I've run into a lot of sentiment along the lines of this comment thread -- harumphing about how weak and insufficient the impending energy bill is -- and it seems crazy and wrongheaded to me.
I urge you to check out this post by Josh Dorner on the post-2000 history of energy bill negotiations. Remember what it's been like.
Since I started at Grist, I've been writing about a Republican president and Congress trying over and over again to pass energy legislation focused on drilling, mining, and doling out subsidies. Their greed and overreach were such that they bungled it again and again, until the 2005 Energy Act, which was a slightly scaled down version of the same old thing.
That act was part and parcel of what energy policy has been in this country more or less since Ronald Reagan walked in the White House: a monomaniacal focus on extraction and supply coupled with generous corporate welfare.
In just over a year, Democrats, with a small majority in the House and a knife-edge margin in the Senate, have pulled together an energy bill that contains:
- The first CAFE boost since 1975. Even if you don't think CAFE is crucial energy policy (I don't), it ain't nothing, and it is of extraordinary symbolic significance. It's going to be the headline.
- A 15% Renewable Energy Standard -- a clear statement of support for a new energy direction, echoing and amplifying state-level efforts.
- Billions in subsidies for clean energy.
- Boosted energy efficiency and green building standards.
- Yes, yes, a massive, horrendous boost in biofuels, but even on that front there are environmental safeguards attached that were absent in early negotiations.
The distance between this bill and where were were a year ago is remarkable. And it is a credit to the leadership.
If you're determined to think that all politicians are craven simps, go ahead, but it's hard for me to see what would count of evidence of boldness and commitment on Nancy Pelosi's part if this doesn't.
Don't think she's been tiptoeing around. Sen. Pete Domenici, the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy Committee, is so pissed off at her he's pulling out of the energy bill process. He'd gotten the impression that the RES (aka RPS) was off the table, but Pelosi's pushed it back on. Says the irritated and possibly soon to be steamrolled Domenici:
RPS may not be the only deviation from the negotiated bill text, as the Speaker appears willing to take advantage of the lack of a formal conference committee process and institute other changes in the bill as she sees fit.
You'll recall that when they were in control, Republican leadership regularly pulled procedural shenanigans that made this look like patty cakes. But still, Pelosi isn't playing by Queensbury Rules. She's throwing elbows.
It wasn't just leading Republicans Pelosi had to outmaneuver. As this NYT story makes clear, she's also gone head to head with Rep. John Dingell, one of the most powerful committee chairs in recent history, and pulled him in line:
Mr. Dingell said that all sides had compromised to get a good deal on the energy bill, and he took credit for safeguarding the interests of the auto industry. In a telephone interview, he praised Ms. Pelosi and said his disagreements with her had been useful.
...
Outside observers, however, said Mr. Dingell had capitulated after realizing he could not win, especially given high oil prices. "The speaker basically took him on and won," said Dan Becker, an environmental consultant.
Pelosi's been fighting hard and smart, and she's done so out of what everyone who knows her describes as a genuine passion for renewable energy.
Please explain to me why the first reaction to this should be grumbling about how it's not enough. What kind of political message does that send? What incentive does that give anyone to follow Pelosi out onto this limb?
You know what nobody likes? Nobody likes people who do nothing but judge and condemn and enforce in-group purity and piss on everyone's shoes, including their friends' shoes. Nobody wants to make any effort to please those people. Nobody even wants to get stuck in an elevator with them.
Of course this bill is not enough. Nothing will ever be enough, I guarantee you. But it's a victory, and you know what people do like? People like winning. They like being on the winning team. They like winners. They want to hang around the winners, and act like them, and date them, and name drop them.
So please, take a moment for some strutting. Take strength from this victory, and give strength. Hand out some props for a job well done. Make politicians feel like there's social and political capital to be gained by going green -- if you do that, they'll be back for more.
The arc of history is bending in our direction. Celebrate it. Tell everyone you know about it. Tell them about this:
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [UPDATED]
Al Franken (D-Minn.)
Comments
View as Threaded
ce1907 Posted 2:26 am
02 Dec 2007
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 3:35 am
02 Dec 2007
We as a group are idealistic, and sometimes this gets in the way of action. While there is something positive to be said for people who are completely committed to a cause, having an ideologically pure movement is no replacement for effective action. The right-wing spin machine portrays enviros as holier-than-thou to an extent that is out of touch with reality, but there is a grain of truth to this spin. Lets not fall into our opponents trap.
In the US the environmentalist community has had stunning success. In the span of 25 years we went from having virtually no environmental protection to the most extensive and effective environmental regulations in the world. Our success has made us spoiled and complacent. These victories were hard won and at the time our opponents were not really fighting back. Now they are, and this means it will be harder to get legislation passed and there will be no perfect bills.
We often forget that not everyone is an environmentalist. Just because all the enviros want to do something does not mean everyone else wants to do it too. Getting climate change bills passed will require broad based coalitions with people who are outside the environmentalist community. They might not want everything the enviros want, so sometimes compromises must be made for the sake of progress.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:52 am
02 Dec 2007
On a minor note, I thought the subsidies for clean energy (solar and wind) had been cut (I hope not, but that's what I thought I heard)?
Oh well, even if they were, the 15% standard should ensure enough investment so that the industry continues to grow at a fairly rapid pace.
Permalink
kmp Posted 7:21 am
02 Dec 2007
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 10:00 am
02 Dec 2007
I say that because, as you will have heard climate scientists mention from time to time, the "unknowns" in the science are distinctly tilted toward the bad news. Today we have a prime example of that:
"Widening of the tropical belt in a changing climate"
Abstract: "Some of the earliest unequivocal signs of climate change have been the warming of the air and ocean, thawing of land and melting of ice in the Arctic. But recent studies are showing that the tropics are also changing. Several lines of evidence show that over the past few decades the tropical belt has expanded. This expansion has potentially important implications for subtropical societies and may lead to profound changes in the global climate system. Most importantly, poleward movement of large-scale atmospheric circulation systems, such as jet streams and storm tracks, could result in shifts in precipitation patterns affecting natural ecosystems, agriculture, and water resources. The implications of the expansion for stratospheric circulation and the distribution of ozone in the atmosphere are as yet poorly understood. The observed recent rate of expansion is greater than climate model projections of expansion over the twenty-first century, which suggests that there is still much to be learned about this aspect of global climate change."
Recall that it has taken very little in the way of accumulated anthropogenic forcing to have this result. If we double pre-industrial CO2 levels by 2050, as seems likely, or even if we manage to stick to Jim Hansen's new limit of 450 ppm, that's a much larger extra push to the system. Look for larger and nastier surprises.
The Australians at least seem to have figured out what this latest change means. OTOH I don't see them proposing sharp cutbacks in coal production.
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 12:54 pm
02 Dec 2007
not everyone agrees
now what?
Also, do not be too sure about furure supermajorities. more rare and fleeting than you might think
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:16 pm
02 Dec 2007
The problem right now are all the Greens and enviros who are standing in the way of progress.
Suppose Al Gore had simply faded away instead of causing all his hullabaloo. The results would still be the same: technology working to decrease Co2, increase efficiency and get us to next generation transportation and fuels. But that has been in the works for decades, and is coming, barely, to fruition right now.
The "Green Revolution" is being made by businessmen and engineers, not by bloggers and diatribes.
My Log
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 7:21 pm
02 Dec 2007
It's just a tick better than doing nothing at all.
The science, the observable data and consistent hypothesis and theories, says the atmosphere is heating at an accelerating rate. A rate so fast right now that the current "worst case scenario" models are understating the effects of global warming as shown by last summers unprecedented retreat of arctic sea ice by 40 years.
More ominously the permafrost of the Siberian and Canadian arctic is melting releasing methane that has been trapped in ice for a very, very, long time. This will undoubtedly accelerate the rate of change still more as there is more biologically available carbon in the permafrost than all the coal and oil burned to date.
So the proposed laws aren't even going to slow the growth in the rate of climate change.
Any pretense that these bills are anything but a political stopgap until tougher, more extensive measures can be enacted should be abandoned. Really we should be on a worldwide crash course to completely halt the release of fossil fuel carbon as well as another crash program to secure the excess carbon already in the atmosphere.
Because this is no cause for celebration. It's a farce. A powder puff artillery. A duct tape brigade on the Titanic. A water pistol in San Diego. A colander in New Orleans. A crushed glass kindergarten.
Just a little reminder. Look at the Arctic Ice anomaly graph here. Notice all the way to the right how radically different the current graph is even compared to 2000.
Another reminder. Meltwater "ponds" on the surface of Greenlands glaciers. This was unthinkable 50 years ago.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
justlou Posted 8:14 pm
02 Dec 2007
When the price of gas gets to $5.00 per gallon the people will finally get a CAFE standard that has some real significance. It is sad that Pelosi has characterized CAFE as the cornerstone of this bill.
I did write a letter to my senators yesterday requesting that they remove the loopholes in CAFE, especially the egregious Flex Fuel Vehicle loophole. Not likely that Durbin and Obama, both big corn ethanol proponents, will pay any heed. When you have to cheat to promote your fuel ... you are doing it the Washington way.
Yellow streams in celebration,
Lou
Permalink
esrothschild Posted 10:29 pm
02 Dec 2007
Permalink
randino Posted 12:33 am
03 Dec 2007
While harumping away on Grist, I been out there humping for precisely what I am denouncing. Functional schizophrenia.
Its a beautiful thing.
Randy Cunningham.
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 12:56 am
03 Dec 2007
But it must be done by increments. Otherwise, it will not happen.
Be careful of angry or pretentious rhetoric because it gets in the way -- even when you are right. If the public gets the idea that you scorn them, then they will label you and scorn you.
A year ago, few believed political action was necessary or likely. Now, a consensus is being built that something must be done.
The science news will be relentlessly bad. The consensus can be built upon for more action.
But watch out for the economic counter-arguments. Especially if a recession hits. People who feel at economic risk get humiliated and angry, and susceptible to demogoguery. Don't let them blame the Greens.
It will be a political tightrope to build toward effective action for years to come.
Keep pushing hard, but be nice.
Permalink
Blueplanet Posted 12:57 am
03 Dec 2007
http://www.blueplanetsociety.org
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 1:59 am
03 Dec 2007
any legislation pending?
Permalink
Blueplanet Posted 2:37 am
03 Dec 2007
As with most campaigns the momentum needs to come from people, people choosing not to eat non-sustainable seafood, and people telling their Govt's that action regarding marine reserves is a vote and economic winner.
A wholesale change of heart regards our oceans wildlife, such as happened with land conservation in the 1960's may just save our oceans from turning into ecological deserts.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:07 am
03 Dec 2007
But wasn't Dingell proposing carbon taxes (on fuel) in order to kill the environmental movement a while back? The green side wants to raise your taxes (no new taxes ever!) so unelect every green candidate. I think that was his strategery.
So now he pretends to be dragged kicking and screaming into higher CAFE standards? I can hear the propaganda already, greens are killing our auto industry.
We could celebrate, but it better be a celebration of the trend rather than the actual acomplishments.
The worst president in history, he started a war he can't finish so intends to pass it on to the next president. Democrats take over congress because of this, and we get an energy policy loaded with subsidies for agribizz, clean coal, oil and gas, and even nukes. With a few bones thrown to renewables and conservation.
Still the trend away from the status quo is a reason to be hopefull. We can celebrate because subsidies for renewables were not eliminated completely.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 3:25 am
03 Dec 2007
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:38 am
03 Dec 2007
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/30/12449/665/#co ...
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/19/02938/435/#6
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
MCollins Posted 4:04 am
03 Dec 2007
Editor, http://www.getsolar.com
Permalink
trock Posted 4:56 am
03 Dec 2007
Much of what needs to be done is to convince more people to drive the more fuel efficient vehicles.
The next levels of transportation efficiency needs to be pursued, plug-ins with electricity from non-carbon sources.
Is there a trade off in what type of vehicle car companies should be trying to make? Should car companies entire research and development money go to making new gasoline standards or for more research into plug-ins?
It might make more sense go directly to plug-ins than working on some intermediate fuel milages.
Permalink
lorna salzman Posted 5:48 am
03 Dec 2007
Lorna Salzman
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 6:16 am
03 Dec 2007
But I do not disagree with your goals.
It will take many election cycles to build a sufficient progam -- if we can do it then.
You are talking about changing a way of life. And with that, a culture. No easy path.
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 7:13 am
03 Dec 2007
It is a very good sign of things to come. It looks like the upcoming elections will put more pro-environmental candidates in office (i.e. Democrats), and no matter who is elected president they won't be as anti-environmental as Bush. In the next round the bill will be improved, but the environmentalist community will have to be involved. Sitting on the side lines and complaining that other people aren't dirty hippies is self destructive.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 10:40 am
03 Dec 2007
If they take out the RES...well, then the bill is pretty much worthless, whether he passes it or not.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 11:28 am
03 Dec 2007
Onward through the fog
Permalink
justlou Posted 10:52 pm
03 Dec 2007
In fact, the actual performance falls short of the current standard by about 20 percent, as would be true as well of the higher standard if the proposal becomes law.
Manufacturers will be encouraged to keep selling cars that can burn rich mixtures of ethanol with gasoline, even where there is no place to buy it. The compromise phases out the credit for building "flex fuel" cars more slowly than current law does."
'Calculating Energy Bill's Real Figures'
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/washington/04fuel.html
Permalink
randino Posted 11:35 pm
03 Dec 2007
Not bad for a harumper, eh?
Now let me say I hope we can do much, much better in the future and I sure hope this bill does not make people complacent, nor get in our way in the future.
Harump!
Randy Cunningham
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
JoshS Posted 1:44 am
04 Dec 2007
so empty victories are not a basis for celebration...they're wasting time and manufacturing illusions that we're solving the challenge.
like another poster above said, if our solutions are not tied to scientific standards....well, we'll go the way of the other 99% of species to walk, crawl, swim, flagellate the earth.
our only difference...we'll probably be the first species in the earth's history to document our extinction (or stupendous ignorance of it!).
:)
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 2:23 am
04 Dec 2007
but no one is saying that. to the contrary, most are saying it is a huge problem and will need attention for years
the choice now is half a loaf, or nothing
half a loaf builds some momentum (but leaves much to do)
nothing builds cynicism and avoidance
Permalink
JoshS Posted 3:08 am
04 Dec 2007
this incremental action is borne of human inertia and efficiency.
should we accept a 20% loss of biodiversity by 2100, 30%, or 50%.
should we trade a few hundred or thousand cases of childhood cancer for a few years of incremental momentum, or should we draw a line based in science and strongly advocate for that position?
look at bush & cheney's actions regarding torture...how half-step did they go in renditions, torture and denying habeas corpus?
i won't jump on any soap box about how it's going to take one to five million years for the Earth to replace the biodiversity we're now destroying, or how how 5,000 children a day die due to lack of or dirty water (think one full 747 jetliner crash every hour). :) Soooooooo, anyway....it is in concessions and agreeing to process that we will lose, if only because there is a temporal dimension to all of this.
if only we had a hundred years to build that momentum...but hansen et. al have demonstrated otherwise.
it's no different than when the environmental community buys into the argument that solar power "costs" more than conventional power. in agreeing with that statement (instead of quantifying the costs of lives cut short by air pollution, acid rain over the Adirondacks, mountains lost and communities destroyed in Appalachia, etc..., CO2 emitted), we enable the coal industry to keep extracting and burning, while it is starting to buy more time marketing itself as America's resource, and clean. check out the recent ads on CNN...
until we decipher and define the honest terms of the debate (e.g., how paul hawken did in "ecology of commerce"...as one example), we will be stuck with these incremental, feel-good momentum building moments, not tied to scientific, quantifiable and verifiable restorative policy and action.
Permalink
sphinxie Posted 4:15 pm
05 Dec 2007
Permalink