Friends of the Earth has been running a campaign for months to convince senators to oppose the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act if it's not significantly improved.
"The Lieberman-Warner bill comes nowhere close to doing what scientists say we must to have a shot at avoiding catastrophic outcomes," said FOE President Brent Blackwelder in a statement last week. "It is a wholly inadequate response to the greatest environmental crisis of our time."
The group issued a list of specific concerns on Friday, pointing out that:
- The bill is short of the IPCC's targets for emissions reductions, and is "unlikely to reduce emissions at all until year 2025."
- The bill still gives half a trillion dollars to polluters by handing out carbon credits free of charge rather than auctioning them.
- Support for the bill isn't all that strong among some Democrats -- Sens. Clinton and Obama have put out stronger plans as presidential candidates.
- The presidential election in November gives hope that 2009 will provide a climate (ahem) more conducive to strong legislation.
- Folks in the House have circulated tougher bills.
FOE will continue to lobby for measures to improve the bill next week, as will most of the big green groups. They've been much more vocal, however, in calling for the bill to be canned if it's not significantly changed.
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [UPDATED]
Al Franken (D-Minn.)
Comments
View as Flat
dobermanmacleod Posted 5:14 pm
31 May 2008
As the Earth warms, carbon sinks will become carbon emitters (meaning natural greenhouse gas emissions will overwhelm any cuts we make-and also significantly diminish the amount of CO2 nature removes from the air each year!). Furthermore, it is inevitable that developing countries will dramatically increase their emissions, also overwhelming any cuts we make (for instance, China is increasing their emissions at a rate equivalent to Germany's total emissions each year!).
"With the country in the grips of near-hysteria over soaring gasoline prices, Congress begins debate Monday on landmark climate legislation that critics say will substantially increase energy costs - and not produce any of the intended environmental benefits." --Kenneth Stiier, CNBC News, 30 May 2008
"I know of no realistic person who thinks carbon dioxide emissions are going to do anything but grow. Most European countries are not meeting their emissions goals, and of the ones that have, it's because their economies are collapsing. In the United States, this notion that we're going to reduce our emissions by 80 percent is pure fantasy." --Pete Geddes, Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, 2 April 2008
"Japan, like the European Union, hasn't let its failure so far to meet Kyoto emissions-reductions targets stop it from setting even more ambitious goals, like a 50% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050. But how to do that? If getting within shouting distance of Kyoto's targets could cost Japan $500 billion, how much would it cost to cut emissions twelve-fold more?" --Keith Johnson, WSJ, 19 March 2008
"I'm going to tell you something I probably shouldn't: we may not be able to stop global warming. We need to begin curbing global greenhouse emissions right now, but more than a decade after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, the world has utterly failed to do so. Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot." --Bryan Walsh, Time Magazine, 17 March 2008
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 12:44 am
01 Jun 2008
There is no support, now, for stronger caps. All the action is trying to fend off the Energy Committee and the wishy-washy Dems who want weaker and easily removable caps.
Waiting for the Dem Prez is a pipe dream. Cautious pols do nothing as much as possible. Especially in thorny political territory -- which this will always be.
Love that strong House bill. How many co-sponsors? When will it get to the House floor? Oh, that's right: never.
Next year, when the Left is disillusioned, they will blame those who "betrayed" them Who has betrayed whom? Who has made common cause with small steps forward?
FOE is a force for no action. Congrats.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:42 am
01 Jun 2008
Permalink
green8659 Posted 1:43 am
01 Jun 2008
Green | Almighty Cleanse | Web Design Indiana
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 2:45 am
01 Jun 2008
What is at stake this week is the quality of the marker for the future.
Two aspects. Committee jurisdiction. Public PR.
Energy Comm hopes to embarass EPW, and assume control next year. That means LESS aggressive targets, safety valve and preemption.
PR -- can Dems do anything?
The vote matters.
Unfortunately, most Dems are looking for excuses so they won't have to face a tough vote.
I expect "moderate" Dems to flee in favor of safety valve and less agressive targets, in the name of avoiding a burden on consumers. Alteady, there are probably 10 Dems that will never back any significant action because they have auto or coal-using or coal-mining constituencies. And with McCain bailing, the 6-8 Repubs that could compensate will also flee. Could be a vote in the 30s. Then the PR mantra will be that action is impossible. In that context, the new Dem prez will punt. And Energy Comm will rally Dems to a "reasonable" approach -- much weaker than now.
Hope I am mistaken. But hoping for courage from Congress is a thin reed.
Permalink
Max8806 Posted 5:02 pm
01 Jun 2008
Grist has been doing a good job on keeping the spotlight on problems with offsets. I looked up the language of Lieberman Warner and the debunked "altered tillage practices" are explicitly recommended as an allowable offset type.
Free allocation of allowances is another major problem, an enormous expenditure which (depending on the allocation criteria) becomes either perverse incentive or at best pure waste
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008 ...
Permalink
RussellLowes Posted 3:09 am
03 Jun 2008
It is so vaguely worded that it allows a massive investment in nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is the least secure form of energy for our country. We import over 90% of our uranium, compared to about two thirds of our oil. Switching from a 67% reliance level toward a 90% reliance level does not make for good security.
Resulting environmental and economic disruption with nuclear energy is much higher than for other energy options.
The Lieberman-Warner bill also promotes that cute little cap-n-trade gimmick which will do one of two things:
1) require a huge amount of governmental regulation to assure compliance, complete with a surge in governmental forces, or
2) allow for a huge amount of fraud to occur.
Or maybe both.
Carbon tax, so eloquently and intricately discussed at http://www.carbontax.org, is much preferred to that cute little cap-n-trade idea. It will cost the taxpayers less, support the free market mechanisms better, and result in smaller government than cappy.
This bill is a rush job. It reminds me of the "Patriot" Act, the mindset at the moment of passage of that bill was we-gotta-pass-something.
I suspect many of the supporters of this bill, who include the some of the largest nuclear companies in the U.S., want to cram this thing down, before the next president is seated.
Permalink