Fifty environmental and public-interest groups threw their weight behind a set of tough principles for climate legislation on Thursday. The principles are broad, but they set the stage for tension among the country’s major green groups on climate policy.
Endorsers of the National Call to Action on Global Warming [PDF] include a wide range of green groups, from biggies like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace to recent climate-centric upstarts 1Sky and the Alliance for Climate Protection, which was founded by Al Gore. Also on board are youth-oriented groups like the Hip Hop Caucus and Rock the Vote, health-focused organizations like Catholic Healthcare West, and economic-justice groups like ACORN.
The broad-based coalition hopes to generate a groundswell of public support for bold action. “We want the public in general, voters, concerned parents and grandparents to understand why it is we all must come together on this particular issue,” said Mary Wilson, president of the League of Women Voters, a coalition member. “We believe we need to be in the business of building public support ... Washington needs to hear from voters.”
Notably, the new coalition does not include the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, The Nature Conservancy, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, or the World Resources Institute. They all signed on to a less stringent climate proposal put out in January by the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which is also endorsed by big corporate names like ConocoPhillips, Duke Energy, Ford, and General Electric. The environmental groups that signed on to USCAP agreed not to endorse anything tougher.
The new coalition of 50 groups is putting its emphasis on science rather than politics. “These principles will assure that our actions on global warming and energy are effective, efficient, and equitable,” said Emily Figdor of Environment America, a member of the coalition. “Our message is that science must lead the way.”
Digging into the specifics
The groups call for a climate bill with “science-based pollution reduction targets” that will cut U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions at least 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. They also call for those targets to be updated periodically as climate science progresses. The goal is to keep global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit, said Union of Concerned Scientists climate scientist Brenda Ekwurzel; there’s widespread scientific agreement that warming beyond that would cause irreversible changes to the planet’s ecological systems.
The coalition calls for 100 percent of carbon emission allowances to be auctioned off to polluting companies rather than distributed free of charge. They want auction revenues to go toward building a clean-energy economy, assisting displaced workers, offsetting increased energy costs for citizens, protecting natural resources from climate-change impacts, and helping developing countries fight and adapt to climate change. The coalition also wants strong rules to govern any carbon offsets that are allowed in a bill, to protect the integrity of a pollution cap.
In contrast, the USCAP blueprint calls for emissions reductions of 14 to 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. Their plan would distribute about half of carbon allowances to industries at no cost, and allow a large portion of emissions reductions to come in the form of offsets.
One of the groups in the new coalition, the National Wildlife Federation, pulled out of the USCAP partnership in January rather than sign on to its blueprint, saying it planned to work separately to “enact a cap-and-invest bill that measures up to what scientists say is needed and makes bold investments in a clean energy economy.”
Robin Murphy, vice president for external relations at the World Resources Institute, which has endorsed USCAP, said he’s glad that colleagues in the environmental community will be pushing for their own climate goals and giving Congress other frameworks to draw from. “The Congress is the final arbiter on this ... whether you have a united voice or not,” he said.
Murphy added that the two-year process they went through with business partners to arrive at the USCAP agreement is a good example of what the political process will be like on Capitol Hill. “It’s like a real-life incubator of when you really get people around the table and they have to make difficult decisions about how to square all of this,” he said. “With USCAP, at least we were taking in the concerns of two of the larger [players]—the environmental science as well as the practicalities of the marketplace.”
One key point of difference between the plans—how to distribute carbon allowances—is sure to be a contentious topic over the coming months. Like the new coalition, President Obama has called for 100 percent auction of carbon credits. But some congressional leaders—most recently Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee—argue that a complete auction right away is not politically feasible.
Sierra Club global warming and energy program director David Hamilton acknowledged that 100 percent auction will be a tough lift. “The utilities are a challenge,” he said. “They want the money, they want it for free, and they’re going to jump up and down and scream and holler if they don’t get it.” But he emphasized that Obama’s backing is key.
Hamilton said the new principles are meant to be goal posts for sound policy rather than political calculations. “Those of us in Washington can talk about horse-trading and what the votes are and what you have to give up to get this thing through. And believe me, this is on all of our minds every day,” he said. “But at the same time, we have to succeed. And we have to develop a carbon control program that will do the job.”
Tony Kreindler of EDF, a USCAP endorser, struck a hopeful note, arguing that the major green groups are largely on the same page. “If you look at the overarching goal of this, it’s to get a mandatory cap, and cap-and-trade,” said Kreindler. “So the good news is we’re all united in that desire.”
As all the players acknowledge, it’s ultimately up to Congress to sort out what’s politically viable.
Here are the 50 groups that have signed on to the new set of principles:
1Sky
ACORN
Alliance for Climate Protection
Audubon
Catholic Healthcare West
Center for International Environmental Law
Ceres
Clean Water Action
Climate Law and Policy Project
Climate Protection Campaign
Climate Solutions
Defenders of Wildlife
Democracia USA
Earthjustice
Eco-Equity
Ecology Center
Energy Action Coalition
Environment America
Environment Northeast
Environmental Law and Policy Center
Green for All
Greenpeace
Health Professionals for Clean Air
Hip Hop Caucus
ICLEI USA
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Interfaith Power and Light
International Forum on Globalization
Kyoto USA
League of Conservation Voters
League of Women Voters
League of Young Voters
Massachusetts Climate Action Network
National Hispanic Environmental Council
National Teach-In on Global Warming Solutions
National Wildlife Federation
Oceana
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Progressive Future
Public Citizen
Religious Witness for the Earth
Rock the Vote
SEED Coalition
Sierra Club
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
Teleosis Institute
The Humane Society of the United States
The Student Public Interest Research Groups
The Wilderness Society
Union of Concerned Scientists
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
Copenhagen, U.S.: December 7
Comments
View as Flat
Ken Johnson Posted 1:44 pm
06 Mar 2009
Establish Science-Based Pollution Reduction Targets. Cut total, economy-wide global warming emissions by at least 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and by at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. ...
The scientific basis is stated in the introductory paragraphs:
To avoid the worst effects of global warming, there is broad scientific agreement that we must limit additional warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels. According to the IPCC, we have a reasonable chance of meeting this objective if developed countries as a whole cut their emissions by 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and by 80-95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050; within this time frame, major developing countries also must act.
More recent findings since the publication of the latest IPCC assessment suggest that even more urgent action may be needed. ...
According to this information, the first objective is not "science-based," in the sense of ensuring avoidance of "the worst effects of global warming," because it is based on the most minimal IPCC-based targets, which have been superseded by more recent findings.
The objective may suffice as a minimal target, but should be supplemented by an additional objective of achieving maximum emission reductions within limitations of feasibility and cost effectiveness. Cap-and-trade, as conventionally practiced, does the exact opposite: Its "market incentives" deter emission reductions beyond the cap limit even if costs are far below initial expectations. This defect could be remedied by imposing a meaningful price floor on allowance sales, which would incentivize further emission reductions if trading prices are low (as has been the case with the EU-ETS).
A pragmatic legislative policy is represented by California's global warming law, AB 32, which imposes a statewide emission limit in 2020 equivalent to the 1990 level, and which further directs the California Air Resources Board to "adopt rules and regulations ... to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions ...". However, CARB has not, to date, made any effort to effectuate the latter requirement. It's planned cap-and-trade program is conversely designed to achieve the minimum feasible and cost-effective reductions sufficient to achieve the cap. (With the exception of Earthjustice, I am not aware that any of the 50 signatory groups have supported action to secure CARB's compliance with the maximum-reduction requirement.)
I don't see any chance of our being able to avoid the worst effects of global warming unless and until we liberate ourselves from the nonsensical doctrine, which underlies every major climate policy initiative today, that caps are sufficient to achieve "environmental certainty" and that no effort or expense should therefore be expended to surpass mandated cap limits. We need policies and regulations that motivate a best effort to reduce emissions, based on defined feasibility and cost-effectiveness criteria -- not the minimal effort defined by an artificially constructed "green line in the sand".
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:58 pm
06 Mar 2009
It's all well and good to sit around pontificating about what needs to be done, in fact doing so is necessary in order to know what to do and/or not do. But we've known this for decades and human behavior has not changed one iota. For example, it was reported in this week's news that states are going to use the money they'll be getting for transportation in the stimulus package to build more road, widen roads, and repair roads. If these jerks really cared about global warming, the money would instead go to public transit and other projects that would get people out of cars.
People who demand solutions to global warming but are not willing to change their behavior in order to stop or greatly reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions are like spoiled children who want to have their cake and eat it, too. This is the type of crap we've been getting in Grist for years, led by people like Dave Roberts, and I'm sick to death of it. Why not report on some environmental problems that people are actually willing to do something about?
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:21 pm
06 Mar 2009
But then, Ken Johnson wrote:
<<
I don't see any chance of our being able to avoid the worst effects of global warming ...
>>
As I understand the problem, that is that. Even if we cut emissions by a certain amount by 2020, and again by 2050 -- which would be very well done, of course, though politically difficult -- , there are already enough GHGs out there to have started the big climate shift, no matter what we do at this point.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Ken Johnson Posted 11:13 pm
06 Mar 2009
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 11:48 pm
06 Mar 2009
and direct to important causes
whither capndividend?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:42 am
07 Mar 2009
Then there are the two wars we can't get out of and the media constantly transmitting hysterical rants about socialism.
And the big shoe yet to drop, exponential feedback mechanisms unaccounted for in climate modeling.
Is this how people felt here in the US in the 30s who knew we had to enter WW II, when most of the country was embracing isolationism? It had to seem hopeless, how could a destroyed economy mount a foreign war, joining the losing side.
Those who learn from history are doomed to watch others repeat it.
It might be a good thing to remember that industrial production ramped up to meet that challenge, even though it seemed impossible at the time. Somebody ought to remind the leaders of the environmental orgs on and off this list about that.
It might even be a good reminder for politicians and CEOs too.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 3:19 am
07 Mar 2009
I do not make these comments to pick on Dave. Unfortunately, his point of view and actions are typical of the majority of people who've made global warming their main cause. Most of these people are not even what I consider to be environmentalists, because they don't care about any other environmental issues, because they don't want to prioritize the environment but instead just childishly demand that someone else do something (such as invent some magical technology) to solve the problem, and because they refuse to attack the root of the problem, which is unnatural human emissions that cause air pollution.
Dave is by far at his best when he analyzes corporate and government propaganda and bad actions, and he provides excellent analysis there. But as an Earth First!er, his attitudes are exactly what we found wrong with the mainstream enviro groups. To some extent we are allies, but we Earth First! types often find ourselves at best taking much stronger positions and at worst being on the opposite side on certain issues.
Permalink
guade00 Posted 4:39 am
07 Mar 2009
I shudder to think of what lame impotency exists in the "less stringent" recommendations of the group that has been compromised by corporate multinationals.
We're toast.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:39 am
07 Mar 2009
Perhaps our dear David has gone soft, and ever so vaguely conservative-ish, being a father of small children. Whether that is fair, to examine him and his life too closely, he (presumably) would argue respectably, saying: Radicals accomplish nothing; consider the ancient Fable of the Sun and the Wind, each trying to wrest the cloak from the traveler; all that matters is what will work.
That said (so much in defense of dear David), I strongly agree with you (AGAINST dear David) that many environmentalists are acting like knaves, dropping all kinds of important values out of the lifeboat in order to save their monolithic, monotheistic idol, the anti-global-warming movement as the sole (Orthodox, true Muslim, so to speak) cause of environmentalists. Sure, the climate crisis is Issue Number One, and deservedly so. But simply to declare that "there is no god but [that]" is an inhumane form of idolatry.
Radically understood, environmentalism is the activist-oriented concern for the well-being of ALL sentient beings, and the ecosystems in which they dwell and flourish, first of all (so far as we know) on this planet. To limit the "appropriate" subject of environmentalists to the current climate crisis, admittedly grave, is, simply, dumb. I.e., thoughtless.
Another good friend of ours, Erik Hoffner, recently said something on another thread which suggested that the concern of some environmentalists to preserve a wetlands region, which might soon be submerged in the Ocean thanks to the global-warming-related rise in sea level, was way dumb and misdirected. If indeed I understood Erik correctly then, I sadly admit to feeling some anger towards him.
We environmentalists MUST understand our basic, timeless values. And we MUST lovingly encourage one another to work in defense of what each of us loves.
On a not altogether unrelated matter: My beloved brother Amazing, a terrific historian (we cannot do enough by way of examining the 1930s, and how -- well or ill?-- FDR handled both the economic problems at home and the fascist/militarist problems abroad; plus, I highly recommend the informative, if not well edited, movie "The Cradle Will Rock," about an interesting episode of protest back then), has commented that the perceptible drop in the number of FEMALE contributors to this blog definitely has brought down its quality and its fun-ness.
That may be true. And indeed, yes, we have had some excellent female correspondents in the past, enlightening us on all manner of subjects, who seem to have run off to spend their time more profitably. Our loss!
It is ironic, though, seeing that back in Catholic grade school, it was the girls who were fun-less, and super-obedient, so that when Sister Mary Bertrille ordered, "Underline the VJMJ at the top of your page with your ruler and your red pen," the girls would all do just that, without question, while the boys would be doing something sloppy and uneven because they had lost their rulers, or perhaps were drawing a football, or a rocket-ship, or were stabbing their innocent but hateful neighbors with their red pens ... .
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Sasparilla Posted 1:59 pm
07 Mar 2009
Like there is anything to be balanced about here - we either do what the science says we have to do or we're toast. There's no horse trading to be done. We've got bozo's like this guy thinking he's doing something good as he's ensuring we'll reach and push over those feedbacks. This is the best we can get/hope for in the good ol US?
guade00 said it, we're toast.
Our political system(s) are just so not built to handle this.
Permalink