Tag Archives: climate bill

Death of a Climate Bill

Posted on
Reply

The climate bill is officially dead.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced that he does not have the sixty votes necessary to pass comprehensive energy reform.  So, no chance of a carbon cap in the near future.

This concession marks a significant moment: Our government is failing to act on a defining issue of our time — and, in doing so, is neglecting to respond to the will of the people.  A George Mason University poll found that 77 percent of Americans support CO2 regulation. For that matter, most Senators might very well support a carbon cap.  But the minority party, along with several Democrats, has successfully obstructed action through the threat of a filibuster.

In the end, Senate obstructionists on both sides murdered the climate bill.  But the underlying problem is that, in the American government, partisan interests always come before the greater good.  Even among its supporters, energy reform is often just another political goal to check off on the agenda.  As a moral responsibility, cutting pollution is a major issue.  But as a political goal, it’s easily superseded by more important goals, such as getting re-elected.

Maybe this is one reason why Democratic leaders — including the President — did not fight to keep the energy reform alive.  Remember that the healthcare bill nearly died, but Obama and Pelosi revived it with some arm-twisting and deal-cutting.  They also had a moral rallying point (“Millions of people don’t have health insurance”).  The gulf oil spill, tragic as it was, could have served the same purpose (“This is the cost of our oil addiction”).  But the Administration missed that chance.

While I’m attributing blame, I can’t, unfortunately, leave out fellow enviros.  For years, many mainstream environmental groups have told us that, if we just write letters, sign petitions, and buy fluorescent light bulbs, everything will be all right.  Each person who types their name and clicks “send” is another reason for Congress to save the world.  But how many angry letters does it take to equal a six-figure check from an oil company?

Our focus on the carbon market may be what resigned us to letter-writing in the first place.  Cap-and-trade has been deemed the best market-based option for curbing global warming pollution.  Better yet, it doesn’t require drastic lifestyle changes.  But that system requires top-down regulation; average people can’t do much besides write letters.  And the best chance for Congress to act on those letters has already passed.

Maybe the climate movement needs a new approach.  It’s not too late for meaningful change to take place, but letter-writing alone isn’t going to help.  If Congress won’t pass a response to climate change from the top, we can still build solutions from the bottom up.

Share

Do Americans support climate legislation?

Posted on
1

While the effort to pass a meaningful climate bill is often presented as an uphill battle, new polls by George Mason University show that the situation in Congress does not reflect public opinion.

According to the reports (read them here), 65 percent of American adults think the U.S. should reduce emissions regardless of what other countries do.  When it comes to specific policies, 77 percent support CO2 regulation, while 61 percent think utilities should produce a fifth of their energy renewably, even if this increases electricity bills.  Overall, most Americans feel the environment should be protected, even at the expense of economic growth, but a smaller majority believe that protecting the environment improves economic growth.

Judging by these numbers, the Senators obstructing the climate bill are not representing the public’s interests.  Whose interests are they representing, then?  A quick look at lobbying stats gives you the answer.

Bookmark and Share

Five more forged letters from clean energy opponents

Posted on
Reply

Via Think Progress:

Last month, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) announced a congressional investigation of the DC lobbying firm Bonner & Associates. The firm, which has a long history of astroturfing, was caught forging anti-clean energy reform letters — purportedly from groups representing women and people of color — to Congress. Coal front group American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy was eventually revealed to be Bonner’s client in the anti-clean energy campaign. Now, more forged letters have been uncovered.

Today, Markey revealed five new letters, and dozens more may be out there. According to a statement from Markey’s office, the faked letters came from “elderly services and senior centers” and were sent to Democratic Reps. Tom Periello (VA), Kathy Dahlkemper (PA), and Christopher Carney (PA):

The letters released today were staged to appear as if they were sent by groups representing senior citizen services like the non-profit Erie Center on Health & Aging.

“We’ve seen fear-mongering with our nation’s senior citizens with health care, and now we’re seeing fraud-mongering with senior citizens on clean energy,” said Chairman Markey. “Lately, democratic debate has been deceptively debased by fake facts and harsh rhetoric. We must return to an honest discussion of the issues, and ensure that this sort of campaign does not further poison the well of trustworthy debate.”

In case you’re keeping track, that brings the total to 13 fraudulent letters, supposedly from 9 different groups.  I have to say, the conservative astroturfers are staying busy, even when most of their supporters are screaming and waving guns about health care reform.  Polluting industries are working overtime to fight clean energy policy.

To be fair, liberal and environmental groups are sometimes guilty of astroturfing, though I haven’t seen much on this scale.  The problem here is not so much politics as it is dirty industry versus… just about everyone else.

Just remember, the Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stones.  Those that cling to fossil fuels are still living in a Stone Age of sorts, and they’re determined to preserve it, no matter the cost to humanity and the planet.

Breaking: Senate panel won’t take up climate bill until September

Posted on
Reply

Climate Progress reported that the Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer plans to delay until September the markup of the climate bill that recently passed the House.  The change in plans is reportedly due to senators’ current focus on healthcare reform legislation.

Boxer intends to have the bill ready by September 28, with Democrats still hoping to pass it in time for December’s U.N. climate negotiations.  Sponsors face a difficult struggle to win over 60 votes, considering opposition from Republicans and conservative to moderate Democrats.

UPDATE: Environmental groups have expressed support for Boxer’s decision:

“We don’t think that this is a problem at all,” said Josh Dorner, spokesman for Sierra Club. “In fact, we think it’s a good thing. It’s a huge organizing opportunity, both here in D.C. and in the field. It also shows they are taking the time to make some meaningful, positive changes to the bill.”

“From our perspective, this is the right decision,” said Tony Kreindler, media director for climate at EDF. “It gives senators more time to review and understand the historic bill just passed by the House. It signals a serious intent to seek agreements on key issues going forward.  And it gives Boxer and her colleagues on both sides of the aisle more time to reach those agreements. After all, the chairman has the ability to move forward today if the goal were simply to push any bill through.”


House passes climate change bill

Posted on
4

The House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (Waxman-Markey) by a vote of 219 to 212, with forty-four Democrats voting against the measure and eight Republicans voting yes (Only seven Republicans voted for the stimulus).

The bill’s success can be attributed to the efforts key figures, such as former VP Al Gore, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the president himself.  Unfortunately, a number of compromises were made along the way.  ACES’s sponsors, Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA), reduced carbon cap goals and added favors for polluting industries, in the form of free offsets.

In its current form, the ACES sets a goal of 17 percent GHG reduction by 2020 and an 83 percent reduction by 2050. It also continues the process begun by Obama’s stimulus — switching to alternative energy and cleaner technologies, as well as introducing more efficient building standards.

Some environmental voices, such as Greenpeace, have opposed the bill (or at least voiced concerns) because of its giveaways to big industries and its support for carbon capture and storage.  In addition, the goal of 17 percent GHG cut by 2020 is not as strong as it should be.

Waxman-Markey is far from perfect, but it is definitely better than nothing.  It needs to be strengthened, but if something resembling it doesn’t pass in the next few months, we won’t get another chance before December.  And if the U.S. doesn’t have strong energy regulations by the Copenhagen talks, it will be harder to convince China and India to pass their own.

In order to stabilize CO2 levels, we need a WWII-scale effort from everybody, not just lawmakers.  Clean, sustainable society is a vision we can achieve — and must achieve in the next few decades.  Waxman-Markey is a first step (and it still needs to pass the Senate), but we still have a long way to go.