Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Green Legislative Breakthrough?

By Frank O'Donnell, TomPaine.com. Posted August 14, 2007.


Is Congress close to passing legislation that would actually do something substantial in the fight against climate change, benefit the economy and be something Bush won't veto?

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Nobel Laureate Slams the Bible, Calls It "A Catalogue of Cruelties"
Mario de Queiroz

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
As Foreclosure Nightmares Increase, Will More Homeowners Pay Off Their Bankers in Violence?
Scott Thill

DrugReporter:
Lies About Marijuana Drive People to a Much More Harmful Drug -- Booze
Steve Fox

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Despite Censorship By Beef Magnate, Michael Pollan Spreads Message About the Real Price of Cheap Food

Health and Wellness:
Do We Really Want to Enshrine Insurance Monopoly into Law? This and 5 Other Complaints About the Health Bill
John Nichols

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Study Claims Even the Most Sophisticated Readers Can Be Manipulated
Melinda Burns

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Frank O'Donnell

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg


A young man came to my door the other day, seeking money for the Democratic National Committee. "We need to elect Democrats next year," said the young man, "to work on issues like Iraq and global warming."



Implicit in this pitch, similar to one on the DNC website was the notion that the current Congress (and President) will not take on the global warming issue, and that it could be a defining issue in the next election.



But there have been some interesting developments in the past few weeks that leave open hope that the current Congress could actually take on the global warming issue directly and in a bipartisan way.



Consider, for example, the global warming plan unveiled earlier this month by Senators Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va. Their draft strategy, culling ideas from other proposals, would seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent by 2050 through a cap-and-trade system.



This plan does have some real warts. Initially more than half the initial credits would be given free to coal burning power companies and other big polluters based on past pollution levels -- raising the prospect of only slightly smaller windfall profits than a rival plan advanced by Senators Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa.



Their overall target probably would also fall short of the mark needed to stabilize the climate. Even so, as my friends with Natural Resources Defense Council pointed out, the Lieberman-Warner initiative is "a big step forward" in the global warming debate and—with appropriate improvements—could be the basis for a bill that could clear the Senate Environment and Works Committee and head to the Senate floor this fall.



The plan may have gotten an additional boost from an Environmental Protection Agency analysis of an earlier global warming plan drafted by Lieberman and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.



The analysis found that the economy would continue to grow despite new limits on greenhouse gas emissions, undermining arguments of cleanup opponents such as Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.



Across the Capitol, advocates for climate action should take heart from a energy bill vote in favor of requiring that power companies increase the amount of electricity they produce from renewable energy sources, a favorable vote despite opposition from big global-warming polluters like Duke Energy.



A renewable energy requirement alone would be a positive step on global warming—though it faces a real challenge in upcoming conference negotiations with the Senate. But it also suggests that House could support a strong overall plan to reduce global warming emissions.



But, wait—isn't President Bush going to oppose anything meaningful on global warming? After all, he has threatened to veto the less significant energy package unless his oil industry cronies get a better deal.



Perhaps. But he also could be influenced by one of the less-publicized developments of recent weeks—a call to action by the Business Roundtable, the CEOs of America's biggest companies (its energy task force is headed by Michael Morris, President and CEO of America's biggest global warmer—American Electric Power), a group usually somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan on environmental policy.



Though the Roundtable didn't endorse specific legislation, it did call for "collective actions" to reduce emissions.



These folks, who pull the puppet strings of so many D.C. pols, may have been sending President Bush a message: Consider signing global warming legislation if it makes its way to your desk.



The President has already scheduled a climate change summit in Washington in late September. Now that Karl Rove is packing his bags, would the President consider forging a legacy other than being the guy who created the Iraq mess?

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

See more stories tagged with: energy, energy policy

Frank O'Donnell is president of Clean Air Watch.

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:
Sham legislation and the quality of snake oil
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Aug 15, 2007 4:11 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have not looked at most of the bills before congress on this
subject. There are too many of them. I went to
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas
and searched for "carbon + cap" "Thomas" replied:
239 Bills from the 110th Congress ranked by relevance on
"carbon+cap ".
       0 bills containing your phrase exactly as entered.
       0 bills containing all your search words near each other in any
order.
       32 bills containing all your search words but not near each
other.
       207 bills containing one or more of your search words.

I looked at the sub-headings in H.R.3221 because of the article at:
http://www.alternet.org/environment/59387/
Plesae see my comment at
http://www.alternet.org/environment/59387/

There are too many bills for one person to read and comment on.
Clearly the majority are fake or sham legislation and some would
make the situation worse. I wish that the author of the article,
http://www.americanprogress.org/
or somebody would form a team to read and report on all of these
bills. I suspect that all of the bills in congress are fake or sham
legislation because they would do nothing about the one most
important and easiest thing to do. That one thing is to convert all
coal fired power plants to nuclear. Coal fired power plants are
the #1 contributor of CO2 to the atmosphere. Coal fired power
plants are also the #2 contributor of radioactive materials to the
atmosphere. [The #1 contributor of radioactive materials to the
atmosphere is Nature. Natural background radiation is 1000
times the contribution of nuclear power plants and 10 times the
contribution of coal fired power plants.]
It is clear that the Coal lobby is winning so far.

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

» don't diss coal Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: don't diss coal Posted by: AsteroidMiner
Law Based On a 100 year old con
Posted by: DrColes on Aug 15, 2007 7:25 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The 100 year old con http://www.InteliOrg.com/archive/FireandIce.pdf on climate change.

In order to be an intelligent reader you must have a basic knowledge. Please do your own homework, a starting point http://www.InteliOrg.com/

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

» RE: Law Based On a 100 year old con Posted by: George Fleming
» RE: Law Based On a 100 year old con Posted by: AsteroidMiner
No pain no gain
Posted by: edith on Aug 16, 2007 2:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sounds like Congress will consider painless legislation so that carbon producers pay little or nothing while CO2 levels continue to increase.

Calling legislation one thing when it does another is not new. In this case, it would be yet another example of the fraud that pretty much defines the Democratic Party on Capitol HIll.

If you want lower carbon levels, you have to use higher prices and/or taxes to inflict pain on carbon users/producers to decrease carbon use.

Sounds like pols like Pelosi will do the opposite, so plan on buying that beachfront property in central Jersey.

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

devil details
Posted by: baugh on Aug 16, 2007 7:41 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's important to note the differences between the House and Senate's Energy Bills. The renewable electricity requirement - 15 percent through renewable sources and efficiency - is in the House bill only. There is an increased automobile fuel efficiency standard on the Senate only, CAFE standards that'd be raised to 35mpg in ten years or something.

it'll be important what happens when the two versions go to a house-senate conference committee to be reconciled. stuff can be quietly dropped due to political pressure, don't you know. watch for what happens in september.

As for the plethora of global warming legislation, in addition to the Lieberman-Warner and Bingaman-Specter bills mentioned, there are these that Union of Concerned Scientists seems to support--

"Congress is considering two bills that would achieve the needed 80 percent reductions: the Sanders-Boxer Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act (S. 309) and the Waxman Safe Climate Act (HR 1590), and could vote on this issue as early as this fall."

I think edith is right to worry about Pelosi, et al. choosing some toothless show-legislation, but the Waxman plan doesn't seem bad. Grist mentioned it favorably a few months ago i believe.

more info from UCS on global warming legislation

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

» RE: devil details Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: devil details Posted by: KeepsonTickn
» RE3: devil details Posted by: AsteroidMiner
A Report from the Global Warming Battlefield
Posted by: Liger on Aug 16, 2007 9:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What about Ron Paul's Industrial Hemp Farming Act ?
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 16, 2007 10:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You might want to do what I'm doing. Send a strong letter to your Congress person and Senators URGING them to LEGALIZE INDUSTRIAL HEMP and allow it to penetrate the market even if it does replace petroleum.

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

In a word, no they won't...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Aug 16, 2007 7:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Recall that Pelosi promised before the election to remove the subsidies from coal and oil and transfer them to renewables?

Well, the fact is that fossil fuel interests own a number of Democrats as well as essentially all the Republicans, and the legislation was gutted.

The main culprit was one John Dingell, democrat, and the longest-serving House member. See Dingell guts global warming rules and renewable energy standards:

Congressman John Dingell (D-Mich.) either stymied or stopped the inclusion into the House energy package of the three comprehensive pieces of global warming solutions. In addition, Dingell not only voted against an already watered down 15% National Renewable Energy Standard (RES), going against the majority of the House and his own party, he actively whipped his colleagues to vote against the provision. From his position as Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Dingell was also instrumental in keeping a significant increase in automobile fuel economy standards out of the package.

Dingell's funding in the 2006 election cycle, top donors:
General Motors
$ 31,250
2
Ford Motor Co
$ 30,600
3
DaimlerChrysler
$ 20,750
4
DTE Energy
$ 18,685
5
Verizon Communications
$ 14,000

Well, that's the way corporate control of US politics works. GM, of course, lobbies hard and long against CAFE standards. If you see the starred comment above, well... that explains part of why there are no CAFE standards in the House bill, doesn't it?

[« 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