Under the headline "A Coalition for Firm Limit on Emissions," The New York Times writes about a new coalition of major corporations and "moderate" environmental groups.
As usual for the NYT, the lead is buried deep in the story:
The group's principles include recommending a range of emissions levels -- from 100 to 105 percent of current levels within five years, then down to 90 to 100 percent of current levels in 10 years, and 70 to 90 percent of current levels in 15 years.
In other words raise emissions now, in hopes we'll cut them slightly in ten years, and slightly more in another ten.
I predict that with major environmental groups such as the NRDC on board, there is going to be a push to define this as the acceptable outer limit of debate, with only the higher numbers emphasized.
This is an asking price. Somewhere between this and what James Inhofe favors will be seen as the target for sensible people.
And Charlie Brown lets Lucy hold the football for him one more time.
Comments
View as Flat
Bart Anderson Posted 8:04 am
20 Jan 2007
Even if it is greenwashing and hypocrisy, at least they recognize the appearance of virtue.
It's inevitable - all part of the process. They just need a little reality therapy.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 9:31 am
20 Jan 2007
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 10:58 am
20 Jan 2007
Permalink
dlunn Posted 11:59 am
20 Jan 2007
Permalink
Doug Snodgrass Posted 9:12 pm
20 Jan 2007
Visit the Ecotality Blog at http://ecotalityblog.com
Permalink
Steven T Posted 3:00 am
21 Jan 2007
The Bush administration has taken such a hard-line position that any proposal, however, modest, could be viewed as a welcome "first step."
Most people don't understand the numbers well enough to judge what is needed.
The latter needs to be addressed in public outreach efforts by enviro groups. This will invariably require some simplification of scientific discourse.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:17 am
21 Jan 2007
Keep coopting the enviro movement for your corporate masters. Is Cheney pulling the strings behind your agenda?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 4:34 am
21 Jan 2007
Any new federal legislation will have a hard time getting enough votes to overcome a filibuster in congress or a presidential veto. Moderate measures that have the support of the polluting industries have the best and possibly only chance of passage.
Permalink
JMG Posted 10:56 am
21 Jan 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007...
A friend, one of the smartest people I know, made an important observation in response:
==============
Another even more powerful argument:
Within 30 years, maybe 20, there will be no 'oil exports' as current exporting nations
{see declining oil production} + {make a fortune selling oil, buy more cars, and increase their consumption to the point that there's nothing available for export}.
This has already happened for Indonesia, one of the OPEC countries - they are now a net importer of oil and likely to get the boot out of OPEC.
The forecast is for the available export pool of oil to decline about twice as fast as total world oil production, or somewhere between 5-10%/year, starting NOW - actually it already started in 2006 according to TOD [The Oil Drum, a website].
This decline occurs AHEAD of the actual decline of world oil production.
We'll have our energy independence, all right, unless Saudi Arabia/Iraq/etc. become our 52nd, 53rd,etc. states of the U.S.---whether we want it or not, whether global heating is more important or not.
To avoid that we'll need a "Carter+1" foreign policy: the U.S. actually OWNS ALL the oil under their soil (everyone's soil), not just the right to have access to it.
This argument trumps everything and unfortunately sets the limits of U.S. future transport fuel supply. What percentage of citizens and political jerkoffs do you reckon understand this? Clearly the author of this article does not.
tooj
Permalink
JMG Posted 11:27 pm
21 Jan 2007
Permalink
CrosbyMacDonald Posted 4:54 am
22 Jan 2007
These are big companies, and they want to keep making money. So they want to have time to invest in technologies, efficiency, etc., to reduce their emissions and take advantage of the opportunities any emissions capping legislation will create for renewable energy, carbon trading, etc.
Sure it's not the most ambitious target, but 70 to 90 percent of current levels by 2020 would be a good start, if the politicians actually follow through. Given the current path we're on, it seems unlikely that we'll get any better than that, although more is needed.
Before calling this 'disgusting', people need to get real. Emissions can't be cut overnight, not unless you shoot out the tires of every SUV, and make everyone turn of their lights at 9pm.
WE cause emissions, every one of us - whose TV and computer do you think these companies power? Whose homes do they heat?
Realistically, a five-year timeline is needed for serious emissions reductions to start. Now, we should have been starting that in 1997 or earlier, but just because we dropped the ball back then doesn't mean we can now snap our fingers and magically cut emissions now.
The most important thing is that major companies, including very, very large emitters, are now advocating climate change legislation, when 5 or 10 years ago they would have been howling at the thought of it.
They want certainty for the future of their business, so they want rules now to plan for the future. (Maybe they'd rather take their chances now with Bush in power than risk much stricter legislation if a Democrat gets in next time, but I don't think that's their only motivation)
These companies are the ones that are going to need to make the emissions cuts, so instead of railing against them, how about constructively suggesting that their emisisons targets be a little tougher? Or, providing them with ways to meet them and go even further? Get realistic and get pragmatic.
Economenvironmentalism
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 11:44 am
22 Jan 2007
Friend, we replace some of these computers and TVs every year. We remodel a percentage of those home every months. Similar arguments apply to other infrastructure such as cars and factories.
If we made a decision to take the threat seriously, we could make sure all replacements and major upgrades included efficiency improvements. Similarly we could start putting sources in place - solar space and water heaters, wind generators and so on in much large quantities than we are at present. So there is no reason we can't start seeing emissions reductions from between a year, and 18 months after we decide to start. It will require a price on carbon. It will require some rule based regulations. It will require some public initiatives. But we can do it if we want to.
It does not surprise me that large corporations want to move slower than this. It surprises me a little that groups like the NRDC go along with this. Yet they are conservative, pro-corporate all that jazz. But they also know better; so there is no freakin excuse.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 12:28 pm
22 Jan 2007
Where does it come from? There is really no sense of urgency about Global Warming. Amazing.
It is certainly good to see corporations starting to "get" it, at least in terms of the idea. But at the current glacial pace of American change, we will see legislation pass during Hillary's second term that will set limits to gently roll back emissions during the later half of the 21st century.
Gar, you are absolutely correct. At this point, it's not about the science, it's about the lack of political will to solve a problem.
We should not be too surprised, we seem to lack the will to solve most of our problems. The fact that this one has real (but not yet clearly known, although we may know them only after they pass) time limits doesn't seem to matter.
Hey mister, if you keep going, you're gonna go off the cliff. That one just ahead. Umm, no I don't know the exact distance in centimeters, but it's pretty close. Really.
Hmmm, I wonder why they didn't listen?
patrick
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:37 pm
22 Jan 2007
On the other hand, I wonder why those of you under the age of, say, 35, do not round up those of us over the age of, say, 45, and simply march us to the guillotine, a` la "Dialogue des Carmelites." We would deserve it, je le crois, mes pauvres enfants. Those between 35 and 45 can negotiate their own fate.
Having spent the weekend enduring a painful accident, as well as studying the masterpiece of that gay Italian Jew, Gillo Pontecorvo, "La bataille d'Alger," I find myself thinking in a rather Gallic, existentialist mode.
Considering the French follies of the 1950s, in Indochina and North Africa, I have no idea how to receive Hillary's invitation to "have a conversation." Just back from Baghdad!; somehow finding herself in that huge armchair, opposite America's and Iran's very good friend, Nuri al-Maliki!
At least "Let's have a conversation" is a bit nicer than anything W. ever said: "This is what I believe, and if you do not believe it too, then you are helping the enemy, you goddamn America-hater."
But does Hillary really want to "have a conversation," or does she only want to seem to be the kind of person that you could sit down and talk with, and perhaps persuade? Why in the world should we trust her invitation to a "conversation"?
In the Luckovich cartoon, Hillary is in a row boat, rowing, and Barack Obama is walking on water, past her, with his characteristic insouciant, Jesus-loves-me smile. She says, "Show off."
I would have preferred, "You fucking bitch."
Of course, Hillary is in fact not a human being in a boat. She is an actinopterygian, a big one too, slowly, cautiously paddling, under the murky green surface, the ancient, giant catfish, sucking in and dominating all life in that pond.
Barack meanwhile is a fingerling, who may survive, somehow. Or perhaps he will not survive. He has already shown some Bara-ckuda-ish talents; the taste of blood in the water does not offend him. So let us see what he wants to do, more substantially, more positively, in a few years.
"Mais vous pleurez, Milord, je ne l'aurais jamais cru ... "
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:47 pm
22 Jan 2007
My Dear CanisCandida,
Having fled the country (See Fellini's Satyricon), I might be spared the round up. But I would miss your wit and wisdom. I do hope you have recovered from whatever accident befell you!!
Pundits all count Hillary out. But there is a reason she is the odds on favorite to be the first woman president. First of all, the Republicans have two more years of trying to figure out what to do about Iraq, and no answers. All of their potential candidates will wear the cross of GWB around their necks as they leap off the cliff. They are stuck, there is no hope for them. There are no giants among them, and history has already written their doom. Parties with such unpopular leaders do not maintain the presidency.
Obama is probably a fine young man, but lacks the experience on the Presidential stage. He has been there done that. As people begin to understand that the Democratic nominee will win, barring something really suicidal, the excitement of picking the first woman president will create a wave of historical female involvement in politics which will sweep her into the White House on her own.
The other Democrats? Edwards is great, but will not gain enough traction. The others mentioned are midgets, most of them are running for Vice President. Gore could not take it from Hillary, he lacks the fire in his belly. (She may promise him the UN, which would probably suit him).
Do I like Hillary? Personally, she is too conservative for me. But she is smarter than a whip, and tougher than nails. The race is hers to lose. I predict she will win.
patrick
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:07 pm
22 Jan 2007
So maybe that is what we should be saying to one another, that is what we should be saying to David Roberts and Kate la Pasteure: "There there, little ones, go to sleep. But yes, in fact, we are in Hell."
In that connexion, I would add that any anger felt by Young People, directed at us Old People, is entirely justified.
By way of mitigation, though, I would point out that there was nothing so wicked, year after year, as the situation of Lucy, and Charlie Brown, and the football that she is holding. A real Baby-Boomer moral predicament.
And Charles Schulz, good learned Lutheran from Minnesota that he was, never figured out a solution.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
bookerly Posted 12:34 pm
24 Jan 2007
Having made the case for how she could win, I should also make the case for how she could lose. The biggest danger for her is Iraq. If things really get worse and worse, it will open the door for a seriously anti-war candidate to win.
Most of the others are waiting for her to stumble, or for history to stumble her (grin).
Charlie Brown should have started to play Ping Pong, and left Lucy out in the cold wondering where he was. He was an enabler to her sadism (grin).
My current favorite cartoon strip is Boondocks.
Hope your recovery is complete!
patrick
Permalink