No, 450 is not politically possible today.
Okay, that was clear before. But the debate over the Climate Security Act made it clear that it won't be politically possible anytime soon, for two reasons:
- The vast majority of conservatives have not budged an inch on climate science even in the face of now overwhelming direct scientific observation and a much deeper and broader scientific understanding of the dangerous impact of unrestricted human greenhouse gas emissions on the climate.
- Equally important, conservatives now have a very potent political issue to beat back advocates of an economy-wide cap-and-trade system -- high gasoline prices. And gasoline prices are probably going to be much higher over the next few years (see "Must read CIBC report: $7 per gallon gas by 2010"). That is one reason I would leave transportation out of an economy-wide cap-and-trade, but that will be the subject of another post.
I live-blogged the debate at the time. Here are the highlights -- or, rather, lowlights -- from the GOP side that make clear just how far conservatives are from understanding climate reality:
- Sen. Inhofe (R-Okla.) lead the Senate opposition to the bill, claiming, "The vast majority of scientists do not believe that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are a major contributor to climate change," and called it, "The largest tax increase in the history of America."
- Sen. Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said he opposed the bill because Wyoming family budgets would lose $1,000 to $3,000 in the next 13 years.
- Sen. Grassley (R-Iowa) was the first designated compassionate conservative, claiming, "Households with limited incomes will be affected the most by this bill," and "This would raise energy bills for the poorest fifth of Americans by $750 to $1,000 a year."
[If only conservatives cared about the poorest Americans on the days they weren't filibustering climate legislation.]
- Sen. Enzi (R-Wyo.) said, "I am an environmentalist," but opposed the bill and urged people to "visualize" their electricity bill being 50 percent higher the first year the bill goes into effect.
- Sen. Cornyn (R-Texas) said the bill would add $8000 in additional energy costs on Texas households, and actually blamed Democrats in Congress for the recent spike in gasoline prices.
- Sen. Sessions (R-Ala.) said the bill was a "... complex and sneaky cap and trade tax system" that "will raise taxes, will raise substantially energy costs and gasoline prices, will cause worker layoffs and hurt our economy, and leave us less competitive in the world marketplace." Thus, the bill is "just the opposite of what the American people (our dutiful citizens who send us here) would expect us to be doing."
- Sen. Chambliss (R-Ga.) cited a University of Georgia study he claimed that showed temperatures have dropped in the last century, and said "This bill will attack citizens at the pump" and "increase job losses."
- Sen. Bond (R-Mo.) said the bill would raise gasoline prices $1.40 a gallon by 2050, and warned that "if prices keep going up, we may not have a trucking industry," and concluded confusingly, "We need to cut carbon, we don't need to increase energy prices." He asserted, "Nobody in their right mind" believes we can get half our power from wind and solar or drive a "fleet of golf carts."
- Sen. Vitter (R-La.) warned that by 2030, gasoline prices would go up $0.41 to $1.01 a gallon.
- Sen. Cochran (R-Miss.) said the bill would be "especially harmful to lower-income families."
- Sen. Thune (R-S.D.) said the bill "could bankrupt US air carriers" which have already been crippled by high oil prices, and argued it would add $5 to $10 billion to the U.S. aviation fuel bill.
- Sen. Kyl (R-Ariz.) said the bill means "people must turn off air-conditioning in the summer" and would hurt the bottom 20 percent of Americans, reducing their after-tax income by 3.3 percent.
[Another compassionate conservative -- where were they all the last seven years?]
- Sen. Bennet (R-Utah) claimed the bill would more than double electricity prices in the first year and quoted a Californian scientist who apparently said, "We are moving to irrational panic on climate change."
- Sen. Allard (R-Colo.) called the bill "cap and tax," said bill proponents want to raise energy taxes, and proclaimed "from the reports that I've seen, I think it's unclear as to what the long-range trend is as far as the temperature of the Earth is concerned."
The purpose of this post is not to debunk such nonsense, yet again. Earlier parts of this long-running series make clear that the cost of (intelligent) action is low and the cost of inaction is incomprehensibly high.
No, the point here is that conservatives have decided to double down on their opposition to serious action on global warming. Sadly, between their lemming-like solidarity and their ability to demagogue the energy price and jobs issue -- which may well lead to an even more watered-down climate bill next year -- they probably have an exceedingly good chance of blocking the necessary action.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Mark Warner (D-Va.)
Can EPA regulations on CO2 be blocked?
Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)
Comments
View as Flat
sindark Posted 6:24 am
30 Jun 2008
Is it ecologically necessary?
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 7:15 am
30 Jun 2008
These discussions are still dominated by economics. If that issue is not relegated to the bottom of the priority list below those of the natural environment, the human environment, human rights, and civil rights, humans can kiss life as we now know it on Earth goodbye.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:37 am
30 Jun 2008
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:44 am
30 Jun 2008
The problem is that the Dems have yet to marshal all the good economic work being done -- which shows the overwhelming benefits of action -- into an effective messaging strategy. They're getting their lunch eaten by ill-informed demagogues yet again.
Again: the economics are on the side of the angels here. Trying to make "economics don't matter" the core of our pitch is going to doom us to irrelevance. We need to address the issue head-on and quit pussy-footing around it. There's absolutely no reason to accept the opposition's economics-vs.-environment frame, and every reason not to.
grist.org
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:52 am
30 Jun 2008
At a high level, I'd put it this way: if we start taking carbon mitigation and fossil fuel reduction seriously as a country, at every level, then there's no need to squeeze everything into One Perfect Bill. If we don't, then no amount of legislative massaging is going to help.
grist.org
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:56 am
30 Jun 2008
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:03 am
30 Jun 2008
grist.org
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:28 am
30 Jun 2008
Also, high-speed rail might be hard to finance at the regional level as well (and did Clinton really promise high-speed rail in 1992, as Krugman claims today?)
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 8:55 am
30 Jun 2008
Now, the Dem tsunami looks likely, but no climate law will ever pass because the Repubs are too powerful. Jeez.
First, the gas price scare tactic. It was telegraphed weeks in advance. Dems on the Energy Comm pushed it too -- retreat to safety valve! But how powerful was it? Is it? First day of Senate debate went to Repubs. But on the second day, the Dems rallied. Then, oddly -- very oddly -- the Repubs pulled the plug. Why? McCain? Dole/Collins/Coleman? I don't know.
But I am pretty sure of this -- the public never registered that debate. Hillary was slowly getting out, and hardly any news of the debate registered.
Will the public freak out in the future?? I am not so sure. But impossible to say. It will depend upon how a lot of things play out. In flux, I think.
The Senate debate was supposed to be a debacle for progressives, so Energy Dems could claim the field for safety valve, preemption, fast-track elec grid, fast-track nuke siting, etc. It didn't work that way, but Energy Dems are desperate to spin it that way.
A good climate bill is possible next year, but not inevitable. If you want a progressive bill, support progressives and progressive positions.
Don't spin like tops with latest insider gossip.
An elegant solution is much desired, but unlikely. Any big bill passes -- if ever -- as a Christmas tree. We should try to build the best one we can.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 8:58 am
30 Jun 2008
The only reason that I'm considered radical is because this society is ecocidal. When I discuss my ideas with my traditional Native American friends, their reaction is always something like yeah, I know, my grandmother taught me that. It's only among non-"radical" white people from whom I get reactions like Dave's.
As usual, Dave Roberts takes what might as well be called a "somewhat enlightened yuppie view" of environmental problems. He agrees that there are some serious environmental problems, but he's only willing to fight for solutions that don't require any sacrifices of his lifestyle or of those he considers reasonable, regardless of the harms they cause. And that was my point, which apparently went right over his head. Even the Democrats are not proposing anything that will slow or stop global warming before it reaches the point of no return. I wasn't commenting on the Republican assertions, which have about as much credibility as a flat-Earth argument. The problem is that the Democrats are far too concerned with economics to propose meaningful legislation, and that the public, at best, has the same attitude.
As to Dave's strategic argument that we need to continue to prioritize economics when trying to solve this or any other environmental problem, well, there are two things fundamentally wrong with doing that.
First, as I've said before, if you prioritize economics instead of the natural environment, as this society has done all along, you'll end up eating, breathing, and drinking your money, because it's all you'll have left. Humans cannot exist without many other species or without clean air and water, or without fertile land from which food comes. Whatever you prioritize will be what you get, and if you prioritize money you won't get solutions to environmental problems.
Second, this attitude is completely immoral, as non-humans, and the land, air, and water should be respected at least every bit as much as humans and in some cases more so. The human race is thriving; it's everything else that's suffering, and that suffering is solely due to humans. We should not be looking at how to further pamper or pander to humans, but instead how to undo all the harms humans have done and are still doing.
As to the practical realities of getting support for a global warming program that will actually solve the problem, the first thing that needs to be done is for politicians and others who get media coverage on this issue to stop pandering to the lowest common denominator and tell people that they have a choice between either their money and destructive lifestyles or a livable planet, but that they can't have both. If humans choose the former, it's game over anyway, and it would be so regardless of whether the milquetoast proposals that Dave supports were advanced. Remember, the legislation that failed in Congress would have done NOTHING to stop global warming, so it's irrelevant whether the public will only support crap like that.
My earlier post on this thread was merely the expression of a sad feeling that we're not at all headed in the right direction on climate change due to humans prioritizing the wrong things in life. Again, even in western Europe, the most progressive part of the industrialized world regarding climate change, their laws have totally failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; in fact, those emissions have increased. Based on that fact and the other points in my two posts, what exactly are the arguments for giving economic concerns greater, or even the same, priority as the environment?
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 9:52 am
30 Jun 2008
But dude, we all went to college. I've read Capra and Alan Watts and Timothy Leary and Robert Wilson etc. etc. I've sat in bong circles and exchanged deep thoughts about how Everything Is Connected except for humans, who are evil and vicious and selfish, except for us precious few enlightened folk in the dorms who are, like, totally down with indigenous people, at least in spirit, despite everyone in the bong circle inevitably being white.
And look, I still believe a lot of that stuff, but at a certain point you look up, take the measure of the world you live in, and start to think about how you can produce tangible change in that world. You realize that sitting on the sidelines spouting bromides and scolding people about their moral inferiority does not in fact make you a virtuous person. It demonstrates an inattention to efficacy that is itself an expression of class and race privilege, and makes you just as complicit in the status quo as those who embrace it. Time for a little pragmatism and utilitarianism. If all your homilies aren't moving any levers in the real world, you don't get any karmic credit for them. Sorry.
More to the point at hand: we've all heard it before, many times. If you have comments that are specific to the topics under discussion, please share them. But if you come into every single thread, no matter the topic, with the same tired cliches about human evil and the horror that is money, you're not doing yourself or anyone else any favors. You just derail the discussion. And bore your long-suffering moderators to tears.
This isn't entirely directed at you, Wolverine. You're just the latest in a long line of dorm-room radicals to come along to this site and try to explain to all of us why we aren't Real Environmentalists, because if we were we'd write and talk about nothing but how evil humans are. I think, given the number of comments you've made just in the last few weeks, you can safely assume that We Get It. Message received. You can either find something new to talk about or move along to the next group of sinners in need of your wisdom.
grist.org
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:57 am
30 Jun 2008
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 12:23 pm
30 Jun 2008
I've read Capra and Alan Watts and Timothy Leary and Robert Wilson etc. etc. I've sat in bong circles and exchanged deep thoughts about how Everything Is Connected except for humans, who are evil and vicious and selfish, except for us precious few enlightened folk in the dorms who are, like, totally down with indigenous people, at least in spirit, despite everyone in the bong circle inevitably being white...
Wow! I've never done most of that stuff. You've really lived a cliche.... Of course I went to a commuter college, never lived in a dorm. Normally this is something I regret, but you are making me think there were upsides to missing all that.
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 12:24 pm
30 Jun 2008
will be funded from cap and trade revenue
or very unlikely to be funded
fact
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:30 pm
30 Jun 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:45 pm
30 Jun 2008
As for whether or not humans could exist on this planet in a prosperous state while living sustainably and with respect for the planet and all those who inhabit it, I think that that is absolutely possible. Not in this current civilizational configuration, but it is indeed possible, and I think that most of the people at Grist are struggling --as in struggle -- to figure out how to do just that.
How do you handle the horror of the disasters unfolding on this planet? I think that the morally responsible thing to do is to try and figure out a way out, a better civilization. It may not work, but it's the best we can do.
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 12:45 pm
30 Jun 2008
but then there would be no money for any purpose
if you think carbon price is enough, ok
if you need green energy and transit, then you cannot fund it
as a practical matter
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:48 pm
30 Jun 2008
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 1:58 pm
30 Jun 2008
grist.org
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:23 am
01 Jul 2008
I hung out with Wilson's son for a while, when he was working with a telephone hacker of the time known as "Captain Crunch" -- which turned out to be the first word editor for the first IBM PC, called "Easy Writer" (cute name, huh?). Don't know what's happened to him since.
Permalink
kieschnick Posted 4:06 am
01 Jul 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 6:25 am
01 Jul 2008
As I said after your first personal attack on me, the fact that you limit your attacks to me while ignoring the posts from people like John Bailo and Mad Mac, two examples that easily come to mind, tells all. Among other things, John consistently derides any information about global warming, acting as an industry propagandist whether he is one or not. You know what his posts will say even before reading them, despite not knowing how he'll say it. And Mad Mac is even worse; I've seen nothing but anti-environmental comments from him, as he consistently attacks any pro-environmental ideas. Again, without knowing how he'll say it you know what his posts will say before you read them. But apparently, that right wing anti-environmental stuff is OK with you, so long as no one consistently criticizes the essays or posts here from a stronger environmental perspective.
Actually, I find your attacks on me rather dismaying. The fact that you are Sierra Club or NRDC and I'm Earth First!, to use environmental movement analogies, does not mean that we can't get along and work together on some things. I worked with Sierra Club people when I was with Earth First! and one of my very close friends (of about five) is a Republican. So while I'll defend myself one last time, I'm calling a unilateral truce on personal attacks between us after this post, and hopefully you'll do the same. However, neither you nor anyone else will ever diminish my commitment to the natural world, and I will continue to advocate for it as strongly as ever.
Below are my specific responses to your comments:
I don't know where you get your ideas about me, but I've never lived in a dorm; I lived at home when I attended college, with my parents while in undergrad school and on my own when in law school. I grew up working class and remain so, at most, today. I also do not base my ideas on sitting "in bong circles and exchang[ing] deep thoughts," though I value any thoughts I had from those types of experiences and incorporate them into my world view. Anyone who does not engage in deep thought or doesn't give it any credence is not worth listening to. My ideas are based on my experience in the natural world, informal studies of wildlife & marine biology and ecology, and studies of traditional indigenous ideas along with teachings of them that I've received personally.
I don't consider my posts condescending. I merely identify where problems are and what effective solutions would be while debunking solutions that will not work because they don't get to the root of the problems. The fact that you're so sensitive to my posts probably means that they really hit a nerve. Read the first sentence of my first post in this thread; it agrees with the author's point. I was merely pointing out and clarifying what John's report means for our ability to stop human-caused global warming. For doing that I was personally attacked by you, calling my politics "dorm-room" radicalism. And I'M condescending?
A small note about connection: everything IS connected, including humans, but the latter only to a limited extent because humans have mostly removed themselves from the natural world. However, we all need to breathe, eat, drink, etc., and even humans depend on the natural world for those things, regardless of whether they realize it. If our politics don't have their roots in the fact that everything is connected, they're fatally flawed.
Re your claim that I'm being too idealistic ("I still believe a lot of that stuff, but at a certain point you look up, take the measure of the world you live in, and start to think about how you can produce tangible change in that world"): First and foremost, people should fight for what they believe in. If you don't fight for what you want, you won't get it. If you really still believe in whatever you mean by "a lot of that stuff," you should be advocating for it. Anything is possible so long as it's not precluded by physical constraints. For example, when I participated in the anti-apartheid demonstrations at the University of California at Berkeley in the '80s, many people said that we were not going to end apartheid in South Africa, and I would not have wagered that would have, but we did, "we" meaning the many of us around the world who fought for an end to apartheid. But my experience is that people who advocate for more conservative results actually want them; they just say something "can't" be done when what they really mean is that they don't "want" it to be done. I'll take you at your word, but please do some introspection first if you respond with which camp you're in. Second, if you begin from a position of compromise instead of advocating strongly for what you believe in, you'll never get a good result. This is forum of ideas, not a discussion among policy makers. We need to put forth strong ideas that will actually stop and reverse the destruction, not half baked ideas that will do little or nothing to solve the problems.
I do not "sit[] on the sidelines." I have done over 2,000 hours of volunteer work for the Earth, and put my body on the line for it and other things in which I strongly believe. While I no longer do that, I donate what I can to the best environmental group around, Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), which has saved numerous plants and animals from extinction, along with protecting large amounts of wilderness and other relatively unspoiled land. I also do a small amount of volunteer work occasionally when I get a chance, mainly for CBD and for political candidates. And since you falsely claimed that I just talk and write, what exactly are your credentials?
Re "karmic credit," while that's always nice for whatever it's worth, it's not at all my motivation. Just the fact that you say things like that shows how little you understand people like me. What I care about is the natural world, not myself personally. Individually, we are nothing but grains of sand on a very large beach or drops of water in a very large ocean. Individual lives certainly have significance and importance, but what matters far more are the big things, like the Earth, ecosystems, and entire species.
Your denigration of my views is also a denigration of all others who hold them, including traditional indigenous people. From our point of view, it is people like YOU who are unrealistic, because you think that you can have your cake and eat it too. Because animal lifetimes are so short compared to geological time, it might not seem imminent, but we are witnessing the end of life as we know it due to human behaviors (I won't go into all the environmental and ecological catastrophes that are now occurring). Whether it ends tomorrow or ten thousand years from now, the time from now till the end is just "a blink of an eye" in geological time. You seem to sense that fact, but then advocate for milquetoast solutions that don't go anywhere near far enough to solve the problems, claiming that we can't advocate for anything more because it's not "realistic." You should step back and look at the big picture, how humans have created this ridiculous artificial world that's so environmentally and ecologically unfriendly that it's not at all sustainable. Considering that, what's unrealistic, trying to maintain that world or working for fundamental changes necessary to make it at least sustainable?
Just to make it clear, I originally commented specifically on the topic of this thread. You then attacked me personally with name-calling and our discussion has now degenerated into this.
Jon,
I know well that my anger is usually a personal defect. As a real Christian would say, I should have the attitude of "forgive him for he knows not what he does." That combined with my knowledge of the oneness of everything can lead only to the conclusion that I should be patient with people and that those who express selfish and/or greedy and/or materialistic desires are merely emotionally and/or spiritually immature or retarded.
But if doing that was easy, the world would be radically different, certainly a much better place. That's no excuse, just the reason for my shortcomings in this area. And if the expressions I mentioned above were not harming and destroying the natural world, I wouldn't be so pissed off about them. How angry do you get at racists when, for example they drag a black guy behind a pickup and torture him to death? Or at cops who shoot or torture blacks? Well, in addition to that, I also get angry at people who treat the natural world that way, whether it's for profit, fun, or convenience. Again, I realize that anger is my shortcoming, but to be honest working on it hasn't been my priority and I've got a way to go to fix it.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 6:46 am
01 Jul 2008
As for Dave, he is perfectly capable of speaking for himself, but I would like to add that he is not perfectly consistent either, and when not pushed on particular ideological issues he's actually much more on your wavelength than you might think -- at least, that's my take, having been a Dave-watcher for a while now.
In fact, most of the people on Grist are, as far as I can tell -- but everyone has their own personal way of dealing with these problems. But I don't like it when anybody's motives are discussed (not that you were necessarily doing that), so, absolutely, no more personal attacks.
Permalink
setb Posted 7:33 am
01 Jul 2008
I'll wait to see your post, but this seems like a major flaw in whatever climate solution you're supporting.
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 9:31 am
01 Jul 2008
Sell out the 2020 caps, sell out the states. DOE will run climate issues; not EPA.
The transport bit is probably to buy off Dingell.
The big push, I bet, will be to actually build nukes. Not just $$; but changing safety standards and opportunities for local opposition.
Also, aggressive grid building (what kind?) that should benefit wind, and big, big investment in CCS. More biofuels research, but this is a throwaway for wild-eyes like Ala sen.
Unstated will be small change for household solar and geo systems; serioius money for utility level stuff only.
Huge tax cut; not targeted to poor.
Nothing for reforest; public transit; helping poor countries.
This is the "middle way" that is "possible" as I understand the TPs. We'll see it fleshed out soon. Watch PEW and Brookings and RFF.
Permalink
hapa Posted 9:37 am
01 Jul 2008
the no-money-but-carbon-money thing feels like flypaper stuck to a juggernaut of reindustrialization to overhaul the energy systems. "we've been building ourselves problems -- bad debts, pollution crisis, oil shortage, drought and flood and fire -- when we could be building solutions." but maybe the working class here is really dead and there's no pride like that anymore except in little pockets of swing states. all the rest is angry would-be middle managers who think checking the gas gauge is the mechanic's job.
~~
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 10:50 am
01 Jul 2008
in contrast, fees from permits are just found money
more broadly, I don't criticize the generation. no one has offered very practical advice for the way forward
except Gar, Amazn, Rynn, etc., of course
Permalink