”The
world is not going to turn its back on coal.”
U.S. Department of Energy
Secretary Steven Chu
The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy
Security Act (ACES) won’t cut emissions.
It won’t serve as a platform we can improve later anymore than the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) served as a foot
in the door to improve our democracy when it promoted voter purges and Diebold
electronic voting machines. But one last argument is left to supporters: we need
to support ACES in order to improve America’s negotiating
position in Copenhagen.
This bill would
improve the U.S. negotiating position, since our international friends and allies tend to grade us on a special
needs curve. The problem is that our government would use this increased leverage
to weaken rather than strengthen any climate deal. The current U.S.
position is to support more coal,
and oppose
strong emissions reductions in the next ten years. The U.S. helped weaken the last climate change treaty by pushing to include
carbon trading and offsets in Kyoto. Does it really make sense for environmentalists to support a bill that won’t reduce
emissions, that does not provide an infrastructure for future emissions
reduction in order to let our government do the same thing a second time?
References
Gar Lipow; “Waxman-Markey bill would do more for climate without
cap-and-trade provision - Should be called Jekyll-Hyde”;; Grist
Magazine; 21-May-2009; <http://tinyurl.com/AcesNoC-T>
Gar Lipow;
“Offsets are still counterfeit carbon credits - Clapping louder”; Grist
Magazine; 1-Jun-2009; <http://tinyurl.com/OffFalse>
Gar Lipow;
“Pissing the earth away”; Grist Magazine; 9-Jun-2009; <http://tinyurl.com/GristPiss>
Gar
Lipow; “American Climate Energy Security bill still makes things worse. ACES is
not playing with a full deck.”; Grist Magazine; 3-Jul-2009; <http://tinyurl.com/AcesNoDeck>
George Monbiot;
“Why do we allow the US to act like a failed state on climate change? The
Waxman-Markey climate bill is the best we will get from America until the
corruption of public life is addressed.”; The Guardian - Environment -
George Monbiot’s Blog; 26-Jun-2009; <http://tinyurl.com/GradeCurve>
West Coast
Climate Equity;“Steven Chu Backpedals on Coal-fired Power”; West Coast
Climate Equity Global Climate Change Information; 14-Jan-2009; <http://tinyurl.com/ChuCoal>
Siobhan Hughes;
“Energy Secretary Backs Clean-Coal Investment”; Wall Street
Journal; 7-Apr-2009; <http://tinyurl.com/wsjChuCoal>
Jeff
Biggers;“Coalfield residents respond to Obama’s announcement on mountaintop
removal - Kinder, Gentler Blasting, Leveling of Mountains, Filling of Streams”;
Grist Magazine; 11-Jun-2009; <http://tinyurl.com/kindMTR>
Mark
Stevenson;“US nixes 40 percent cuts at climate change talks”; The
Associated Press; 23-Jun-2009; <http://tinyurl.com/NoGHGcuts>
Comments
View as Flat
LaurieWilliams Posted 1:51 pm
26 Sep 2009
(The Huge Mistake - Climate Change Solutions 2009). Based on more than 20 years each as public-sector environmental enforcement attorneys, my husband and I explain the flaws of the climate legislation currently being considered by Congress and why it would lock in climate degradation. We also explain the alternative. There is a real, effective and affordable solution to climate change, just no powerful monied interests to push for it. Find out how you can make a difference.
Thank you for your consideration.
Permalink