Zen and the art of anxiety maintenance

Why I’m not freaked out about the Waxman-Markey climate bill 36

Balls with ambivalent faces.Feeling ambivalent?Will the Waxman-Markey bill spark a full-scale energy revolution?

No. Not on its own, not in the next 10-15 years. The short-term targets for reducing greenhouse gases are too low, the renewable electricity standard is too weak, too many offsets are allowed,  and there’s too little investment in clean energy. To boot, there’s every indication the bill will get worse before it passes ... in the unlikely event it passes.

The green world is grappling with these unpleasant facts right now, fluctuating between rage (kill it!), dread (we’re screwed), and resignation (it’s better than nothing). Or maybe that’s just me.

Anyway, on odd-numbered days, I think I’ve reached a fragile zen detente with the whole process. Mainly, I’ve been trying to focus on a different question: will there be an energy revolution? After all, the American Clean Energy and Security Act is not the only shot for Obama to make good on his campaign promises on energy. Nor is the legislation our last chance to tackle the climate crisis. No bill can carry that kind of weight, not at this moment, with this Congress. America is at the tail end of an era of cheap energy and heedless economic growth.  Waxman-Markey is just the struggle to get an extremely hidebound, backward-looking set of political institutions to acknowledge that the old order is collapsing. Building a new order is something else entirely.

The question is, what’s going to happen after the bill is passed? An energy revolution will require a combination of social, technological, business, legal, regulatory, and legislative changes. Federal legislation can’t do all the lifting. Conversely, other changes can compensate somewhat for a weak (at least at the outset) federal framework. What will ultimately make the difference is not the specific mechanics of the bill but the, ahem, Sweep of History. (And who better to capture the Sweep of History than Some Blogger?)

I am reasonably optimistic, despite the flaws in Waxman-Markey, that history is on our side, and that the arguments happening today in Congress will soon be seen as peculiar and archaic. Here, briefly, is why:

Obama (Lo, is he not The Beginning of All Lists?)

There is no reason to think that this bill is going to be Obama’s only legacy on energy. Already there’s been the stimulus bill, which will probably do more for clean energy in the next five years than Waxman-Markey,  the new mileage standards, and the big climate impacts report. And there is plenty more to come.

In the latest issue of Rolling Stone, Jeff Goodell has a fantastic piece on Energy Secretary Steven Chu. (For reasons only RS understands, it is not yet online. However, Charlie Petit at Knight has a bootleg PDF copy and some thoughts on the piece. Also read Brad Plumer. And while you’re at it, read Brad’s long and extremely excellent piece on the question of whether we need technological breakthroughs to beat climate change, which is centered on Chu.)

The RS piece contains this striking passage:

“The fact is, we’re not going to level out at 450 ppm,” [Chu] says. “We’re going to go over 450 ppm. So what will we do? I’m not in favor of deploying geoengineering. But thinking about it is OK.”

For a moment, the room goes quiet. In effect, the United States secretary of energy has just told an elite group of scientists and politicians that, no matter what happens with climate legislation this summer in Congress, no matter what China does or does not do, no matter what targets are set at climate negotiations in Copenhagen later this year, our future as a species is likely a grim one.  Chu has uttered the politically unthinkable: that his own administration’s efforts to halt global warming might not be enough to avert a catastrophe.

In other words, Chu gets it. He knows that this isn’t just political football. It isn’t just another “issue.” It’s imminent misery, not just for future generations but for people alive today.

And he’s not the only one. White House science adviser John Holdren gets it. So do climate czar Carol Browner, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson,  CEQ chief Nancy Sutley, and both Hillary Clinton and Todd Stern at State. So, if we’re to believe those close to him, does Barack Obama (though many of his supporters are beginning to have their doubts, what with his ongoing low profile on the subject).

If Obama wins a second term, we will have eight years of an administration filled with people who believe that the fate of millions, possibly human civilization itself, rests on their ability to tackle this problem. They’re not going to view the passage of a compromised cap-and-trade bill as the end of their responsibility. They’ll use their eight years to make sure the long-term emission-reduction framework put in place by Waxman-Markey is part of our national DNA.  They’ll keep pushing China. They’ll use executive branch tools (including, but not only, the EPA). They’ll drive research and deployment.

In eight years, the quest for a clean energy revolution will not be a subject for partisan dispute but a simple fact, a shared national mission, and part of every business’s long-term planning.

Some other reasons for hope:

• Oil prices threaten the economic recovery, as Ryan Avent keeps warning. Coal is getting more expensive, and several coal utilities are applying for rate increases. Gas prices are going to fluctuate (generally on the way up).

In short, fossil fuels are not going to become less of an economic pain in the ass. Their corrosive effects on the economy and public health seem likely to become steadily more apparent. Once consumers are familiar with alternative sources that offer stable, effectively free (after the initial capital investment) power, they’re going to start demanding them.

• Cleantech is cool. This is from Joshua Green’s excellent piece on clean energy in The Atlantic:

Shortly after the inauguration, a friend up for several jobs in the new administration confessed that he yearned to wind up at the Department of Energy. “It’s like NASA in the ‘60s,” he told me. “All the best and brightest want to be there.” Obama’s choice of Steven Chu, the Nobel laureate physicist, as secretary of energy only heightened the allure. In the early Obama era, romantic notions about making one’s mark on history tend to take the form of helping recast America’s economy, and by extension the world’s, in a way that will head off global catastrophe.

And this:

“Think of the smartest guy you’ve ever met and then imagine 50,000 more just like him innovating all at once,” Mike Danaher, a partner and cleantech specialist at the law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, told me. “Just as they did with telecom in the ‘90s, they’re attacking every component of every kind of alternative energy to improve it.”

Cleantech’s allure can partly be captured via numbers—the amount of VC investment, the amount of stimulus money—but it goes beyond that. It’s about nerd chic. Figuring out energy is what all the hot-shit brainiacs coming out of Ivy League schools want to do these days. There’s just an amazing amount of brainpower being devoted to these problems, more every day. I predict the pace of innovation is going to outstrip even the most optimistic projections. The clean-energy mammals will overwhelm the dirty-energy dinosaurs sooner than we think.

• The need for a real economy. One thing you frequently hear about the bubble-busts of the last 20 years is that there was too much capital chasing too few real investments. We need a new source of economic growth to absorb that capital. And there’s a felt need today for Americans to start making stuff again— inventing, manufacturing, and exporting things of real value.

What can we make? What’s the new source of growth? Here’s how economist James K. Galbraith put it:

Finally, there is the big problem: ... How to build the productive economy for the next generation? ...

Today the largest problems we face are energy security and climate change—massive issues because energy underpins everything we do, and because climate change threatens the survival of civilization. And here, obviously, we need a comprehensive national effort. Such a thing, if done right, combining planning and markets, could add 5 or even 10 percent of GDP to net investment. That’s not the scale of wartime mobilization. But it probably could return the country to full employment and keep it there, for years.

Moreover, the work does resemble wartime mobilization in important financial respects. Weatherization, conservation, mass transit, renewable power, and the smart grid are public investments. As with the armaments in World War II, work on them would generate incomes not matched by the new production of consumer goods. If handled carefully—say, with a new program of deferred claims to future purchasing power like war bonds—the incomes earned by dealing with oil security and climate change have the potential to become a foundation of restored financial wealth for the middle class.

This basic view, albeit toned down, is mirrored in Joe Biden’s Middle Class Task Force, which is pushing hard on clean energy as a source of restored middle class prosperity.

All of which is to say: the structural position of the U.S. economy more or less requires a push toward clean energy. You can’t build an economy on moving fake money around forever. If you want large and expanding markets, there aren’t that many places to go.

• States and cities won’t stop. Waxman-Markey may set national standards at relatively weak levels, but plenty of states have tougher renewable electricity standards. A few are experimenting with feed-in tariffs (see here and here) and producing extraordinary results. You can’t throw a rock without hitting a mayor who wants to revitalize his or her city by establishing a reputation as green (see Grist’s list of 15 green mayors).

The federal debate is warped by the outsized influence of carbon-intensive states and industries (magnified both by corporate contributions and by the frakked-up structure of U.S. constitutional government). But at the subnational level, there is a swarm of political leaders without the same constraints. Eventually, their success—not only environmental success but subsequent economic and political success—will alter the political calculus even in the most recalcitrant states. Whether or not the trend is accelerated by Waxman-Markey, wealth is already transferring from middle states to the coasts, because the East and West coasts are where the action and innovation are.

• We are on the cusp of an extended progressive era. This is the one I’m least confident about, so I’m putting it last. But in my optimistic moments, I agree with the politics editor at The Nation, Chris Hayes:

Look at how far we’ve come in the last four years. We have a black president who ran on the most ambitiously progressive domestic agenda in a generation. Look at the political perspectives of the youngest voters, the most progressive cohort since the dawn of polling on almost every issue. White, male, Christians are the demographic roadblock. And the country is getting less white and less Christian. The macro forces are moving in our direction. What makes you lose hope is the hand-to-hand combat happening on Capitol Hill.  Progressives have a unique lack of self-confidence where we feel like we are just going to get this one little chance, but I think the force of history is on our side. I believe that with every last fiber of my being.

I can’t say I believe that with my every fiber. Maybe 60 to 70 percent of my fibers. But sometimes, when I squint just right, I see a future blooming with cultural and technological ferment, a tidal change on the way that will be helped by a strong federal climate bill but will not be stopped by a weak one.

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. craig4survival Posted 10:24 pm
    23 Jun 2009

    David,I'm glad you're not freaking out about Waxman-Markey.  I'm not either.  I think, however, you should be freaking out about the global destabilizaiton that will follow from climate change.While it's good to know that people in the 'inside' get it, we need to let them know that people on the outside also get it.  And people on the outside right now who should be getting it the most, and telling people how it is, i.e. the Big Enviros, are instead cheerleading a false solution and selling it as the key to salvation.  We will only get what we need if we ask for it.  That means we push and push and push, and know that we have morality on our side.  We have the high ground on this one, and we yielded it before we even tried holding it.Luckily, those of us on the ground will fix this.  So sit tight, and sleep well - the cavalry is on the way.  But it's going to take us a few months (wait til late October).

    Permalink

  2. veritone Posted 4:13 am
    24 Jun 2009

    You make many good points, as usual, but I am growing more concerned about the Obama administration. Gays have been thrown under the bus three times now. Guantanamo shows no signs of closing down anytime soon. Military tribunals are going to be made friendlier, not eliminated as Obama said on the campaign trail. His administration still supports rendition, it appears, and has no difficulty holding people indefinitely, completely throwing habeus corpus out the window. And then there's the matter of Afghanistan, which could prove to be Obama's Vietnam.Let's not forget that Tim Geithner and Larry Summers continue to screw up the financial crisis, but that shouldn't surprise anyone familiar with either of them. Summers helped repeal Glass-Steagal and Geithner, when he worked in NY for the SEC, completely looked the other way as the financial crisis percolated into disaster on his watch.I concede Obama has made some great cabinet picks in the area of energy and the environment, but then again he put Agribiz toady Tom Vilsack in charge of the Department of Agriculture, which now, thanks to Peterson, may have a hand in overseeing the agricultural dimensions of W-M.Like Craig4Survival, I'm placing my faith in what "We the People" can organize for ourselves. The fight will really begin in the fall and I intend to enlist every atom of my being to see it through.For an honest and no holds barred assessment of the Obama administration, I recommend reading Paul Street. His "Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics," is about to come out in paperback. Referring to this book Noam Chomsky declares, "It is a very welcome contribution in complex and troubled times."

    Permalink

  3. enviroperk Posted 4:39 am
    24 Jun 2009

    I appreciate the positive thoughts here, but I think Buiter's analysis is closer to reality.His conclusion:The American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act of 2009 is worse than nothing: it is a con and a fraud.  It pretends to be a vehicle for reductions in CO2E emissions.  In fact it is designed to permit increases in CO2E emissions.Reducing CO2E emissions is painful.  America doesnt do pain any longer. Be it the environmental or the fiscal arena, only painless solutions are politically acceptable and feasible.  When there are no painless solutions, problems are allowed to fester and grow until they finally blow up.  It is time for America to grow up and to accept that there are problems for which there are no painless solutions.

    Permalink

    1. veritone Posted 4:54 am
      24 Jun 2009

      I don't know who Buiter is, but I think his analysis is simplistic in ways David Roberts' is not. In fact, I think it's downright inaccurate. While I would've hoped for higher GHG emission reduction targets, the net effect, by 2020, will be the equivalent of taking 500 million cars off the road. Clean Air legislation and the Montreal Protocol were both made stronger than when they originally emerged. W-M is a Landmark piece of legislation that will allow us to sharply turn a corner if we maintain our resolve and work to improve it.

      Permalink

      1. enviroperk Posted 5:37 am
        24 Jun 2009

        Very sorry, my link on my comment wasn't working earlier.  Here are links to a couple of articles of Buiter's on the subject http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/05/the-browning-of-america/http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/06/the-con-is-on-how-carbon-credits-neuter-cap-trade/

        Permalink

    2. enviroperk Posted 7:35 pm
      24 Jun 2009

      In a lighter moment, one could predict this legislation will be fully as effective as the Anti-Spam legislation and the Federal "do not call list". Only less so -- due to the war chests of those involved.

      Permalink

  4. Jon Rynn's avatar

    Jon Rynn Posted 6:31 am
    24 Jun 2009

    Dave, I'm just finishing reading James Galbraith's most recent book, "The Predator State", and I think it's a fantastic book.  He rips apart the myths of monetarism, the free market, balanced budgets, etc., and he gives a good defense of planning -- as maybe his most central example, he talks about the need for government involvement in battling climate change.  So I'm glad that you're reading him, I hope his voice becomes better known.

    Permalink

    1. AntonioSosa Posted 6:25 pm
      24 Jun 2009

      Jon, it sounds like you are drinking undiluted koolaid! If you are so desperate to be enslaved, please move to Cuba or North Korea. Leave the U.S. for people who believe in freedom and democracy.

      Permalink

      1. walt k Posted 3:49 pm
        27 Jun 2009

        As Galbraith says in The Predator State (which you might try reading before you spout nonsense), your freedom is really the freedom to shop. Our 'freedoms' are linked entirely to money, which guarantees them for the wealthy and large corporations, leaves them optional for the rest of us.Our republic is a political system where our elected representatives are to make decisions for the benefit of all of society. It has obviously been perverted by money and we need publicly-financed elections, but it's premise remains unchallenged. So why should economic decisions, which are inexorably linked to political ones, not be made in the same way? That's all that socialism is, public ownership is not required, although it could be used as a tool. No one is proposing the elimination of private property in the U.S., but we do need to start injecting the public good into the planning and distribution processes.We've seen the "unfettered magic of the marketplace." It's brought us credit default swaps, GM bankruptcy, and a population so medicated the pharmaceutical residue in our urine is overwhelming our sewage treatment plants.

        Permalink

  5. randino Posted 6:37 am
    24 Jun 2009

    I think what is going to be interesting is what happens if climate change legislation does not make it through the House and Senate and end up on Obama's desk.  I think the Big Greens within the Beltway will have poo all over their faces, and that there might be a real knock down, drag out over "where do we go from here."  The peasants among the more grass rootsy groups out in the hinterland will be very, very restless. The problem with the whole progressive agenda during the Obama administration, is that I get very little sense of real, on ground organizing going on that will be needed to push a progressive agenda forward.  Being buried in blizzards of ever more frantic and ever more earnest e-mail blasts IS NOT organizing. Finally I appreciate David's long and broad view.  The battle over Waxman/Markey has this environmentalist Everyman's head spinning.  I have Ken Ward grabbing one of my legs, and Joe Romm the other and they are making a wish.  I am sure that I am not alone in this.  So, thank you David, for giving me a big, big Aspirin. Randy Cunningham   Cleveland OH 

    Permalink

    1. Jon Rynn's avatar

      Jon Rynn Posted 7:00 am
      24 Jun 2009

      Randy, I wonder will happen if W-M does pass -- it might be a similar moment of truth.  What does everybody do?  Just sit around and wait for W-M to do nothing?  Do some groups push on to other things -- like public investment, feed-in tariffs, etc. -- and some turn into "Waxman-Markey" observers?  In other words, where will we go from either the "W-M dies" here or the "W-M wins" here?

      Permalink

      1. randino Posted 8:29 am
        24 Jun 2009

        Jon, I think what you are going to see - regardless of W-M's fate - will be a continuation of the old Big Green/Little Green split in division of labor and different ways of looking at the world.  There is a palatable difference in how the Beltway crowd operates, and how the grass roots local groups operate. I think - I hope, that a lot of the dynamism on the local level that David mentions, will continue. Randy Cunningham  Cleveland OH

        Permalink

    2. veritone Posted 7:29 am
      24 Jun 2009

      I understand that Repower America is organizing the grass roots in Cleveland, and across the country for that matter. Have you been in touch with them? Go to http://www.RepowerAmerica.org and sign up. I'm sure they'll be in touch with you if you do. And then there's the lovely "Climate Citizen" piece Grist posted several weeks ago that identifies all kinds of ways to get involved. Perhaps you've already enlisted with one of many grassroots initiatives underway. As I suspect you already know, it sure beats fretting about W-M.

      Permalink

      1. randino Posted 8:35 am
        24 Jun 2009

        I am helping organize a group in Cleveland to deal with local power plants burning mountain top removal coal.  I think I am as connected as anyone.  Maybe I am asleep, but I haven't felt anything rattling my cage going on.  Other than - of course - doing the usual old canned messages to Congress via the internet.  But I am a hopelessly out of date fossil, who is not all that impressed with internet activism.  So maybe that is why I am missing the parade.Randy Cunningham   Cleveland, OH. 

        Permalink

  6. ids's avatar

    ids Posted 7:53 am
    24 Jun 2009

    Why I am not freaked out by my carbon footprint and do nothing to reduce it?  Gristwash.

    Permalink

  7. Gar Lipow's avatar

    Gar Lipow Posted 8:25 am
    24 Jun 2009

    The problem with WM is not just inadequacy but that it actually makes future action harder. The single biggest lever to get climate legislation through is current EPA authority. And we are trading it for essentially nothing. Worse, the offsets and giveaways strengthen the political infrastructure that will make getting decent energy legislation and such through in the future. As happened in the UK and EU, you end up wih a whole trading and offset industry that opposes full auctioning and renewable energy standards and public investment that might tinker with the delicate fragile flower that is their wonderful trading system - and their wonderful profits.

    Permalink

  8. Ken Johnson's avatar

    Ken Johnson Posted 10:45 am
    24 Jun 2009

    Re "States and cities won’t stop."David -They may indeed stop or slow down because W-M, in its current form, would basically convert state, local, and individual GHG-reduction actions into fossil-fuel subsidies. Cap-and-trade is designed to exploit any such actions to further reduce the global emission price, not to further reduce global emissions. The problem could be mitigated by adopting rules giving states and localities rights to the surplus allowances resulting from their GHG-reduction actions. (See Preserving Additionality of Complementary GHG-Reduction Actions under Waxman-Markey.) But trying to quantify additionality could create some of the same problems that exist with offsets.Under a carbon tax the problem would not exist because a tax does not incentivize maximum emissions up to a predetermined national cap. I do not favor the Stark/Larson/Inglis carbon-tax legislation, but people need to undestand that cap-and-trade's fundamental policy objective, that of achieving a predetermined emission target at least cost, nullifies incentives for state, local, and individual GHG-reduction actions.

    Permalink

  9. josullivan58 Posted 4:13 pm
    24 Jun 2009

    From Pew: Myths about the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy Billhttp://www.pewclimate.org/acesa/eight-myths/June2009 

    Permalink

  10. Christopher S. Johnson's avatar

    Christopher S. Johnson Posted 5:45 pm
    24 Jun 2009

    With all of this, lets keep TIME & SPEED OF CHANGE in mind.  It can make all of these positive viewpoints very valid or it can can wipe them away in an instant.Methane release from permafrost.  Feedback loops.We have to keep these in mind and not just think of our own emissions in a linear fashion, and then think we have a certain buffer zone for change.

    Permalink

  11. AntonioSosa Posted 6:20 pm
    24 Jun 2009

    No patriotic and informed American can support the ACES Act (global warming/cap and trade scam), a huge Ponzy scheme that will kill the U.S. economy.

    Cap and Trade "would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy—all without any scientific justification," says famed climatologist Dr. S. Fred Singer. It would significantly increase taxes and the cost of energy, forcing many companies to close, thus increasing unemployment, poverty and dependence.

    Cap and trade represents huge taxes and cost increases, which will hurt mostly the poor and the middle class while further empowering and enriching Obama and his fraudulent billionaire friends (Gore, Soros, Goldman Sachs, Obama’s Chicago Climate Exchange friends, GE, the United Nations, etc.)-- all at our expense and at the expense of our children and grandchildren.

    Permalink

  12. AntonioSosa Posted 6:21 pm
    24 Jun 2009

    More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. They are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/3562/218/ Additionally, more than 30,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." http://www.petitionproject.org    Those brainwashed to the point of wanting to destroy the economy to "prevent global warming" are behaving like the most primitive human beings who were duped into believing that human sacrifices would ensure them good weather. Human beings don't have the power to control climate! And killing the economy will not help the environment. Poor countries can't protect the environment. Just look at Haiti! Please do what you can to defend your family and your country. Write to your Representative  -- https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

    Permalink

    1. Christopher S. Johnson's avatar

      Christopher S. Johnson Posted 6:35 pm
      24 Jun 2009

       NASA:  http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/causes    “Most scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human  expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps  heat radiating from Earth toward space.”    NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration):  http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2009/ocp2009-ccsp.htm    “Climate research conducted over the past several years indicates that most of the  global warming experienced in the past few decades is very likely due to the observed  increase in greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities.”      AGU (American Geophysical Union): http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml    “The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of  the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the  extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation,  and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not  natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of  greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.”   
       

      Permalink

      1. enviroperk Posted 7:50 pm
        24 Jun 2009

        I agree with these conclusions, but for scientific conclusions to contain wording like "most scientists agree" , "very likely due to" and " are best explained by", does provide for an opposing viewpoint and does reflect scientific "hedging". That is to say that these conclusions do not invalidate all other alternative hypotheses.However, especially in absence of evidence of environmental harm caused by reducing CO2 emissions, it is incumbent upon us to act on the best information we have now.The debate is: Is this really a positive action, or will the loopholes and compromises result in this being a zero sum game?

        Permalink

  13. Christopher S. Johnson's avatar

    Christopher S. Johnson Posted 8:09 pm
    24 Jun 2009

     

    Permalink

  14. enviroperk Posted 8:41 pm
    24 Jun 2009

    Now I am starting to really be afraid of the last minute additions to the bill. How will we know what the final bill is before the vote? ( i think the money is on the Coal lobby for victory by modification, as if they do not have enough already )http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/06/24/what-the-cap-and-trade-rush-does-to-advocacy/

    Permalink

  15. enviroperk Posted 10:13 pm
    24 Jun 2009

    As a follow up:David, Which version of the bill are you referring to?  I fear I may not be up to date on these revisions and owe a retraction or admonishment or two.http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/06/23/what-the-frak-is-going-on-with-the-cap-and-trade-bill/ To get to MY POINT: 300 pages were added to the bill yesterday without an open hearing. Granted, 300 pages of 25 lines averaging 5.5 words per line is only 7,500 words, but looking at the new bill, we do not know what the changes are without comparing the bill of a couple of weeks ago, with the bill as it stands today -- only two days before voting!These are the dangers of a complicated bill with cap and trade over a simple tax on CO2 emissions. Previous analysis may be completely voided by the recent changes. Will anyone burn the midnight oil to see what the new 7,500 words are changing in the bill? It is most difficult to blindly endorse a moving target. No?

    Permalink

  16. treesky Posted 6:18 am
    25 Jun 2009

       The ? is: Does climate change exist and is it due to natural fluctuations ?  The way I  decide this is by noticing the world around me not by what someone tells me.    Heres a personal observation which helps me know climate change exists. In 1981 Atlanta was in Zone 7/8 ( otherwords the border of 7/8) on USDA Plant Hardiness map. Now 2009 Atlanta is toward the middle of Zone 8. This means the border of Zone 7/8 moved about 100 miles in 30 yrs. This is not natural movement of Plant Hardiness. Just do a search of  Plant Hardiness zone maps and you will see this.     So to me Climate Change is real and is due to mainly manmade influence. So therefore anything we can do to slow it, is to the benefit of the of the natural world of which man is part of.  

    Permalink

  17. Dave from Canada Posted 1:08 pm
    26 Jun 2009

    Interesting post David, as usual.But strikingly naive, not as usual.Just because something is a good idea, or badly needs to happen, doesn't mean that it's going to happen.When good ideas pull in one direction, and market prices pull in the other, which is going to win?We need carbon pricing in order to make those good ideas happen.  Without it, we will just keep going where we're headed- toward the cliff.

    Permalink

  18. Steve Erickson Posted 11:39 am
    27 Jun 2009

    One need only look at the history of federal environmental legislation in the US to lose any sense of optimism. Consider the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act. All three have been weakened since adoption by:1. Legislative action by the legislative branch of government;2. Failure to enforce and rule making evisceration by the executive branch;3. Legal interpretation by the judicial branch.Expecting future improvements to environmental legislation as originally adopted is optimistic to the point of involving consumption of mind altering substances.

    Permalink

  19. Dave from Canada Posted 8:23 am
    28 Jun 2009

    Achieving incremental GHG policy advance over time is optimistic.  I agree.And what about going the whole distance in one bill? Is that somehow less optimistic?;-) 

    Permalink

  20. veritone Posted 8:42 am
    28 Jun 2009

    The ongoing influence of powerful corporate interests determined to Deny and Delay, and their political servants, vitiate all that we hope to accomplish. That much is clear. The antidote is building people power, building a grass roots movement, etc.The opposition is largely united, our side is increasingly fractured. I'd be real interested in learning how Gar and others who hold his views intend to proceed to build such a movement. I'm not being cynical here, it is an honest and open question. I respect much of the concerns expressed. But we have this summer to brace ourselves for a big fight in the Senate. Or not, I suppose, if you are Gar, or Greenpeace, or Friends of the Earth. I hear that Greenpeace hopes to get better results through the EPA somehow, but that flies in the face of the fact that Obama threw the whole weight of the White House in support of ACES as recently as last Thursday and, if the press reports were correct, did much behind the scenes arm-twisting and so forth. Of course this gets back to my first point about corporate interference. What plans do Gar, Greenpeace and FOE have to counter this? I'd give worlds to know. As I see it, Greenpeace's strategy has two chances of succeeding: slim and none, as my Irish ancestors might say. I'd like better odds than that. 

    Permalink

  21. Alchey Posted 2:32 pm
    29 Jun 2009

    One only needs to look at where the money really is--Washington, D.C., to see what is going on, and what is coming up. Hang onto your purse, there, pardner, the ride has just started.

    Permalink

    1. walt k Posted 5:56 pm
      29 Jun 2009

      The money is most definitely not in DC. Thirty years of BS about balanced budgets, 'pay as you go' rules, and free market claptrap have left us with a public that thinks it knows a bunch of things about economics, all of them wrong. I find it revealing that spending money to bomb and invade people who have done nothing to us is acceptable to folks who think every other part of government should be shut down.
      This bill, like the Farm Bill and many others will be exploited and used to continue the flow of corporate welfare. It's virtue is that it is official endorsement of the problem. I tend to doubt it will solve the problem, or even be the first step in a solution.
      We have two choices- go to a functioning system of public financing of campaigns ( http://www.publicampaign.org/node/38166 ) or amend the Constitution to end once and for all the idea that elections aren't free unless those with money can buy them ( http://www.eswynn.com/2009/04/separation-of-corporation-and-state.html ).

      To achieve either, the American public will have to display considerably more intelligence and vigor than it has shown in the past 65 years, and will need to continue to do so once the new sytem is in place. We are in a far deeper hole than any of our "leaders" is letting on.

      Permalink

  22. Sciguy Posted 9:56 pm
    29 Jun 2009

    Why I'm not freaked out.219-212.  This was clearly the most that could pass the House.Hard numerical targets.  Regardless of possible loopholes, they provide accountability.  Quite possibly they'll be part of a new treaty late this year.NAS reports - science lookback.  Will provide a future path for needed and practical ratcheting down.The "this is worse than nothing" people need to get a grip on political reality.  "Round here baby, I've learned you get what you can get." - Bruce Springsteen

    Permalink

  23. guade00 Posted 10:16 am
    01 Jul 2009

    Why be freaked out? We entered a phase-transition to a new climate regime many decades ago. That was the time to pass legislation restricting use of non-renewables and carbon emissions. It's still a good idea to transform our energy supply to renewables for a whole variety of reasons. But, be sure, we are well on our way to a new world. And there will be great suffering. No legislation from the United States will change that.By the way, I really enjoyed reading the "denier's" post above, specifically the passage comparing climate science to human sacrifice. That's a connection I had never made, and it is, prima facie, not totally implausible. But, c'mon, what does he cite in his favor? More (questionable) scientists!

    Permalink

  24. Sciguy Posted 12:34 pm
    01 Jul 2009

    Good article by Tom Friedman.  I can't seem to paste the link.  Google Tom Friedman Just Do It.    

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement