This may seem hokey, but I'm so far beyond frustrated with the legislators of this country that I've gone and written my own piece of climate change legislation.
My bill is simple. Once you get past all the "whereas" and so forth, it simply calls for the United States to aim toward stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations at 350 ppm and to lead international negotiations on the successor to the Kyoto Protocol toward the same goal (you can read the full language here).
This follows the lead of Hansen's findings and Bill McKibben's 350 campaign.
The bill, as I've written it, is a "sense of the House" resolution. It would have no force of law (and it couldn't be vetoed). But at the same time, if it were taken up and passed by the House of Representatives, it would declare to the world (and to our own citizens) that we intend to do what we have to do -- as Betsy Taylor of 1Sky so often says, "what is scientifically necessary rather than what is politically possible."
I'm discussing the bill with the staff of my Congressman Jerrold Nadler, and I hope he'll take it further.
There is no talk of cap-and-trade or cap-and-dividend or investment in tech or green jobs or anything else in my bill. It is not 432 pages long. It is 2 pages long. It does nothing but declare that "We, the People" want to aim at 350. There is no methodology or anything else to argue over. An up or down vote on this bill, if it made it to the House floor, would simply answer the question: Do we want to do what's necessary?
The way I see it, a bill this simple and free of distractions could act as a kind of Bill of Rights for climate change, a basic text against which all other more detailed legislation must be measured. Do we, with our hundreds of pages of more complicated legislation, achieve 350, or not?
In other words, the 350 bill provides a true North toward which later legislation must point.
I'm not trying to undermine Markey's iCAP, or other citizen's bills that organizations like 1Sky might introduce. I support iCAP and I'm sure I would support anything 1Sky did. But while we wait for Markey to get iCAP out of a committee and let 1Sky figure out what the climate movement's next move should be after last week's Senate failure, I'm putting this on the table for discussion. And I'm taking friendly amendments and comments.
Lastly, I know there are people who'll think I'm unrealistic on two counts: first, that a proposal to attempt to stabilize at 350 cannot possibly find political legs, and second, that a bill written by li'l old me (or any other mere citizen) could ever pass.
On the first count, listen: Climate change ranks about tenth in voter concerns, true. But the League of Conservation Voters did a study that showed that, of 3,302 questions asked of the Presidential candidates by Sunday morning talk-show hosts, only eight of those questions centered on global warming (that's 0.2 percent, by the way). I wonder how high on the agenda global warming would go if the press actually covered it? I believe there is more potential political will out there to do what's necessary than we suspect.
But we need some real leadership. And we need some citizen action, some citizen activism, maybe even some citizen-written legislation. Because for my money, the politicians are taking too long.
On the second count: The way I see it, geez, it can't do any worse than a bill written by, say, Senators Boxer, Warner, or Lieberman, right?
PS: Here is the the resolution part of the bill (again, you can read the full bill here):
Resolved, that it is the sense of the House of Representatives that:
- United States and international climate change policy must aim to begin within ten years to stabilize atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at no more than 350 PPM or better;
- Policy frameworks must be flexible enough to adjust should advancing science suggest a change in the 350 PPM compass point; and
- The United States must lead the international community towards substantive action on the goal of 350 PPM atmospheric carbon dioxide within ten years in the current UN Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations.
Climate talks timeline: From 350 to Kyoto to Copenhagen and beyond
Is Bill McKibben right to be angry with Obama?
Comments
View as Flat
CFL CTA Matt Posted 10:55 pm
10 Jun 2008
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 11:51 pm
10 Jun 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:53 pm
10 Jun 2008
A 10 cent per kwh subsidy will be paid to those who either sell GHG free power to the grid or conserve power. The money for this subsidy will come out of subsidies for fossil fuel, nuclear, and agribizz energy industry subsidies.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
zach Posted 12:02 am
11 Jun 2008
Didn't know you frequented too.
Good luck with your bill- hope it gets passed.
Perhaps states should focus on climate change legislation within their own districts and states? I mean, everybody seems to agree that pollution is bad, but nobody really seems to come up with a "one-size fits all" solution. Maybe one isn't viable right now. You know-- start from the bottom and work your way up through each level government?
Off-Topic: Perhaps the Presidential candidates didn't attend the "debates" because they knew about the filibuster???
Permalink
hapa Posted 12:13 am
11 Jun 2008
yours,
hapa
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 2:48 am
11 Jun 2008
--- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
Permalink
NoImpactMan Posted 3:40 am
11 Jun 2008
At the moment, the international community is negotiating a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol, the climate change treaty that much of the world--but not the USA--has signed on to. The negotiations take place under the auspices of the UNFCCC.
I would like the US to lead the UNFCCC negotiations towards a successor to the Kyoto Protocol that embraces 350. James Hansen has said that we must start making substantial progress in this arena within ten years.
That is what #3 aims at, though I admit it is not so clear. That's why I'm taking friendly amendments and comments!
All the best,
Colin Beavan aka No Impact Man
Permalink
Easterbunny Posted 6:26 am
11 Jun 2008
"no more than 350 PPM or better" - the "or better" is redundant (and confusing)
"the 350 PPM compass point" - the compass point metaphor might be useful in explaining the idea, but doesn't make much sense in a bill.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 9:15 am
11 Jun 2008
What hardly anyone but political insiders realize is that voting with one's pocketbook is far more important than voting at the polls (the latter is less important due to the lack of real choices), and that politicians react to what their constituents DO, not what they say. So, if you drive much or otherwise consume greenhouse gas-emitting fuels, you're voting against taking any action on global warming.
That all said, I'd love to see this legislation pass. My point is that without a hell of a lot more, it's totally meaningless.
Permalink
hapa Posted 9:40 am
11 Jun 2008
no one runs on a straightforward pledge of collective suicide, anymore. those were the days, weren't they.
Permalink
Hal 9000 Posted 10:24 am
11 Jun 2008
My very humble sense of the draft resolution is that it may present too many targets for opponents in the recitals, but if your representative and staff are supportive, that's obviously key. Recitals or preambles to resolutions are typically agreed statements of fact. Behind even a simple non-binding resolution relating to climate change policy, there are obviously many loaded issues. Even seemingly established scientific facts will be contested or denied. Introducing the Stern Report invites a cost debate. Referencing IPCC reporting invites a debate about ranges of outcome and uncertainties. International cooperation is another loaded topic.
With this in mind and with the intent of focusing on the "350 ball" and the Hansen paper as much as possible, here is a variation on your resolution. Thank you for your leadership by example; it is a very powerful. Also, my representative is Earl Blumenauer, D. Oregon, who should be interested in sponsoring your resolution:
Sense of Congress resolution:
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that United States and international climate change policy must protect human civilization and the environment by stabilizing the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at levels that will prevent increases in average global temperature that threaten human civilization and the environment.
Whereas;
Common human activities, including certain forestry and agricultural practices and burning fossil fuels to heat buildings, to generate electricity, and to power motor vehicles, ships and aircraft, have caused significant emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
Emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere from human activities have caused and will continue to cause the average global temperature to increase.
Environmental policy is generally intended to protect human health and the environment from unacceptable risks associated with human activities that cause pollution.
The best available climate science identifies unacceptable risks to human health and the environment should atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide remain above 350 parts per million (ppm) for an extended period of time (beyond 2100).
The best available climate science identifies unacceptable risks to human health and the environment should atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide continue to increase significantly above current levels in the near term (within the next 10 to 20 years).
Because the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 387 ppm, compared to a pre-industrial level of approximately 280 ppm, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are increasing at a rate of approximately 2 ppm per year, and the necessary actions to reduce and stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to acceptable levels will take decades to implement, establishing a target atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration against which to measure the efficacy of policies, laws and regulations is a useful early action.
Therefore, be it Resolved;
It is the sense of the House of Representatives that:
Until the best available climate science dictates otherwise, United States and international efforts should be coordinated to reduce and stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide at no more than 350 ppm. These coordinated efforts should occur within time frames that will reduce risks to human health and the environment resulting from human-caused carbon dioxide emissions to acceptable levels.
Permalink
NoImpactMan Posted 11:41 am
11 Jun 2008
All the best,
Colin aka No Impact Man
Permalink
martyparks Posted 3:40 am
13 Jun 2008
Permalink