As an activist who has been arrested for civil disobedience,
organized national climate mobilizations, protested outside of coal plants, and
worked for Greenpeace, I am calling on my friends and colleagues to fight for the
Kerry-Boxer “Clean Energy Jobs Act” and a strong global treaty in Copenhagen. On Monday
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Energy Secretary Steven Chu said
there is a chance of passing a climate bill in Congress before the
international talks in Copenhagen
this December. Many of us have spent the better part of a decade preparing for
this moment. While supporters of the Kerry-Boxer legislation fend off
well-financed attacks by the fossil fuel industry, they simultaneously face
opposition from progressive voices within the climate movement.
It’s time for radicals and moderates to come together around what we stand for. Being right isn’t enough. Each of us must be loud and strong and boisterous in defense of our cause. Oppose offsets and giveaways to the fossil fuel industry. But let us fight hardest for what we believe in—a strong climate bill and a stronger global treaty—than what we fear.
In November 2000 I had the privilege to be one of 200 young people from the U.S. and Africa invited by Greenpeace to lobby delegates at the U.N. Climate Negotiations in The Hague, Netherlands. We stood below a stage listening to four middle-aged Inuit women, who had traveled outside of their homeland for the first time. They were coming from Alaska, a place where winter temperatures had increased 6 degrees since 1950. Fighting back tears we listened as the women told us of men falling through melting ice while traversing age-old caribou hunting routes. They spoke of dwindling food supplies from altered seasons and seeing mosquitoes in a region that had never known such things. They felt the climate crisis first-hand and were reaching out to us in partnership.
Instead of leaving us in fear, the women joined together in a traditional dance. At that moment we knew what we were fighting for: a strong global climate treaty—to preserve hope, love, community, tradition. The lesson for me: in a crisis, fight hardest for what you believe in, not what you fear. While we should never be afraid to oppose weaknesses and flaws in a policy, they should not rule our agenda or define our movement.
Nine years later there is still no cap on carbon pollution and the stakes have risen. CO2 has risen from 369 ppm in 2000 to 385 ppm in 2008. Progressive opponents of the Kerry-Boxer Clean Energy Jobs Act include Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and the recently-formed Climate SOS coalition. The Energy Action Coalition, a youth clean energy alliance that I co-founded in 2004 while serving as Greenpeace Campus Organizer, has struck a largely positive chord on the climate bill. However, several of the 50 member organizations are part of Climate SOS lobbying swing Senators to filibuster a federal climate law. These voices have real power and legitimate concerns.
Real Power
In 2008 Energy Action Coalition mobilized over 300,000 youth to sign a pledge to vote for candidates supporting a clean energy economy. Responding to student pressure, over 650 college and university presidents have committed to eliminating carbon pollution on their campuses. Students in Appalachia and around the country have fought side by side with fence-line communities against new coal plants, stopping several. The call for 80 percent carbon reductions by 2050 landed in Barack Obama’s climate platform and was inserted into the federal climate bill following a youth-led “Step It Up” campaign in 2007. If united, the climate movement has the power to pass a federal climate law and a strong global treaty in Copenhagen.
Legitimate Concerns
Those who follow climate science and support people on the front lines of this crisis are frustrated. By now we should have built a unified movement so powerful that in policy debates we wrangled over penalties for Big Oil as if they were Big Tobacco instead of capitulating about carbon offsets and tolerating coal subsidies. We know that the climate bill’s carbon reduction targets are not strong enough to prevent dangerous tipping points. Many polluters will buy carbon credits rather than reduce their own emissions. We will continue a long trend of wasting tax money on false energy solutions like “clean coal”, offshore drilling, and nuclear power. This is unfortunate—and we should make it clear that we do not support these things and will fight to change them. However, the consequences of inaction are much higher.
Bold actions are needed now more than ever. On July 8, Greenpeace activists put their lives on the line, hanging a giant banner on Mt. Rushmore that reminded President Obama of his obligation to lead: “America Honors Leaders, Not Politicians. Stop Global Warming.” The President and leaders in Congress will only stick their necks out far enough if we come together to make them act.
The truth is Kerry-Boxer, by itself, will not solve the enormity of our climate issues. No matter the outcome, we will have work left to do. Nevertheless, Kerry-Boxer is an important step forward and its overall impact will be overwhelmingly positive.
Because of a four-month fight from a coalition of civil rights and labor groups led by Green For All, the Clean Energy Jobs Act includes important equity provisions. These provisions would provide access to quality green jobs and job training for under-served communities through funding for the Green Jobs Act and a first-of-its-kind Green Construction Careers Demonstration Project. More than words, the climate bill represents legal action that will force change.
- The declining cap on carbon will send an undeniable signal to banks and venture capitalists that carbon is not the future.
- The playing field for renewables and energy efficiency will begin to level out with new standards and new markets.
- Working class people and people of color in every state will gain access to middle class careers in the green economy.
- Other countries will know that the United States is serious about carbon reduction and will race ever faster toward clean technologies and stronger policies.
- The climate movement will have serious political and legal backing when fighting new coal power plants and working for green collar jobs and zero carbon communities.
There is a principle that says to change people’s hearts you must first meet them where they are at, not where you would want them to be. As much as we would like to believe everybody in America is part of the climate movement, it is not the case. People want clean energy and they want change, but they are afraid of a weak economy and rising energy bills. An army of powerful, moneyed forces with short-term interests is playing on peoples’ fears to kill any action on climate change.
In this defining moment in our history, I am calling on fellow climate activists to fight for a federal climate law and a strong global treaty in Copenhagen. Let us be a generation of “Yes we can” instead of “We should not.” If noise gets attention, let our noise be solution-rich. Let’s win real change for real people and build upon each success as a foundation for something better.
On talking to our kids about the future
How personal actions can kick-start a sustainability revolution
Comments
View as Flat
jayohara Posted 6:53 am
16 Oct 2009
Second, we need to swear allegiance to the cause, not to the people who we want to make it happen. Draw a line from right to left. In the middle put "Kerry-Boxer". Somewhere way to the right put "Sen. Inhofe". Just to the left put Al Gore, and then further to the left put "350" or "Bill McKibben". The farther to the left position, on this spectrum of change vs. do nothing, is where reality is - the reality of what we need. If we decide that we are going to rush into the middle and support something which is not what we need then all of a sudden the "radical" position becomes Kerry-Boxer and then all the mid-west and coal state Democrats will bolt. But if we are arguing for something that is in line with reality and we end up with something passed like Kerry-Boxer is now, then the politicians can play it off as taking the moderate approach.
This is fundamentally the blindness created by the beltway. Nobody outside the beltway cares about legislation. Bills and amendments are not inspirational. Dr. King didn't spend his time on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial talking about the virtues of the Voting Rights Act. The bill will get worse instead of better. And most importantly our job is to CREATE NEW POLITICAL REALITIES. Signing on and organizing around a bill doesn't do that.
Permalink
BrianF Posted 11:24 am
20 Oct 2009
Permalink
David Holzman Posted 7:16 am
16 Oct 2009
Those who think allowing mass immigration is a matter of compassion should google "Compassion that Hurts" for Nicholas Kristof's analysis.
Permalink
BrianF Posted 11:26 am
20 Oct 2009
Permalink
Margie Alt Posted 8:11 am
16 Oct 2009
I agree that the Kerry Boxer bill is a good beginning, and that Yes, We Can stop global warming, but I also believe we should do it without coal and nuclear. Senators Kerry and Graham had an op-ed in the NY Times about supporting coal and nuclear energy in the bill a few days ago, and I posted a response yesterday on the Huffington Post. Take a look here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margie-alt/yes-we-can-stop-global-wa_b_322452.html
Margie Alt
Executive Director
Environment America
http://www.environmentamerica.org
Permalink
DerekB Posted 8:34 am
16 Oct 2009
I think your point that we need to be a positive, "Yes we can", movement is great. Saying no to a climate bill that will fundamentally change our emissions trajectory from growth to reduction, is not a positive movement building effort.
Radicals are free to be radical, but should still be strategic. Do you remember that spontaneous chant at PowerShift 2007 when Speaker Pelosi was speaking? "We want more." That's a radical chant to get behind. "Filibuster the bill" is a chant that the oil and coal companies would pay activists to make.
Derek
Permalink
Agent Simple Green Posted 6:30 pm
16 Oct 2009
Free permit giveaways and the entire nature of the carbon trading scheme would create a "carbon floor", undermining a carbon cap, which would allow the larger corporations to continue to profit and suck up all the unused allotments. Weak logic, weak rules, bad idea.
Check out http://www.uscap.org then tell us that corporations are unhappy about this policy. It doesn't hurt them a whit to be on both sides of the coin, in fact this is just the kind of strategics that corporations have historically used to maintain status quo. Why should it be any different with the climate issue?
Permalink
ids Posted 9:21 am
16 Oct 2009
Nihilists like you who give in to the dirty corporate dealing in Washington make radicals look tame. Everytime I see one of these posts on gristwash motivates me to call my Sinators to vote NO on your lies that K-B is a positive step forward.
Permalink
AEP Lobbyist Posted 9:28 am
16 Oct 2009
See, the way American politics works, successful bills must be viewed as reasonable compromises. If radical green groups endorsed it, Obama wouldn't have a left flank to point to and say: "Crazy treehuggers may not like this, but I think it's a sensible bill..." And the mainstream enviros are already in lock step. So, we have our green cover.
Plus, we've got this one under control. You really think some radical greens will determine the fate of a bill of this size and importance with their blog posts, "days of action" and banner hangs?
I'm mean, me and my buddies in the electric utility industry blew more than $200 million on lobbying in the last year or so.
I won't get into the cash those boys on Wall Street are spending to get cap and trade passed...they seem to want this legislation more than we do!
But keep it up kid. As long as you guys are busy arguing over whether to endorse or oppose the bill, you won't be giving us a hard time. If you had been paying attention to us, you would have heard that we're planning to INCREASE our carbon emissions by 18 million tons in coming years. But isn't a climate bill -- any climate bill -- more important at this point? ;-)
See you in Copenhagen!
love, American Electric Power
Permalink
jayohara Posted 11:28 am
16 Oct 2009
Permalink
joshualynch Posted 11:56 am
16 Oct 2009
http://www.greenforall.org/takeaction
AND
Join one of the 3000 climate actions in 150+ countries on October 24th:
http://www.350.org
Jay - you make some good points. We should swear allegiance to our cause, not to legislation or politicians. We also should never be shy about voicing our opposition to giveaways to false energy solutions and loopholes in the legislation. That said, the reason I wrote this article is because legislation does matter. Ultimately it doesn't matter how loud our movement is if we have little legal or financial recourse against the fossil fuel industry. We need a federal climate law.
David - While I hear your concerns, I have to say that there is a long history in the United States of people blaming poor people and people of color for their problems. This is a crisis that we have caused. Our children's future depends on us taking responsibility for our own actions first and coming together for a clean energy revolution.
Margie - I too believe we need to tell our senators that "clean coal", nuclear power, and offshore drilling are false solutions that will waste taxpayer dollars and harm communities. As you point out, "putting a price on carbon in its very essence gives a leg up to nuclear power." I am in no way arguing that we should fight for Kerry-Boxer at all costs. My central point is that we should fight hardest for what we believe in, a strong climate bill with equity and opportunity, not focus on what we fear. And we need a strategy to win, now. This is our moment. Thank you for your contribution to this goal.
Derek - I miss you brother. And I do remember that chant. That is exactly what I'm talking about. Thanks.
IDS - I'm not sure how saying we should take a passionate stand for what we believe in rather than focusing on our fears makes me a nihilist. Maybe I have the definition wrong. Kerry-Boxer is far from perfect. But so is our political and economic system. If we want a better life for our children, we have to meet people where they are at today.
AEP - I don't think you have to worry about our being distracted from giving you a hard time. If you're looking for examples of "radical greens" making a tangible impact on your industry, I suggest any number of the stories about local activists delaying and stopping coal plant development with non-violent direct action, lobbying, and litigation:
http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/category/dirty-energy/coal/
Permalink
ids Posted 12:27 pm
16 Oct 2009
K-B/W-M is a bailout for coal, one of the industries leading denialists and derailers of meaningful climate change legislation, and empowers the financial industry that just brought the world to financial collapse by ignoring systematic risk, for instance. This is what you propose to support "meeting where they are." I believe if passed your legislation will meet with utter failure. You position reminds me of Chamberlain in 1938 announcing with passion he just reached peace with Germany and how good that will be for the children. Get real.
Permalink
PowerVoter2008 Posted 11:57 am
16 Oct 2009
THE POWER VOTE PLATFORM:
1. GREEN JOBS NOW
Invest in millions of new green jobs, strengthen the American middle class and create new pathways out of poverty for millions more. By retooling our factories, revamping our schools, and rebuilding our communities, we can create a sustainable, just, and prosperous future for all.
2. INVEST IN A CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY
Unleash American ingenuity and launch a new wave of affordable clean energy technology. We need more federal and private investments in public transit, ultra-efficient vehicles, and renewable energy like wind and solar.
3. CUT GLOBAL WARMING POLLUTION NOW
To ensure our health, prosperity, and security, scientists tell us we must rapidly drive US global warming pollution towards zero. We can and must accomplish this transition to a clean energy future in an equitable and just manner.
4. END OUR DEPENDENCE ON DIRTY ENERGY
Enact an immediate moratorium on new coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear plant construction and infrastructure, while phasing out existing plants and fossil fuel extraction and ensuring a just transition for the workforce and communities
5. RE-ENGAGE AS A LEADER IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
Global warming requires a global solution. We must shift the focus of American foreign policy from military intervention to international cooperation and join the world in pursuing peace and international development, thereby offering assistance to vulnerable and impacted communities.
6. TAKE DIRTY MONEY OUT OF POLITICS
It's time to make government accountable to "We the People." Put voters first and refuse campaign contributions from dirty energy interests.
Permalink
Agent Simple Green Posted 12:06 pm
16 Oct 2009
This doesn't sound like movement building!
Not only can I not get behind that, but wishy-washy a climate bill calling for offsets while in the wings corporations wring their hands, salivating over the largest giveaway in history!
Those that are shouting "PASS ANYTHING! SOMETHING! ANYTHING!" don't seem to realize that the passage of an ineffective bill establishing a carbon trading regime is WORSE than labelling Congress's "efforts" as NOT GOOD ENOUGH and demanding real solutions. Plenty of reports reveal that the bill FAILS to meet scientific rationale backing a 350ppm plan.
The more our society stands idly by while false solutions are rubber stamped "green" the weaker Green becomes. The less people are willing to ask for more. The more the status quo continues. Carbon trading, and a bill that backs it is WORSE than no bill. But don't ask me, don't ask James Hansen, ask the broad grassroots people's coalitions that are forming to reject carbon trading.
Grist has a relatively one-sided position re: the Climate Bill so far, how about counterbalancing this with at least one piece critical of the Bill to honor the scores of comments that have been posted about why the bill isn't so great, and why not supporting the bill could be a good idea?
The idea that not supporting this bill puts a person into some officious category of purism is leaving out a lot of details. Frankly, it's not puritanical, "radical", or unreasonable to think that continuing greenwashing through awful policy is NOT the answer. Or continuing anything that doesn't match up with what science or social justice is calling for, for that matter.
Permalink
Matt Wall Posted 12:21 pm
16 Oct 2009
Permalink
kenshin Posted 5:31 pm
16 Oct 2009
some of the comments to this article in general are strange. if you're not an activist to work for good public policies to be put in place, why be an activist? aren't we just complaining for no reason? this legislation is a good starting point, it can be made better, and we will continue to ask for it to be made stronger, and we will come back to it again and again to keep it working properly.
we will also continue the foxhole to foxhole fights against individual pollution sources too, but this legislation will help make those fights easier. those are honorable achievements, and if some activists would rather concentrate their efforts on that, that's fine, but we really need everyone to come together for this final push.
otherwise, it looks like we don't have a strong public backing for our movement. we must show our real numbers, show them the votes.
Permalink
dave shukla Posted 3:41 pm
16 Oct 2009
For those of us on the ground, organizing to get this bill passed - please keep in mind that our efforts don't end with Copenhagen. As much as folks are getting burnt out in the sprint to December, we must pay attention to what comes next.
The moment we have been waiting for is not the passage of a national bill or a binding international treaty - it is the changed political landscape in a new decade, and indeed new century. It is our task to articulate a vision for this new era, and implement it to scale. That work begins in 2010.
Permalink
dchiotos Posted 3:42 pm
16 Oct 2009
The Energy Action Coalition ran out of funding last Spring, the Coalition did not "yank" funding from SEAC. There's a big difference between hitting a budget shortfall and "yanking" money from member organizations. SEAC is an active and currently funded part of the Coalition. We have staff on the ground in Michigan, Kentucky, and West Virginia and are really actively organizing for justice as part of the Energy Action Coalition. We're doing great work and we need to avoid the kind of misinformation that you point to in the opening lines of your post.
Also, for a point of information, Josh Lynch is just as closely associated with SEAC as he is with the Energy Action Coalition -- he came into the EAC through SEAC's Youth Power Shift Campaign in the mid 2000's.
Please get your facts straight.
Permalink
Agent Simple Green Posted 8:20 pm
16 Oct 2009
nameless)! It's only misinformation if you consider the opinion of someone
who was directly impacted and working closely with SEAC as such. This person
found themselves all-of-a-sudden work a LOT harder, uphill because of said
decisions made because of the prioritization of Powershift versus a host of
other elements, among which included the sustenance of SEAC's staff. (again,
echoing here)
Permalink
vbstenswick Posted 4:11 pm
16 Oct 2009
Permalink
Per Meilstrup Posted 4:16 pm
16 Oct 2009
as seen from Copenhagen, this is exactly the glimpse of hope that we need, the US Senate to come together and recognize that it is not only about climate change, but competitiveness, security and economic growth. We need the american innovation machine to be unleashed on this challenge, and if not - your chinese competitors have already seen the light!
Per Meilstrup
Copenhagen Climate Council
Permalink
Matt Wall Posted 4:29 pm
16 Oct 2009
interesting to note that the Copenhagen Climate Council counts among its members, Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy (#3 CO2 emitter in the US #12 in the world) who is building the Cliffside Coal Plant, 1 of 43 coal plants that will be exempt from regulation under this legislation.
I sense your group supports this bill for reasons other than fighting climate change. Perhaps because it gives literally billions of dollars to the world's worst polluters?
Permalink
megboyle Posted 8:08 pm
16 Oct 2009
1- The inherent assumption that any finalized federal law will lead to a strong deal in Copenhagen-- that demonstrating that the US Senate can pass a cap, any cap!, will be enough for the world to reach not only a new international agreement, but a meaningful one at that. This is a surprisingly common assumption in US strategy circles, and also a dangerous one. What would be “enough” from the perspective of international negotiations, at least as far as the US contribution is concerned? In the negotiations as for the climate, two things matter: targets and money.
Targets
This global challenge must be met with a global goal. Focusing on the short-term: To have even a reasonable chance of avoiding the worst impacts of climate change, developed countries will need to reduce their greenhouse emissions on the order of at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020— and the developing world will need to reduce emissions well below business as usual. To signal real leadership and do its part towards this overall developed country goal of 40%, the United States would need to commit to reduce its emissions on the order of at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 as part of a binding global agreement--- and that goal must be met mostly by reducing greenhouse gas emissions within our borders, rather than by purchasing pollution credits from overseas.
Money
A strong global agreement will require significant new and additional US funding for avoided tropical deforestation, clean energy technologies, and climate adaptation in the developing world each year. If applied correctly, this funding will contribute to global emissions reductions by helping the developing world to “leapfrog” beyond dirty energy technologies and by protecting tropical forests. It will also help to acknowledge the United States' historical responsibility for climate change, and break down the fundamental distrust between the global north and the global south that has plagued the climate talks thus far. Opinions and estimates as to an appropriate US contribution vary, but tens of billions of dollars each year is a good benchmark.
So let's let our strategies flow from these goals-- or more boldly, start working backwards from 350ppm, or even from a goal of ensuring the survival of all nations and all peoples. I will leave my comments on the merits of pursuing a goal-based strategy at that, as Jay has already commented eloquently above about the hazards of conflating goals and vehicles.
2- There is a (perhaps unintentional?) false choice presented here between advocating for passage of this specific climate legislation and actively working to kill it. In truth, climate advocates are pursuing a wide spectrum of approaches: some are working to strengthen the bill, some are focusing on defining the debate on their terms rather than on the legislation's. Ultimately, I find the story of our common mission to avert catastrophic climate change, pursue the survival of nations and peoples, and usher in a clean and just energy future for all more inspiring and instructive than the story of the differences in our current approaches.
On a final note, it has been my joy and privilege to know and to work alongside the author of this piece for several years in our quest for those common goals, and he continues to have my personal admiration and deep appreciation for the significant gains he has achieved for the climate movement. I hope and trust he will continue to challenge my assumptions as I have his.
Onward!
Permalink
joshualynch Posted 8:35 pm
18 Oct 2009
I agree that the U.S. passing "any bill" is not going to help in Copenhagen. That was not my assumption. As I've said in other comments, we need to unite in order to reject the weakening measures we oppose and win the strengthening provisions we agree on for the climate bill.
While I agree with you that passing a federal climate law won't necessarily lead to a stronger chance of a good global treaty, I am really not sure how the alternative would give us a better chance. Whether we pass a bill that's politically possible now or we fail to pass a bill, the world is going to see the U.S.'s commitment to carbon reduction as weak. At least with a law passed, we will have momentum on our side. That counts for a lot when you're talking about infrastructure investments (power plants, cars, etc) that require a ton of investment to get off the ground.
Also, as messed up as it is, though they support action on climate change, the majority of Americans don't think global warming is an urgent problem. Especially with the economy in recession and health care and Afghanistan in the headlines, we have to recognize the political situation we're in so that we can change it.
Targets and money are important. And December 2009 is really really critical. But as others have said, it is not the end game. Policy doesn't weatherize a home or shut down a coal plant. It just makes it easier to do so. As climate activists we need to demand what is scientifically necessary, namely the targets and money goals you mention. At the same time we need a strategy to win the strongest climate bill and global treaty possible. Targets and money are important, but momentum matters as well. Lives depend on us coming home from Copenhagen with a head of steam.
Permalink
megboyle Posted 9:29 pm
18 Oct 2009
Permalink
salish_sea_islander Posted 9:15 pm
16 Oct 2009
"Care for the earth, care for each other"
NOT
"Care for the earth, and make a bunch of money at the expense of others"
Tens of thousands of climate justice activists took to the streets these last few days. They call to me in an unified voice to reject all efforts to privatize air(carbon trading), rivers(CDM), and forests(REDD). I will not ignore their call. We need to throw away good earning and learn good living.
A bill that will not work (ie prevent run away global heating) will not work wither it passes or not. We can not quell our democratic citizenship to pass a bill that is absurd. The freakin fox is still in the hen house.
This week both The Washington Post and Greenpeace reported on the failure of the Noel Kempff Mercado Climate Action Project to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This decade old "carbon offset" forest project in Bolivia demonstrates that "carbon trading" and other market mechanisms (CDM, REDD, cap and trade, so forth) will not effectively slow the burning of fossil fuels. These financial instruments are scams, frauds, and human rights violations.
This is not really news. Indigenous people from the forests of the world have been denouncing carbon markets since they were first introduced.* These critiques were brought before national and United Nations policy makers over and over and over, and, were essentially censored. Last month, The Indigenous Environmental Network (IEN) released a report that details the crimes of REDD and other carbon trading mechanisms. And, frankly, failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is the least of the crimes.
Unfortunately, both the current UNFCCC COP15 meetings and the bills (ACESA, Boxer-Kerry) being considered in US congress lean heavily toward carbon trading and other false solutions.
Short-sighted financial tricks will only prolong and impoverish the road to sustainability. The longer the deceits block the way forward; the more strange, unrecognizable, and uncomfortable the inevitably sustainable future.
The Indigenous Environmental Network REDD Report
Washington Post Article
Greenpeace Report pdf
Permalink
Peter Wood Posted 5:17 am
18 Oct 2009
The fact is it will be politically impossible and economically difficult to achieve the required emissions reductions without some price on carbon. If we don't have a price on carbon then all we are left with is a bunch of ad hoc measures and steadily increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. Having a carbon price is not the solution to all of our problems, but it is a good start. The rhetoric of "false solutions" takes us nowhere.
I'm in agreement with Paul Krugman when he says that opposition to a carbon price because it is "market based" is not a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good, it’s a case of the perfect being an enemy of the planet.
Permalink
joshualynch Posted 11:04 pm
16 Oct 2009
These are no ordinary times. When you are on a sinking ship, at some point you have to make hard choices and begin to put people in lifeboats.
For two decades the U.S. Congress and the United Nations have been deliberating about climate change. In the meantime, as carbon pollution has gone unregulated, the result has been terrifying droughts, floods, wildfires, and hurricanes that have killed more people every year all over the world, mostly in the poorest regions.
We should debate vigorously over what actions to take in this moment. Kerry-Boxer and the treaty in Copenhagen, if agreed upon, will have massive implications. But one thing should not be up for debate - we need to win legal constraints on carbon federally and globally as soon as possible.
Dave Shukla reminds us of a critical point. Seizing this political moment for a strong first step is important. But, no matter what happens in this debate, we will have a lot more work to do afterward. The law and the treaty, if passed will not be strong enough to get us to 350 ppm. Even if it seemed they were, no law can weatherize a home, put up a solar panel, or protect a rainforest.
Regardless of whether we pass Kerry-Boxer and win a global treaty in Copenhagen, in 2010 we will have coal plants to resist, false solutions to expose, and a movement to grow. That is why I am grateful for the posting of the Power Vote platform. That incredible vision, which I signed onto, is exactly where we should be going. And yes, I believe we can take two big steps in that direction in 2009.
Permalink
Froggie Posted 7:07 am
20 Oct 2009
However, if we can reduce population growth yesterday we would go along way to making more change. Too many people-limited resources, starvation, diseases, all makes me wonder why we can't provide free birth control in America and countrys that bring babies into the world to starve???
Froggie
Permalink
blue canary Posted 8:18 am
20 Oct 2009
As far as movement-building goes, I don't think we're going to win any respect or power by saying "Strengthen this bill!!! Or, pass it anyway because we'll take whatever you give us!" The political left has taken the environmental community for granted, it's time to show them we're a force to be reckoned with.
Permalink
BrianF Posted 11:17 am
20 Oct 2009
If we have to make some concessions or weaken the bill in order to get enough votes, that should ONLY be done if these things can be easily reversed later. For example, if a cap and trade system is not going to reduce emissions quickly enough and if it will be difficult to change to something that will work (within a year or two), then it would be better not to pass the cap and trade system and to pass a carbon tax next year instead.
The bill as it stands now will only reduce emissions a tenth of what the 2007 IPCC report says is necessary by 2020. At least one model newer than those used in the IPCC reports indicates we actually have to reduce emissions 95% by 2020, many times more than the current bills will. This bill is pathetic compared to what we need to do, and if there is anything in it that would make it difficult to pass stronger (more realistic) bills in the next few years, that must be removed, or the bill should be defeated. Finally, if the final bill removes authority to regulate greenhouse gases from the EPA, as the House bill does, it MUST be defeated. The EPA may be our only hope of implementing stronger measures quickly enough, once the people in Washington wake up from their fantasy land and admit this problem is way more serious and way more urgent than they now think.
Permalink
zahara Posted 11:55 am
21 Oct 2009
Permalink