Climate Change Heats Up Washington

A new commercial from the Ad Council begins with a pastoral scene. Leaves rustling on a branch. A gentle breeze. Curving train tracks surrounded by green grass. The camera stops on a middle-aged man.

"Global warming," he says, and the camera cuts to a fast-moving locomotive. "Some say irreversible consequences are 30 years away," he continues as it suddenly becomes visible that he is standing on the tracks and the train is barreling down on him. "Thirty years? That won't affect me." Just as the train is about to reach him he steps out of the way, revealing a young girl behind him on the tracks.

The commercial directs viewers to fightglobalwarming.com and then ends with the message "There is still time." That seems to be what environment groups are hoping to get across to the public -- and their elected officials -- that it's not too late to do something about global warming. Yes, the ball is rolling, climate change is happening, but it is also a snowball, and the quicker we slow the momentum, the better.

However, there are some a big "ifs" involved. We can stop climate change if we take action and if that action is really meaningful. We are past the point of gesturing and in need of real action. That is why the 110th Congress has piqued so many environmental hopes. But will a Democratic-led legislature be able to bring about the necessary change -- and will any meaningful laws that those houses pass make it through the final hurdle at the White House?

Off to the races

"For 12 years, the leadership in the House of Representatives has stifled all discussion and debate of global warming," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the Committee on Science and Technology last week.

"That long rejection of reality is over ... scientific evidence suggests that to prevent the most severe effects of global warming, we will need to cut global greenhouse gas emissions roughly in half from today's levels by 2050."

Pelosi said she aims to have legislation passed in the House to combat global warming by July and she is co-sponsoring a bill with Henry Waxman, D-Calif., called the Safe Climate Act to do just that.

But the House has already made some progress on energy issues.

Democrats got the ball rolling in their first 100 hours when the House passed HR 6, known as the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. With 98 percent of Democrats voting in favor of it and 82 percent of Republicans opposing it, the bill aims "to reduce our nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy, and for other purposes."

More succinctly, the bill's primary goal is to take taxpayer money out of the pockets of the oil industry and put it towards investments in clean energy -- which may explain the clear partisan split.

As Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters said, "This legislation eliminates $14 billion in giveaways to oil companies already making record profits and starts investing in clean renewable energy and energy efficiency. The inclusion of the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007 as part of the first 100 hours' agenda sends a clear signal that the new Congress is serious about creating real changes in our nation's energy policy. By saying no to Big Oil and yes to renewable energy, our country is taking a significant first step toward a clean energy future."

While it would seem that the House got off in the right direction, four bills were also introduced in the Senate to address global warming -- all call for mandatory caps on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The front runner for environmentalists is one put forth by Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., first introduced in the last Senate by now-retired Jim Jeffords of Vermont.