Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Will Congress Pass a Much-Needed Environmental Bill? The Future Is Looking Dicey

By Tara Lohan, AlterNet. Posted May 19, 2009.


The Waxman-Markey bill, our best effort to fend off climate catastrophe, is in the hands of Congress, and prospects aren't good.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

If global warming is the greatest test of humanity thus far, we haven't been doing swimmingly well at tackling it. Will that all change soon? Scientists tell us the clock is ticking and finally politicians in Washington have begun to shuffle their feet. The Waxman-Markey bill, known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), which is now in day 2 of markup in the House Energy and Commerce Committee (and likely to be to the full House floor in June) represents our best shot so far at preventing the tsunami of runaway climate change that scientists fear is around the bend.

So will the bill survive? And if it does, will it merely be a shell of itself, having lost the bite it needs to actually accomplish the changes we need?

As Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote in his New York Times column, "Right now it's the environmental community that has to decide how much it's willing to bend."

So far, the community is split. Al Gore is for the bill -- along with big enviros like the League of Conservation Voters and Environmental Defense Fund. Leading climatologist James Hansen is against the carbon cap and trade part of the bill (a hugely significant part) and instead wants a carbon tax (you can read more about those differences here). Greenpeace has also been vocal about their reservations with the bill's latest incarnation, as has Friends of the Earth and others.

Krugman's analysis is: "I'm with Mr. Gore. The legislation now on the table isn't the bill we'd ideally want, but it's the bill we can get -- and it's vastly better than no bill at all." And those sentiments are supported by many enviros who believe a stronger bill is not likely to be seen for years, if that, and we may not have that long.

Daniel J. Weiss, senior fellow and director of climate strategy and Daniel Wagener, an assistant editor at American Progress, wrote a great list of the top 10 reasons to support the bill, prefacing it with the summary:

The ACES establishes a three-part program to transition to a low-carbon economy: increase energy efficiency; invest in clean-energy resources such as the wind and sun; and reduce global warming pollution. While the original draft of the bill reduced emissions sooner and had a separate national energy efficiency resource standard, the current version represents enormous progress after eight years of stasis. Passage of the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee is an essential first step to policies that will accelerate economic recovery and achieve long-term growth.

But the bill does have some serious flaws. It has been weakened to accommodate some of our most polluting industries -- coal, electric, and auto -- as the Washington Independent reports:


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: energy, global warming, climate change, waxman-markey, climate bill, climate legislation, aces, american clean energy and

Tara Lohan is a managing editor at AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Carbon trading is dangerous pollution
Posted by: davemcarthur on May 19, 2009 7:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The more I read of Paul Krugman’s work the less insightful I find it.
It evidences little comprehension of psychology and increasingly I doubt he appreciates the value of mineral oil.
Jim Hansen is correct – Carbon Trading is fatally flawed. It is the manifestation of the psychopathic element innate in us all.
In New Zealand this was widely recognised and yet a Carbon Trading regime was foisted on the nation using emergency measures in the dying days of the last Administration in 2008. The Green Movement, including Green Peace and the Green Party ended up endorsing it, arguing that it is “better than nothing”.

They were wrong, wrong, wrong. (Psychopathy is never helpful.) and they have been proven wrong again since. The Green Party had signed a $NZbillion dollar deal for weatherising homes over 15 years in return for giving their endorsement. The new Administration promptly canned that deal, the Green Party lost all its previous say in cabinet decisions, the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme is under Parliamentary review and is being amended so a few rich people can use it to extract remaining wealth reserves out of our communities and, most tellingly, contracts are out for Environmental Educators to create programmes mitigating the impact of our carbon emissions. In other words, it is pollution as usual and the focus is on teaching our children how to reduce its impact on the nation rather than reducing the pollution. Also it is worth noting that our tree nurseries have announced last month they are bulldozing many millions of seedlings as “the new uncertainty caused by carbon trading” makes the business unviable.

The same is occurring in Australia with the bankers of the big mining and Bulk-gen electricity companies ensuring pollution as usual at the expense of communities.

The solution is the same as it always was. We each put a high value on our carbon resources, reflect this value in direct taxes and in our daily activities as good citizens and, in general, accept our roles as stewards of the carbon potential. Carbon trading is a mechanism exquisitely designed to destroy stewardship. Simply stop driving cars, flying in jets, and eating meat and instead invest love and care in your local community. The rate of carbon pollution will plummet while our real wealth increases.

More at http://www.bonusjoules.co.nz/Update_htm.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Misses the Point
Posted by: mchiarel on May 19, 2009 10:15 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If every American ate no meat for 1 day a week, the resulting carbon savings would be the same as taking 19.2 million cars off the road in the USA for one year. When is the government going to wake up and stop subsidizing the very industry that is having such devastating impact on the environment (not to mention our health and well-being)? Rather than subsidizing corn and soy to feed to animals, the government should be taxing livestock producers for the pollution they cause. This would naturally raise the cost of animal products to a level that would more realistically reflect the impact on land degradation, atmosphere and climate, water, and biodiversity. Livestock's Long Shadow, the 2006 report published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), addresses the far-reaching impact of raising livestock for food. For more information and a copy of the report, visit FAO Spotlight: Livestock impacts on the environment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Misses the Point Posted by: Zeugitai
CO2 is Not The Problem. The Sun Controls The Climate.
Posted by: tony_opmoc on May 20, 2009 3:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
CO2 is not a pollutant. Higher levels of CO2 will be beneficial for all life on the planet. CO2 is basically food for plants - and plants are food for all human and animal life.

Climate Change is completely normal and natural. There is nothing human beings can do to control it. All we can do is adapt to it - something we are exceedigly good at. People have lived in all climate conditions for thousands of years - and we still do. Both eskimos and pygmies survive in totally different climatic conditions.

Exponential human population growth is the real problem, but the solution to that has already been demonstrated in countries as diverse as Italy, Germany and the Indian State of Kerala.

The birthrate in Italy and Germany is around 1.3 - which is massively lower than the level of 2.1 required to sustain current population levels.

Kerala is in effect a rural, food rich community, that has largely been under communist control. There is very little industry. Yet Kerala's birth rate is now lower than the United States.

Instead of planning mass genocide by shutting down all conventional power generation - on the totally false precept that CO2 emissions effect the climate - we should be studying Italy, Germany and Kerala.

What are the real reasons that these societies have such low birth rates? They are totally different.

Maybe we can actually learn something - rather than assuming the only solution to exponential human population growth is the equivalent of culling deer in Richmond Park.

Now if you don't believe that depopulation has been on the agenda at the highest levels for many years - then you haven't done any objective historical research.

Maybe Kissinger and Soros's Groupies have been applying covert techniques in Italy, Germany and Kerala to reduce fertility...

Or maybe there is another explanation that is far more humane. Perhaps people just decide naturally only to have 1, 2 or no children because they realise it will raise their quality of life. Perhaps they live in an environment where they feel secure and happy and don't have to overbreed because some foreign enemy is bombing them to hell - or they are continuously being threatened by food insecurity.

The Bastards trying to cull us are wrong and you are probably incredibly ignorant and misinformed about what is really going on in the world.

After you have got your degree in physics, try travelling to Italy, Germany and Kerala instead of being brainwashed - and find out for yourself.

If you are in a position to influence world government policy - make sure you have analysed the real problems properly and produce humane solutions that will make life better for humans, animals as well as plants.

Genocide is not a good solution.

Tony

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Planet won't wait?
Posted by: johnwinthrop on May 20, 2009 4:56 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for what? cooler temps, warmer, or temps that roughly average ? No one knows. A very complexs system has been simplified by politics and the convenience of some politicians and consultants who plan to make a living off "climate change". Hint, climate is always in a state of change, and is highly unimpressed by the US govt, its complicated regulations, and the corrupt consensus driven but critical thought deprived United Nations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what about poor people?
Posted by: SeattlePackedSnowandCollidedCars on May 20, 2009 6:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
oh I forgot, they are the 1st ones that should be in Soviet style tenements riding the bus and the Middle Class (so much for those camping trips to Florida) our Ohio Backyard will do just fine as we watch the last remembrance of industry leave America however I can make a few buck cutting LeBron James's grass. He wont have to worry about a hike in energy prices, while my wife is knitting wool sweaters for the kids as I illegally try to heat my home will a wood burning stove like its 1909 again. Now we got our house taking away from us to only get torn down because it wasn't "LEED" enough and it was rebuild are these townhouse condos that Yuppie Scum that are cheering for this bullshit can afford and we damm sure can't afford so I guess it off to that Soviet style tenements. At least Lebron, Wacky Waxman, Leonardo DiCaprio and friends wont get stuck anymore in traffic behind my Grand Wagoner because I now live in it in my new tent city (because those tenements became a one stop Yuppie drug shop, yea pot was made legal but it was that weak shit that got taxed up the wazzo), plus the kids and wife don't have to get caught up in the Gang Wars. Guns were banned but somehow those thugs remained armed. Some are you are asking, what does this have to do with the article: its all about control of the plebs back into the 19th century.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Congress should SHUT UP and listen to RON PAUL ! RRRRAAARRRR !!
Posted by: maxpayne on May 20, 2009 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At least he's doing the right thing of trying once again to pass the HEMP FARMING ACT to legalize INDUSTRIAL HEMP which will go towards fuel and manufacturing needs and is even carbon neutral and sometimes carbon negative. Unfortunately, it has the same chance of passing as does single payer healthcare and that makes me VERY VERY ANGRY ! ACES even in its original form is nothing but more big government and giveaway to the corporate polluters and I expect the watered down version to be even worse. DEATH PENALTY TO CONGRESS !!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» but there is no carbon problem Posted by: johnwinthrop
Going Green
Posted by: CTC123 on May 21, 2009 12:42 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Consider the Connection to:
The Economic Pyramid
Clean energy is needed at all
levels of the Economic Pyramid.
Where is the Economic Pyramid?
Please Google or, AIM Search:
CTC123GREEN
CTC = Consider the Connection
123 = 3 PHOTOS = 3000 WORDS
GREEN = Going Green

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement