every discipline in physical science including physics, chemistry, oceanography and geology.

    Those who don’t understand (and at heart, are actually hostile to) scientific method tend to confuse it with religion, and think that it is equally “scientific” to simply make up your own version of the “faith” (provided you use numbers in some way, and post it on a blog), and that it is “unfair” if your made up version is not accorded the same respect as that established through the scientific process of empirical evidence, falsifiable theory, reproducibility, peer review etc…

    But you can see that global warming *isn’t* happening “with your own eyes”, just as one can see that the earth is flat if one is simply willing to open one’s eyes and look at the horizon. Please, regale us with your explanation of how we should use our “own eyes” to see that global warming isn’t happening. (Let me guess, “look up at the sky, do *you* see any ‘greenhouse effect’? Me neither, it’s a hoax!” Very nice, QED…)

  • cupera1

    The passionate believers of the religion of manmade global warming are having a crisis of faith. For decades that have done their religious rituals of recycling, buying carbon credits and sustainable living are being forced to fact facts that prove their religion is a lie and all the sacrifice to the sacraments of their faith that they have done over the years was for nothing.
    There is just too much empirical evidence, science and facts that they can see with their own eyes that can no longer be ignored or wished away. The zealots that lead the religion are going mediaeval on anyone that questions the true faith. The call for criminal acts against the ”DENIGERS” has reached the upper echelons. The grand inquisitors of global warming have called for the use of gulags and re-education camps to stop any heresy from spreading. Any that resist will be put to the question with hot coals and the rack until they renounce science and swear fealty to the one and only true faith.

  • waxliberty

    (Don’t most of you conspiracy nutters look like the guy on that billboard?)

    I see that you have mastered the “Paste” menu option so that you can repeat your little manifestos. Pretty tech savvy for an anti-science guy, one has to admit…

  • cupera1

    that is the face of a true environmentalist that actually walked he walk.

    The science that people trust is one that relies on accurate recorded history, observable and measurable data logic, coherent argument and facts that can stand up to scientific review, not a computer simulation that can give the same results regardless of input data. The scientific data must be reviewable by anyone and can be repeated and get the same results every time. That is science that conservatives use and trust in.
    PS the flat earth society are the ones that believe in man made global warming

  • Softie

    According to this article, volcano emissions are actually cooling our climate:

  • waxliberty

    Global warming isn’t based on a computer simulation. It’s based on physics. Not understanding is not the same as disproving.

    You show promise in your comment about the importance of replication. Try applying this logic to the “hockey stick”. Has it been endlessly reproduced? Yes. But I bet what you like to talk about is how Mann is hiding his data (!), because it’s the sort of conspiracy theory that your brain is attracted to. Even though his data has been publicly available online since… forever.

    Sigh. Keep up your trolling, don’t let the “reason” fanatics like me slow you down man.

  • cupera1

    As of now only 5% of the previous AGW computer climate models are half wrong. The 95% of the remaining models are completely, utterly, criminally, insanely, tossed in to the toilet wrong. In a year or so that last 5% of models will join the 95%. Many of these computer models are so corrupt that you could put a random number generator on the inputs and you would get a “hockey stick” graph every time. A large majority of the pro-AGW scientist have refused to release their measurement data or source code for their computer models, could this be because they would be shown as frauds? The ones that have released their code and data have made so many assumptions and overcompensaed warming factors by orders of magnitude that any input data would get a hockey stick prediction. With no warming for the past 17 year and 9 months have cut the hockey stick very short.

  • waxliberty

    It’s like you’re putting bogus talking points in a blender. The (ancient) complaint about “hockey stick from random data” was debunked years ago, and has nothing to do with the global circulation models. Your assessments of climate models are comically fictitious. As I predicted, you indeed are more interested in talking about “scientists withholding data!” even though the data’s been available online forever. “A large majority of the pro-AGW scientist have refused to release their measurement data” gets points for comedy though. You don’t appear to even understand the discussion about what replication means (e.g. with regards to hockey sticks), though you repeat the concepts because you’ve heard them somewhere.

    In short you’re a mess, and obviously not making any rational efforts to understand anything. Sigh.

  • cupera1

    Every hockey stick graph has had to major flaws. The removal of the Medieval Warming period and the Little Ice Age. here is the temp data before the politicians got ahold of it. Also notice that this hockey stick graph does not predict the 17 year 9 month pause in temperature rise.

  • waxliberty

    “temp data before the politicians got ahold of it”. LOL.

    There’s a whole wikipedia article on the question of MWP and LIA in IPCC reports, why don’t you read it?

    “The description of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in IPCC reports has changed since the first report in 1990 as scientific understanding of the temperature record of the past 1000 years has improved.”

    Here’s the temp data from the most comprehensive paleoclimate reconstruction yet done:

    “78 researchers from 24 countries, together with many other colleagues, worked for seven years in the PAGES 2k project on the new climate reconstruction … based on 511 climate archives from around the world, from sediments, ice cores, tree rings, corals, stalagmites, pollen or historical documents and measurements (Fig. 1). All data are freely available”

    Key quote:

    “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age”

    And that’s why you don’t see them in the modern paleoclimate reconstructions. They were regional in character and only showed up in the data when the data sets were incomplete in terms of having appropriately global data.

    It is genuinely pretty sad that you cling to this chart from *1990* in your desperate grasping for straws.

    Look, I know you are beyond reason. There’s no need to reply. I just have trouble *not* responding to these things, which is my problem. Sigh. It’s so obviously, how to say it politely, dislodged from reality.

    But you look like you are a committed gish galloper at this point.

  • waxliberty

    Volcanos have a cooling effect, yes, for short periods of time. They’ve been doing it forever, in balance with everything else, so they are not exerting any new influence now. The only major physical variable that has changed is that humans have driven up the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere by 40%, cranking up the greenhouse effect and trapping more of the sun’s heat in the climate (and triggering multiplier effects like increased humidity and reduced reflectivity vis reduced ice caps.) That’s “global warming”.

  • York Aptain Sidney Field

    In this video we find renowned climate-scientist, fortune-teller, and fashion-guru, Bob Geldof, mesmerizing the gullible with tales of dread:

  • cupera1

    And I could show you dozens of research papers that show both events happened with evidence from every continent on the globe. There is just too much evidence to be suppressed. You can get a few people to do a 1984 rewrite to justify the research grants to fill their rice bowls

  • Gadsden Purchase

    In related climate news, the IPCC finally admits that its warming-rate estimates are grossly inaccurate:

Sign In

Forgot password?



Receive daily coverage of the people, politics and personality of Capitol Hill.

Subscription | Free Trial

Logging you in. One moment, please...