The following is a guest post from Tony Kreindler of Environmental Defense.
-----
Glenn Hurowitz writes that Environmental Defense has "abandoned other green groups" by voicing support for climate change legislation introduced last week by Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner. "Environmental Defense is once again destroying the unity of the environmental movement by endorsing this bill now despite some major weaknesses," he says.
For the record, Environmental Defense has not endorsed the Lieberman-Warner bill, America's Climate Security Act. We've certainly praised parts of it we think work well, and we've given the authors what we think is well-deserved credit for making a serious attempt to get comprehensive climate change legislation passed in this Congress. We've also said we will work to strengthen the bill, particularly to achieve the deeper long-term emissions reductions scientists tell us we need to avoid a climate catastrophe. We may do that differently than some, but we will do it.
Has Environmental Defense broken from the pack? All environmental groups have specific views on the bill's strengths and weaknesses, which can't fully be captured in the following quotes, but let's take a look at what some other environmental groups had to say about the bill:
Gene Karpinski, President, League of Conservation Voters:
Today's introduction of America's Climate Security Act marks an important step by this Congress to address the urgent problem of global warming. We applaud Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner for their leadership and for their bipartisan commitment to moving America closer to real solutions to this very urgent problem.
Larry Schweiger, President and CEO, National Wildlife Federation:
This is a bipartisan breakthrough on global warming that takes us a giant step closer to a historic vote in the United States Senate. I commend Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner for drafting a strong bill to protect wildlife from global warming.
Frances Beinecke, President, Natural Resources Defense Council:
The introduction and planned markup of America's Climate Security Act by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) represents an important step forward in the overdue process to enact comprehensive, mandatory global warming legislation. Committee consideration of this legislation will help move us toward the substantial reductions in global warming pollution we need to protect our climate. The bill also recognizes the need to direct proceeds from the pollution allowance market to important policy objectives, including promoting clean energy solutions, protecting the poor and other consumers, ensuring a just transition for workers in affected industries, and preventing impacts abroad that lead to conflicts and threats to security.
And what did we say?
Lieberman and Warner have paved the way for a historic committee vote on a bill that promises to make great strides toward climate security and economic growth. Thanks to their thoughtful approach we're moving beyond talk and quickly toward action.
Let's hope that promise comes true.
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [UPDATED]
Al Franken (D-Minn.)
Comments
View as Flat
rsmith02 Posted 8:36 am
19 Oct 2007
"Yesterday, Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) introduced a comprehensive global warming bill that sets the stage for Senate action this fall.
Help us seize the momentum and pass a strong bill to cap and reduce America's global warming pollution. Please make an urgent gift to support our Operation: Climate Vote campaign.
The America Climate Security Act would establish a mandatory cap to dramatically reduce global warming pollution from the electric utility, oil and manufacturing industries, while at the same time protecting the economy and American consumers.
It already has broad bipartisan support - furthering its potential to pass the Senate. Our job over the next few weeks is to protect and strengthen the bill - including, among other things, total emissions reductions - and work with members of Congress to pass it this year.
Time is very short. Congress is planning to recess for the holidays in just a few weeks.
Your gift enables us to keep the pressure on Congress.
The timing couldn't be any more critical. Our supporters and staff have been working all year to make global warming legislation a reality.
In October alone:
50,000 online activists have sent emails to Congress.
Hundreds more have called the House and Senate leadership to urge action.
We've got on-the-ground organizers working in a dozen critical states.
We've maintained constant contact with key legislative offices on Capitol Hill.
Our work is paying off. With the introduction of the American Climate Security Act and with all the political momentum you've helped generate, we're closer than we've ever been to passing effective global warming legislation.
We need your support to get a strong bill out of committee and onto the Senate floor before Congress leaves Washington. Please make a gift today.
Thank you for supporting our work. We'll keep you fully updated on the bill's progress in the coming weeks.
Sincerely,
Steve Cochran
Environmental Defense Action Fund
Permalink
The Cunctator Posted 9:35 am
19 Oct 2007
Only NWF had no criticisms of L-W. ED's statement does state "we continue to believe that deeper reductions are needed long-term. "
But a full overview of the positions of the environmental groups does find that ED finds fewer problems with the bill than nearly everyone else.
(Environmental Defense, the National Wildlife Federation, and NRDC are fellow members of USCAP, a corporate-NGO partnership calling for cap-and-trade. The US-CAP platform calls for subsidies to polluters ("Be fair to sectors disproportionately impacted") as opposed to full auction.)
Hill Heat
Permalink
The Cunctator Posted 9:40 am
19 Oct 2007
"GRANDFATHER" THE DIRTIEST PLANTS: The Bush administration's original legislation would have required EPA to distribute some pollution "allowances," or rights to pollute, through an elaborate auction system. This market mechanism would have created incentives for the least efficient plants to undertake the most significant cleanup efforts to avoid paying more for allowances. But GCA complained that such an auction would "increase" polluting power plants' "compliance costs unnecessarily."
Again, the companies got what they wanted: The current bill does not include the auction provision. Instead, pollution allowances would be allocated according to how much fuel plants burned and how much pollution they emitted in the past, giving less efficient plants more (free) allowances, and eliminating any incentive to clean up.
Hill Heat
Permalink
ids Posted 12:17 pm
21 Oct 2007
Permalink