Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • 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

Climate Change Heats Up Washington

By Tara Lohan, AlterNet. Posted February 13, 2007.


Things are getting hotter in Congress around climate change, but can meaningful legislation be enacted to really turn the tide?
47891story
47891story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Tara Lohan

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

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.

The Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, as it is called, would require a gradual move toward 80 percent emission reductions from 1990 levels by 2050 and incentives for renewable energy development.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: global warming, pelosi, climate change, washington, boxer

Tara Lohan is a managing editor at AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! 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:
In all of this, let's not ignore half the equation
Posted by: JohnF on Feb 13, 2007 12:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our total consumption (of GHG producing fuels as well as all other natural resources) is the product of population size and the average per capita consumption rate. If we ignore the first part of that equation in a world in which population growth continues to be stong, we'll fail. Let's keep the equation in mind.

http://growthmadness.org/

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

» RE: CRAPPOLLA Posted by: kbest
Be Honest Then Act
Posted by: edith on Feb 13, 2007 2:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No question the Boxer Sanders bill sounds like it makes the tough choices necessary to bring emissions down to where Maybe, just Maybe, climate change will not be catastrophic.

However, a tough measure will cost in the short term jobs and impact on existing business. A realistic and honest projection of the economic impact of 60% reductions by 2050 is essential so that the public understands the dangers and the burdens it will bear.

Congress loves feelgood, no (apparent) cost legislation. It is a time for self-sacrifice and austerity. Let the education of the pampered public begin.

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

In a word,
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Feb 13, 2007 4:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"No."

As long as the corporations are running the show by being the main contributors to BOTH parties, ain't nothin' good gonna happen.

ian

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

Boxer doesn't mention flying in her emails; neither do most environmentalists
Posted by: Beck on Feb 13, 2007 6:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I received an email survey from Barbara Boxer to rate and return, and air travel, a major cause of global warming, was not even mentioned. Most environmentalists I know fly a number of times a year, and won't even get into a conversation about the implications. The Sierra Club is very wishy-washy on the subject and each issue of their magazine lists trips to places all over the globe that probably every person participating in will fly to. Our new love affair is with the airplane. We're apparently cheating on our old, tired marriage with the automobile. And like every addict in denial, we're, well, in denial. If the subject comes up for debate, imagine the length of time before anything happens. The public is at least a couple of years away from any sort of pressure on elected officials, because the public is still in the dark or in denial. It takes the officals forever to push forward any kind of action based on the wishes of their constituants. And the airlines will surely win some type of grandfathering-out scheme, and will not have to replace their fleets, because the economics of the situation will rule out the effect on future generations.

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

» Flying is for the birds Posted by: UncleBuck
» RE: Flying is for the birds Posted by: jmp3954
» Very true Posted by: fifthworld
Not New
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 13, 2007 7:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The commercial is recycled and has been around for a while, and with half of the US Senate running for President full 2 years ahead of the election, I have little confidence in getting much of this nature addressed.

I have a request for any AlterNet readers who live in any of the 'early ' primary states. Please ask any of the 10,000 members of Congress running for President a question for me.

Here goes:
Senator, Representative _____________,
Aren't you currently being paid by the US Taxpayer to fill your role as a member of Congress?
(Follow Up)
Then why don't you get your ass back down to Washington and address the issues this nation is paying you to work on? I'm tired or posturing and triangulation. Go home.

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

» RE: Not New Posted by: staringatthesun
The farce of hope
Posted by: fifthworld on Feb 13, 2007 8:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're much better off just committing our energies instead to solutions for HOW to live in a heating world. Efforts at "anti-warming" are just more hubris and will have less than a negligible effect, and certainly no effect in the immediate future. The Climate panel itself said we're in for 1,000 years of warming, regardless what we do. Many thanks to largely American-originated/sponsored industrial and military dopiness, the apparent inviolability of corporate capitalism and the oily matrix of consumer addiction.

But fear not, we have more immediate fun to look ahead to, naming global ECONOMIC meltdown and all that entails -- namely, everything.

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

Freedom train a-commin' – or a train wreck?
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 13, 2007 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the article:
" 'The main issue is that you have to give carbon a value, and once it's got a market value, then people can trade it. Those who are able to cut their pollution are able to sell what they are not using to someone who isn't cutting and that means that those who are cutting pollution will be rewarded in the market place,' "

Uh, huh; that means that while clean-'n'-green companies' investors will profit more, those dirty companies that are already profiting and don't want to spend on pollution control devices will go right on polluting. Net change, for the overall system? Near zero. This is rearranging the deck chairs on the good ship Climate Chaos.

When will our supposed "leaders" in Washington realize that the lassaiz-faire "free market" system can't solve the problem, because IT IS the problem. Answer: never. Entrenched, profitable industries under this system will ALWAYS do whatever they can, will try any form of shell game, to block emerging technologies or economic changes that might threaten their profits. Trading pollution credits is just that sort of shell game.

I should not be surprised that Congress, a body of aristocrats that requires two weeks to make coffee, doesn't understand this; they're bankrolled by the very same polluters and exploiters that they seek to regulate (uh...did I say "regulate"...sorry...I meant, "influence"; "regulate" is a dirty word in Washington...).

For any real changes to take place, it will be with Congress (and the retrograde executive branch) being dragged behind a long populist freight train – or, it will be after a train wreck.

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

Energy Policy Act of 2005
Posted by: Leadbyexample on Feb 13, 2007 2:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Epact 2005 has a provision for efficiency improvements for existing homes, a credit of up to $500.00. Epact also has a $2,000.00 per home credit for new homes meeting certain efficiency standards. The original act is for calendar years 2006 and 2007, the new home provision has been extended through 2008. The energy tax credit for existing homes has not been extended, call your legislator to find out why.

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

Climate Change is Perennial and Unstoppable
Posted by: dayahka on Feb 13, 2007 4:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, the author's call to "stop" climate change is nonsense. Climate is always changing. "Climate" simply means what the weather has done over a long (by human terms) and short (by geological terms) span of time. Nothing is going to stop climate change...

Second, whether or not climate is changing in dramatic ways is open to question, Gore, Branson, and IPCC notwisthstanding.

Third, whether or not climate is in fact getting hotter and the claim that this is anthropogenic is not based on scientific fact. To think that reducing emissions to reduce warming is to try to do two things that may or may not be causally connected.

Fourth, we should try to eliminate the oil industry, but not because of alleged climate change, but because of toxicity.

Fifth, thank god (or whomever) the present Congress will not be able to pass any economically and scientfically unsound emission-reduction bill any time soon.

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

It is Too Late
Posted by: sofla100 on Feb 13, 2007 6:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am afraid it is already too late. Your best bet now is just not to have kids. Save them from the inevitable suffering that is coming. CO2 levels have never been higher, global warming from man made causes is a confirmed fact, sea levels are rising. All the worlds scientists of any repute understand and acknowledge what is happening. Those that don't are either on the payrolls of companies like Exxon-Mobil or are political science types working for the Heritage Foundation or the like. Now, even if the USA went all out on curbing global warming, China, India and other countries are not going to do anything to interfere with their bottom line. Couple that with the absence of any US leadership or forward thinking on this issue, and the future prospects are indeed terrible. Meanwhile, the warmest years on record continue in the United States as the inevitable impact of climate change, now only in the beginning, is starting to be felt.

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

» RE: It is Too Late Posted by: Leadbyexample
» RE: It is Too Late Posted by: jmp3954