The following is a response to this post.
-----
Ken Ward tracks the evolution of EDF's position on climate legislation in search of evidence that we've relented on tough global warming pollution limits since making climate change a top priority more than ten years ago. He sees our support of the Climate Security Act as a retreat from bold action, as surrender to what's merely possible in Congress. Far from it.
What shapes our advocacy and our support for that bill is not, as Ken suggests, the limits of politics-as-usual in Washington. It's shaped by the urgent need to begin reducing global warming pollution -- and the fact that as a nation we have failed to take action despite two decades of evidence that we are in deep trouble.
As I told Grist a few months ago, the world and all of its inhabitants face a crisis due to the continuing buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. We are already seeing the consequences: melting glaciers, rising sea levels, strengthening hurricanes, dying coral reefs, disappearing summer sea ice in the Arctic.
In my view, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are already too high. Our goal must be to reduce those concentrations to today's levels or below.
And yet our CO2 emissions have continued to grow steadily since 1990 -- more than 18 percent, by EPA's count in 2006. Our failure to act has made returning to 1990 emissions levels something that will take longer to achieve. What was once a bold but achievable first step can no longer be covered in a single stride, and the continued failure of Congress to act makes the task more difficult.
To me, that means we need to take our first bold step as quickly as possible.
I'm optimistic that we can finally get started with a new president -- and a political climate that is changing every day thanks to the voices challenging politics-as-usual and pushing for a stabilization target below today's levels. And we must all do all we can to make sure that our next president sends Congress a proposal built on the foundation of quick action and an aggressive near-term target.
That's critical to building the broad public momentum and political will we need. One of the most effective things we can do to change politics-as-usual (which in Washington these days often means arguing about costs) is to show that reducing emissions will be good for America because it creates jobs, reduces conventional pollution, lessens our dependence on foreign oil -- and at a much lower cost than the defenders of the status quo would have people believe. If we can do that, we can continue to build political will for strengthening the targets, and ultimately reach our goal.
But we can't do it if we don't take the first step, and making the ideal step the first might mean we never get the chance to take it. Nor can we do it without a seat at the table -- or by denying the business community a seat at the table. Even the broadest alliance of environmental groups will have a tough time breaking the gridlock in Congress and convincing members to deal with the challenges instead of ignoring them.
Passing truly transformational legislation in any Congress requires the support of many sectors and many actors on and off Capitol Hill. Our task is not selling out to them so they will buy into a weak bill. It is, and has to be, crafting a politically durable solution so they can buy into something strong.
Ward thinks our work with the business community has compromised our values and undermined our results. I see them at work in the real world today, from the passage and implementation of AB 32 in California (the first statewide emissions cap in the U.S.), to the dramatic scaling back of TXU's planned coal build-out in Texas.
And to set the record straight, Ken's claim that in 2002 EDF called for reducing emissions below 1990 levels sometime before 2040 is simply incorrect. We said that stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at 450 parts per million was possible if global emissions peaked early and then declined 1-3 percent each and every year from 2020 to 2040.
Nor has EDF endorsed expanded oil drilling. As I said in this post, it's just a bad idea and we categorically reject it.
Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Comments
View as Flat
mleonard Posted 8:38 am
29 Jul 2008
You cite your work in the business community as successful - by mentioning the scaling back of TXU's proposed coal plants in Texas. What you don't mention is that a ground-breaking coalition of local and national groups were calling for a moratorium on coal-fired power plants - with the support of Texas mayors, politicians across the country, and top scientists.
But EDF brokered a back-room deal with TXU executives that gave them the green light for them to still build 3 coal plants (out of a proposed 11). Your "success" promptly diffused the movement that was calling for them to build 0 out of 11 - which is what the reality of the climate crisis demands. The rest of the movement prioritized science, ecology, and health. EDF prioritized big business.
You might call that success - but most everyone else (including communities on the ground in Texas) called it 3 coal plants too many. You blatantly went against many of your constituents - selling the climate, communities, health, and the movement up the river.
You know it as well as anyone else - going halfway on the climate is the same as not going any of the way. EDF clearly isn't going to lead - so at least get out of the way for others to present real solutions.
Permalink
setb Posted 9:03 am
29 Jul 2008
Brokering an overly complicated massive giveaway to polluters that doesn't generate the necessary ghg emissions may have been a fine idea when we were stuck with an uninformed public and Republican controlled congress. But the times they are a changing...
I have some simple questions:
How do you understand the difference between SO2 and CO2 as it pertains to policy?
Can you explain what you've learned from the failed EU Cap and Trade system and how your law (Lieberman-Warner) would address those failures?
What GHG reductions would you support in a bill?
***PS- What did you mean when you said we "of course" needed to do more drilling?
Permalink
Tony Kreindler Posted 9:58 am
29 Jul 2008
www.edf.org
Permalink
Ken Johnson Posted 10:36 am
29 Jul 2008
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 8:37 pm
29 Jul 2008
Some of the discussions about the EDF on gristmill remind me of the posts about meat-eating environmentalists where ideological purity becomes an obstacle to progress.
Permalink
Tony Kreindler Posted 1:23 am
30 Jul 2008
If we're reducing emissions on schedule, if we're achieving the environmental goal with the cap, why would we not want to do it at the lowest-possible cost?
www.edf.org
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:03 am
30 Jul 2008
Subsidy diversion, from oil, coal, nuclear, and fuel farming flex fuel gas guzzling, over to renewables and conservation.
A price on carbon with Gore's carbon tax/income tax cut (for middle and lower incomes) that is revenue neutral.
And government investment, fed, state, and local, in millions of plugin hybrid orders to car companies and solar and wind systems and ground source heat pump systems. All to get mass production going, stimulate our economy, and stop inflation at it's root, energy prices.
Those are solid government moves. Cap and trade is diversionary in nature, invented for Enron.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Ken Johnson Posted 2:12 am
30 Jul 2008
Re SO2, EDF boasts that "The expected market price for SO2 allowances was in the range of $579-$1,935 per ton of SO2; the actual market price as of January 2003 was $150 per ton" - as though the over-allocation of SO2 allowances were a good thing. The SO2 cap is about five times higher than the threshold for ecosystem sustainability, and there are still (in 2004) 22,000 premature deaths associated with SO2 emissions.
A price floor, which EDF opposes, would at least maintain a minimal incentive for emission reductions at a predetermined price level. Why should regulatory policy not create incentives for over-compliance when the added cost would be minuscule compared to the additional health and environmental benefits?
Permalink
Ken Johnson Posted 2:19 am
30 Jul 2008
Permalink
onerudebuddha Posted 9:09 am
30 Jul 2008
EDF has consistently found the "tipping point" at which the most significant stakeholders in environmental policy can be moved from defensive denial to wary participation. It ain't pretty, and it's obviously unsatisfying to those who need to see redemptive blood flow, or other manifest evidence of Transformational Change, before they deign to chalk one up in the 'win" column. Not given to theology, I take a different view. When an amoral, guiltless, legal entity, obliged ONLY to its shareholders and the SEC, takes steps away from the immediate bottom line and toward a sustainable future, I see that as a shattering of a cultural paradigm. As often as not, EDF has the hammer in its hand.
There is a place in all this for those who favor fervor over effectiveness. We need questors to keep pulling back the rug, assuming every compromise is a "sweetheart deal", demanding more, and more quickly. It's kind of a pain in the ass role, but its an absolutely essential one. As we see on Grist, some people seem to take quickly to it. But, for my children's' sake, let's remember that progress requires more than simply to demand it. Let's keep our eyes on the prize, take momentum where we find it, and find the role that fits our view of the challenge. As I've observed them over the years, EDF does all three.
Permalink
setb Posted 12:30 am
31 Jul 2008
* SO2 is significantly less ubiquitous than CO2 in the economy--and much less crucial. How do you need to adjust a policy designed to reduce a minor pollutant to reduce the major one?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:05 am
31 Jul 2008
If the steps were designed by lobbyists like mcbush economic advisor, Phil Gramm, for Enron, like cap and trade was. That is not shattering anything but common sense and "free" markets.
The reverse is actually happening to NRDC and EDF, and other orgs. Invaded by professional lobbyists at the top, who don't take principled stands on issues, these orgs are instead coopted by industry. And used to greenwash stuff like cap and trade.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 2:06 pm
31 Jul 2008
Permalink
Ken Ward Posted 4:10 am
03 Aug 2008
Wolverine writes... "This argument boils down to lesser of evils v. fighting for what you believe in.."
It is a tragic error to view this debate through the familiar lens of achievable, but limited-reform now versus purest, but pie-in-the-sky fundamental change.
The point of debate is not strategy, it is about how the problem is defined.
I read Jim Hansen's papers and a host of supporting original publications (not to mention the BBC and National Geographic) and am fully convinced that the world must bring the level of atmospheric carbon concentration (equivalent) at least below 350 ppm (I'm willing to bet that that number will go down again to 275 very shortly), and in the absence of any more precautionary proposal, I'm willing to accept Hansen's proposed timetable for global - not US, mind you - action.
EDF does not.
That is the debate.
If Hansen et. al.'s position is accepted, then Lieberman/Warner is unacceptable, because it precludes reaching the 350 ppm bright line within the timeframe for action; the world moves from breaching various tipping points to passing the point of no return, and I can expect that my 8 year old son Eli will live through a descent into chaos.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with pure very pragmatic approaches. It has to do with accepting a precautionary position or not.
I do; first because I am an environmentalist and should always err towards this view, and secondly, because i have read virtually all of the pertinent papers from climate scientists, biologists, geologists and meteorologists (though it is harder and harder to keep up with the volume), and I defy anyone to do so and still argue, as EDF maintains, that we have 40 years to put together an adequate US climate policy.
But EDF takes no position. Krupp's careful and vauge phrasing of goal - "to reduce those [CO2] concentrations to today's levels or below - sidesteps the fundamental question.
Ken Ward
ken[at]brightlines.org
Permalink
Ken Ward Posted 4:32 am
03 Aug 2008
Ken Ward
ken[at]brightlines.org
Permalink
robspooner Posted 4:48 am
03 Aug 2008
One mm is that really small division on the metric side of your ruler. If you can see the extra 1.2 mm that the oceans are rising each year, your eyesight is a lot better than mine.
Permalink
setb Posted 2:34 am
05 Aug 2008
I'm only left to assume it's because they don't have an answer.
Permalink