A coalition of corporations, green groups, and unions issued a joint statement to senators yesterday declaring their support for the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, which will hit the Senate floor on Monday. Among the endorsers is General Electric, one of the five largest companies in the world -- definitely a big pick-up for the legislation.
"This is a very important vote on a bipartisan plan to address climate change," reads the statement. "[T]he bill protects American industry to ease the transition to a cleaner future."
"A 'yes' vote for the Climate Security Act represents historic leadership to advance bipartisan solutions to climate change; a 'no' vote will slow progress and maintain the status quo, which only increases the risks of unavoidable consequences and potentially greater economic costs that could result from the need for even steeper reductions in the future," the letter continues.
The signatories, in alphabetical order:
Alcoa
Calpine Corporation
Environmental Defense Action Fund
Exelon Corporation
FPL Group
General Electric
Interfaith Power and Light Campaign
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers
Izaak Walton League of America
National Grid
National Parks Conservation Association
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
NRG Energy, Inc.
Pew Environment Group
PG&E Corporation
Public Service Enterprise Group
Trout Unlimited
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Copenhagen talks ready for take off: 5, 4, 3…
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
Comments
View as Flat
Wolverine Posted 4:18 am
31 May 2008
The problem with Lieberman-Warner is that it wouldn't reduce greenhouse gases nearly enough to actually stop climate change, according to what the credible scientists say needs to be done. The conservative approach is that this is at least a step in the right direction, and we can move forward from here. The other approach is that we should oppose legislation like this, because passing it would make people complacent by thinking that we've done all we need to do. I'd like to see an analysis of whether movements have been successful by passing initially insufficient legislation that was strengthened later. If so, this bill should be supported; if not, it should be opposed.
Permalink
ce1907 Posted 4:42 am
31 May 2008
does not insure progress, or failure, in the future. We need to fight for 50 years, at least. Even then, no guarantee we will win
Next year is more likely to see a more conservative bill, if L-W gets a bad vote
much more pressure to avoid anything that raises consumer prices than there is to save the earth. Thus, the appeal of safety valve
the coming wave of political pressure is NOT for a more Green bill; just the opposite
This could change in 20 years, once we are completely doomed -- or not
purity means sitting on the sidelines
time is not on our side
Permalink
Tony Kreindler Posted 3:38 am
01 Jun 2008
The Clean Air Act is a great example of an environmental law that has been amended and improved over time to address emerging health threats. More on that here.
No bill is ever perfect -- but this one has the right framework to begin reducing emissions in a way that makes sense for the environment and the economy. It's time we got started.
www.edf.org
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:10 am
01 Jun 2008
I didn't ask for any guarantees. The idea was to get as much info as possible about past experiences in order to make an informed choice. Without that info, one is just operating in the dark.
Tony,
I don't agree at all that the Clean Air Act (CAA) has been strengthened over the years to address emerging health risks. Please cite some specific examples of this. Environmental laws like the CAA actually ALLOW pollution, so long as the polluter has a permit. Their goal is to allow as much pollution as possible without poisoning everyone. That's why they're so complicated and convoluted.
Permalink