Three Democratic senators leading the charge on climate change are throwing cold water on an idea some left-leaning presidential hopefuls are backing to eliminate a legislative rule requiring at least 60 out of 100 votes in the Senate to pass most major bills.

Why it matters: Eliminating the rule at issue — the filibuster — would empower political parties controlling the Senate to push through big policy, such as measures on climate change, more easily over the objection of the party not in control.

One level deeper: Many people associate the filibuster with long speeches, but to end those speeches, you need at least 60 votes. This gets arcane quick, but the end result of having the filibuster in place usually means either no big bills get passed in a divided Senate, or you get bills with broader and more bipartisan support. Doing away with it would make it easier to pass bills without broad and bipartisan support because you would need just a simple majority (51 votes).

What we’re hearing: A trio of Democratic senators influential on climate change said at a briefing with reporters on Wednesday that they’re not ready — at least not yet — to back such a move.

“I think we would be unwise to talk about some parliamentary fork in the road that only occurs if we win the Senate and the presidency.”
— Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)
“We should win the [climate] debate and deal with the procedural issues when it’s appropriate to deal with the procedural issues.”
— Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.)
“I don’t think it’s true we must undo the filibuster in order to prevail.”
— Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)

The other side: Democratic presidential candidates Jay Inslee, Washington state governor, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, have both said they would do away with the filibuster to enact big climate-change policy given most Republicans are not seriously engaging on the issue.

Where it stands: For now, this is the kind of highly speculative “what if” discussion Washington loves. Democrats need to jump through 2 huge hoops in the next election before they can entertain this prospect: Winning the White House and control of the Senate.

The intrigue: The arcane filibuster talk came amid a broader briefing on a carbon tax bill the trio introduced on Wednesday. The measure is unlikely to pass any time soon given opposition to the idea by most Republicans and even some Democrats, but the senators hope to lay the groundwork for more substantive debate in the coming months and years.

Go deeper: How to make energy and climate policy that sticks

Go deeper

Updated 30 mins ago - Politics & Policy

Coronavirus dashboard

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

  1. Global: Total confirmed cases as of 4 p.m. ET: 19,193,661 — Total deaths: 716,735 — Total recoveries — 11,611,029Map.
  2. U.S.: Total confirmed cases as of 4 p.m. ET: 4,918,927 — Total deaths: 160,737 — Total recoveries: 1,598,624 — Total tests: 59,652,675Map.
  3. Politics: White House recommends Trump issue executive orders on coronavirus aid.
  4. Education: Cuomo says all New York schools can reopen for in-person learning.
  5. Public health: Surgeon general urges flu shots to prevent "double whammy" with coronavirus — Massachusetts pauses reopening after uptick in coronavirus cases
  6. World: Africa records over 1 million coronavirus cases — Gates Foundation puts $150 million behind coronavirus vaccine production.

Trump: "We are going a different way" on coronavirus aid

President Trump. Photo: Jim Watsonn/AFP via Getty Images

President Trump tweeted on Friday that his administration is "going a different way" with coronavirus aid after negotiations with congressional Democrats stalled again, suggesting he will use an executive order to address stimulus spending.

What he's saying: "Pelosi and Schumer only interested in Bailout Money for poorly run Democrat cities and states. Nothing to do with China Virus! Want one trillion dollars. No interest. We are going a different way!" Trump tweeted.

Trump's swift, sweeping China offensive

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

President Trump's rhetoric on China has tended to run hotter than his actions — until now.

Why it matters: Even at the height of Trump's trade war, his administration never hit China as hard, as fast, and on as many fronts as it is right now.