When writer and climate activist Bill McKibben took to the pages of The Washington Post late last month to demand that legislators and activists back the most ambitious climate-change bill in the U.S. Senate, it was more than a call to action -- it was a public salvo in a contentious behind-the-scenes battle.
While senators are shaping and debating the merits of various global-warming bills, the really impassioned wrangling over climate legislation is going on not in the halls of Congress but within the environmental community itself. McKibben (who serves on Grist's board of directors) and activist-oriented groups like Friends of the Earth are calling for no "half-measures" or compromises, while more establishmentarian groups like Environmental Defense are embracing moderate legislation on the grounds that it might actually pass. Other green groups are staking out their ground in between, praising bipartisan progress while stressing that moderate legislation needs to be strengthened.
At the weak end of the spectrum of Senate climate bills is one offered by Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). It centers around a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse-gas emissions, but initially it would hand out about 80 percent of emissions credits to industry instead of making companies pay for them, and it includes a "safety valve" mechanism that would dump cheap credits onto the market if trading pushed the price above a preset ceiling. It has virtually no support among Democratic leaders or environmental advocates, but a number of power companies and unions back it.
The strongest bill -- the one basically every enviro would choose to implement if given the keys to the American political system for one day -- was introduced months ago by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). It would cut greenhouse-gas emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, aggressive reductions on par with what the mainstream scientific community says are needed. Boxer chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over this issue.
But much of the focus right now is on the America's Climate Security Act formally unveiled on Oct. 18 by Sens. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.). It's projected to lower emissions as much as 19 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and as much as 63 percent by mid-century via a cap-and-trade system, and it doesn't include a safety valve. It calls for about 20 percent of emissions credits to be auctioned initially, with the rest allocated freely to emitters and the states at a rate that declines over time.
Playing Defense
Environmental Defense is enthusiastically praising the Lieberman-Warner legislation -- but not yet formally endorsing it, as the group took pains to point out after being criticized by other activists. Said ED's Tony Kreindler, it "looks to be a very strong bill." Perhaps more tellingly, Kreindler said, "I think the political process is now behind Lieberman-Warner. ... Boxer said she would bring it to the floor."
He's right. Boxer seems willing to set aside her own bill and work on moving Lieberman-Warner forward. When the legislation was introduced last week, Boxer gushed, "with the introduction of the Lieberman-Warner bill, today will be remembered as a turning point in the fight against global warming. ... [I]t represents a bipartisan breakthrough on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. ... [I]f enacted it would be the strongest global-warming program in the world in terms of its reach."
The Natural Resources Defense Council considers the Sanders-Boxer bill the "gold standard," but David Doniger, who directs policy at NRDC's climate center, says they've been "engaged in discussions with the Lieberman-Warner people." A press release from the organization, timed to coincide with the bill's release, notes with some tepidity, "Although this bill is a strong start, NRDC supports changes that would improve the bill by ensuring that emission reductions keep pace with the science, and by reducing free allocations and directing additional resources to provide more support for critical program features, including consumer and low-income protections, safeguards for affected workers, and faster deployment of energy efficiency and renewable-energy solutions."
Loosely translated, that means they would like to see the bill strengthened as it makes its way through the congressional process, rather than see it heaved overboard and supplanted by a more ambitious but less politically feasible piece of legislation.
The Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, and Earthjustice, among other groups, are taking similar stances -- praising Lieberman-Warner as a marker of progress, but emphasizing needed changes. Their efforts have already helped to make the bill stronger than it was in early drafts.
Keeping the Pressure On
This strategy stands in sharp contrast to that of ambitious groups like Friends of the Earth and 1Sky, a new campaign formed specifically to push for aggressive climate action. They believe that anything short of the best bill in the Senate now could spell disaster -- and that it's worth waiting to act until after George W. Bush leaves the White House if it means a more radical path forward.
Behind these differences, notes 1Sky campaign chair Betsy Taylor, are "different theories of change." She continued, "I think groups like Environmental Defense and NRDC are conditioned by years of playing defense. But in the midst of all this, a lot's been going on because the science has been shifting incredibly rapidly. I think it's been difficult for the big green groups to respond in a timely way to that science. ... We need action commensurate to the problem."
McKibben believes much the same. In his op-ed, he wrote, "the legislative process is backing away from what science demands -- a strong bill put forward by Sens. Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders is in danger of being supplanted by half-measures proposed by Sen. Joe Lieberman."
As McKibben told Grist, "I don't see that as a deep conflict, really. It's a matter of cultures. If you spend all your time in Washington, the rules of the game in Washington come to seem like the fundamental reality of the world. ... There are people in D.C. who are such good dealmakers that the deal is as important to them as the climate itself."
Let's Make a Deal
The deal is indeed becoming the focus, according to staffers for the Committee on the Environment and Public Works, who, in the days leading up to the release of the Lieberman-Warner bill, said the priority seemed to be getting something done quickly: "Many of the [environmental] groups are enthusiastic about moving legislation now," noted one aide. "A few groups have more questions about that."
"Getting started is very important to the legislative process," the aide added, "and parts of Sen. Boxer's bill will be very important to that process."
Boxer is particularly stressing the importance of a "look-backs" provision in any climate legislation -- a sort of pre-scheduled legislative audit that gives Congress the chance to examine the impact of the bill, and, if need be, strengthen it in the future. As Boxer describes it, it's a provision "for continuing to review the science and the results of our policies at regular intervals."
Enviros who are pinning their hopes on Lieberman-Warner are likely to be keen on the look-backs idea. They'll continue working with the senators to push more aggressive provisions into the bill now, but they'll surely hope to be able to revisit the whole package down the line, should it eventually make it into law. (And that is still a long shot, as Bush continues to oppose mandatory emissions cuts.)
Hard-line climate activists like McKibben et al. don't want to count on a look-backs strategy. They want to get the bill right the first time, arguing that the urgency of climate change demands the strongest possible response, and that once Congress makes a grand bargain on climate change, lawmakers may not get around to revisiting the issue any time soon.
Should environmentalists jump on board the increasingly popular Lieberman-Warner bandwagon, hoping that a bipartisan, consensus-based approach will lay the groundwork for a long-term fight against climate change? Or should they hold out for the toughest possible bill?
Either way it's a gamble -- and the stakes couldn't be higher.
Counting Senate votes on climate and energy
The Climate Post: Has the political climate changed?
Climate-news poem: Breath-catching edition
Comments View as Flat
lorna salzman Posted 4:27 am
25 Oct 2007
Lieberman/Warner energy bill
Friends of the Earth (my former employer when Dave Brower was alive) deserves high praise for not meekly accepting what this bill offers. We need to get it right the first time or we will be tricked by NRDC and ED who want to come out as the heroes on this, when they are the villains in the environmental community. In fact NONE of the bills in congress, including Boxer and Waxman and Sanders, come close to being commensurate with the risk, as I have repeatedly told the activist community. The 80% CO2 cut by 2050 is dangerously misleading and inadequate, when most credible scientists agree that we likely have ten to twenty years maximum to avoid the tipping point (2 degree C. rise in average global temperature, or 450 ppm of CO2). Most of the Washington groups know this, including NRDC and ED, but dont have the cojones to walk into congress and demand a bill that acknowledges the hard science and acts accordingly. But at least Friends of the Earth has moved ahead of the pack and deserves our praise and support for its courage and integrity. Dave Brower would be proud of his organization were he alive.
Permalink
davedenali Posted 5:57 am
25 Oct 2007
ED exposed
Environmental Defense is once again revealing itself as less an environmental advocacy organization than a toady for corporate interests.
Permalink
ids Posted 11:21 am
25 Oct 2007
winning grants
McKibben is right calling for no "half-measures," conservatives like that. Problem is, even the best of the above proposals is a half-measure.
Interesting the greens leach on to Lieberman-Warner, which isn't even bi-partisan, missing a Democrat, and supports two of the biggests boosters for Pentagon spending. God grant us winners.
Permalink
WWAGD?! Posted 11:33 am
25 Oct 2007
GM Beat McKibben
First of all, I'm reading McKibben's book "Maybe One" about one child per couple. What ever happened to that idea? I think that immediately getting all nations and continents to subscribe to the idea would be the best way to cut pollution no matter the technology.
Secondly, GM this week is market testing the Hydrogen Powered SUV, the Equinox (not that Grist readers would know).
Couple wind power to hydrogen generation and run our cars and businesses on H2.
Problem solved.
No more CO2.
So, instead of wafting around Washington start saving your pennies to convert your vehicle to a fuel celled one.
What's that? Hard work? Have to make money?
Yeah...it's like that.
Permalink
BruceMcF Posted 3:08 am
26 Oct 2007
Since Bush will veto the bill, and it won't get ..
... a veto-proof majority, what is the point of dealing away the principle of tracking the IPCC recommendations?
Get as many Republicans as possible on the record as being against progress on climate change, by bringing the strongest possible bill that can make it to the floor.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:04 am
26 Oct 2007
Support Only Effective Legislation
BruceMcF has it right. This is a no brainer: Bush will not sign any bill with mandatory cuts in emissions, so environmentalists and their groups should only support a bill that reduces emissions by the amount needed in the time needed according to the worst case scenario projected by peer reviewed science. The precautionary principle should rule here, not economics, or people's convenience or selfish desires.
Aside from the time and effort it takes to rewrite ineffective legislation in order to strengthen it to make it effective, the problem with supporting ineffective legislation is that it makes people think that the problem is solved, so they go back to their environmentally harmful behaviors. THAT is the main reason to oppose ineffective legislation like that mentioned here.
Permalink
snedunuri Posted 8:53 am
27 Oct 2007
I'd have to disagree
While I'm personally for the strongest possible bill, I have to set aside my own personal preferences here. That is because much of the public is still woefully ignorant of the problem. Conditioned by years of Exxon-Mobil lies (when the time comes I hope that the states go after E-M they way they went after the tobacco cos.) they're still not sure there's even a problem. So a strong bill on which there isn't bipartisan support is simply not going to make it past both Houses. Given that Bush will veto it the first time round, its vital that it gets passed a second time round, so he'll have no choice but to sign it. That's where all-round support is more important than crafting a perfect bill. Believe me as the evidence comes pouring in over the next decade, the public is going to start clamouring to strengthen it. Meanwhile its important we get started on tackling the problem without delay.
Permalink
thewolfstar Posted 7:17 pm
28 Oct 2007
government control
I'm a radical environmentalist who says, you gotsta be kidding if you think any of these measures will do any good for the earth. It doesn't work. The Kyoto Protocol didn't work and none of it works, or even when it does, the next bunch of thieves rushes in and hacks it all to pieces. Government intervention is being shown not to work right now. Isn't it kind of outstandingly clear?
What would work is boycott. Freedom of the press first and foremost, (which we don't have if you hadn't noticed), and then grassroots activism and boycott, and doing the right thing on a personal level. It would take a lot of hard work and plenty of self-sacrifice, but wouldn't it be worth it?
Permalink
RisingTideNA Posted 5:31 am
31 Oct 2007
Protesters Disrupt Carbon Trading Expo
Thought this might be interesting to folks!
video online here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQaciEMMmKg
Protesters disrupt New York City Carbon Trading Expo
Action takes place as Carbon Trading legislation prepares to clear Senate committee
New York City - Protesters with Rising Tide North America's "Greenwash Guerrillas" paid a surprise Halloween visit to the Carbon Market Insights conference in New York City today. Posing as delegates, two protesters took the stage at the exclusive event and presented the 700 attendees with a "Deed to the Atmosphere," denouncing Carbon Trading as a sham approach to the fossil fuels crisis. The action was the first in the US to target the growing Carbon Trading industry.
"Carbon trading puts the most crucial decisions about the future of life on this planet in the hands of fossil fuel industry," said protester Jessica Starr "the very industry that got us into this mess in the first place."
Though heavily criticized by environmental and human rights organizations world-wide, Carbon Trading is the primary mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, as well as in Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner's (R-Va.) "America's Climate Security Act of 2007." The Carbon Market Insights conference brings together the leaders of the US financial, non-profit, and "eco securities" industries backing a domestic US Carbon Trading market.
Lieberman and Warner's bill, S. 2191, is expected to clear the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee in November. If enacted, it would create a system of tradable permits in greenhouse gas emissions, which would be gifted to status quo polluters through 2036.
As these permits may be bought and sold for enormous profits on the marketplace, the environmental group Friends of the Earth has stated that the "Lieberman climate bill may contain the biggest corporate giveaways in American history", valued at 1.5 trillion dollars. The European Emissions Trading System established under the Kyoto protocol has generated hundreds of billions of dollars of additional profits for the fossil fuel industry, yet most countries are failing to meet their greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
"Gifting free, tradable property rights to the worst polluters does little to ensure reduction of greenhouse gas emissions," said David Lee, another of the Greenwash Guerillas "Carbon Trading and the Lieberman bill are a subsidy for big polluters disguised as a climate protection measure."
The Liebermen Bill allows the largest greenhouse gas emitters to "offset" or nullify their emissions by financing carbon reductions projects that take place in other locations, stalling implementations of technologies that will reduce greenhouse gases here. These projects, frequently initiated in developing countries, shift investment away from emission-reducing technologies domestically, and have also been criticized for not always delivering promised reductions. These projects have led to the displacement of low-carbon use communities in favor of large scale "clean development" projects including hydroelectric dams and genetically modified tree plantations. In Uganda, villagers have been arrested and even killed after being ousted from their land for tree plantations which they dared to cut down.
"Carbon offsets do little more than the selling of indulgences by Catholic churches in the 16th century," said David Lee "it's time to get serious about stopping climate change and shut these false solutions down."
www.risingtidenorthamerica.org
Permalink
BethLBeth Posted 5:00 am
01 Nov 2007
carbon trading is bogus
The problem here is that our economy is so consumed with money and greed that it is hard to pass a bill that will financially impede on Americans' lifestyles. It is a hard subject for everyone, and unfortunately our politicians are corrupted further by third-parties and evil lobbyists; what we need is the Fed to cut out the carbon trading donkey dung and ration all public consumption and emission. While this is a somewhat fascist approach, it is necessary. Furthermore, we need the Fed to give the States some power to be able to govern themselves effectively under these rations. We need a tier system to help our economy from going under; maybe state legislations to help their local economies, such as providing more support to smaller businesses that specialize in alternative technology innovation, or alternative energy generation (just an example, there are many other smaller businesses like these).
I live in Atlanta, a poorly designed city for mass transportation - a driving town, if you will, and I think with the internet at our fingertips, we should telecommute at least 2-3 days each week if you work in an industry that will allow you to do so; students can do this as well if they don't live on campus. These are some examples of ways local governments can contribute to this mess, without imposing chaos on the public.
Permalink
Margaret Posted 11:53 pm
01 Nov 2007
Enviros fight over CO2 bill
The dissension between environmental groups can truly cripple the process of getting something done quickly. The matter is urgent. Essential priorities must be identifed and consensus agreement reached as soon as possible. Corporate and business groups routinely set aside differences in the pursuit of one goal which unifies them: profit. Conservation groups must find a similar unifying incentive. Remarkably, people forget that without a viable planet, few complex organisms will have a 'right' to life.
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 1:48 pm
03 Nov 2007
Environment
CO2ls a major problem with the atmosphere, although there are some others. But, the internal combustion engine is the main culprit in the proliferation of CO2, and its replacement by an all-electric motor for individual use is the only right and proper way to maintain our current way of life while restoring the balance between animals and plants, allowing animals to breathe in Oxygen, and out Carbon Dioxide and the opposite for plant life.
Small nuclear plants spread out widely across the countryside would generate enough heat to boil water, the pressure of the steam so produced would drive turbines which would make electric generation a steady and reliable source of power.Electric cars would 'fill-up' on electricity at the presently established 'service stations' after their conversion from gasoline supply depots to electricity supply depots. Nanobatteries would allow re-charge from the stations at about the same speed as a car gastank can be filled now. Think 'Buy a volt instead of a gallon.'
Secondary advantages would include fireless auto accidents, fewer deaths and disabilities, reduced auto insurance, easier operation, less wear and tear on infrastructure, and on and on. Above all, there would be no reliance on fossil fuels, all of which produce pollution and atmospheric imbalance.
Unfortunately, hydrogen remains difficult to make, to store, to compress into liquid form, and would make any accident at all into a major catastrophe. Its use would also allow the continuation of the production of the internal combustion engine which has remained relatively inefficient from its invention well over a hundred years ago.
Permalink
Taylor Posted 4:47 pm
02 Jun 2008
Action on S.2191
Wow, I thought I supported this bill, but now having second thoughts.
If you are interested in taking action on S 2191, you can vote on Govit, and have your vote sent to your reps.
www.govit.com/s_2191
Permalink