Who you gonna call?

Wanna strengthen the climate bill? Get this one passed. 26

As Mother Jones recently chronicled, the environment community is fractured on the House clean energy and climate protection bill, though the bigger pieces—Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation, League of Conservation Voters—  are squarely for it.

Al Gore last night in a open invitation conference call sought to rally activists to call Congress and demand passage. But with a fair amount of internal debate persisting about the merits of the bill, along with much the progressive media infrastructure failing over the last several weeks to highlight the twists and turns of the legislative drama, many progressive citizen-activists have not been especially motivated to engage Congress on climate, if they were even aware that the time was ripe for engagement.

The latest flare-up within the progressive movement is unconfirmed speculation that environmental groups supporting the bill are resisting attempts to try to strengthen the bill on the House floor, for fear that such attempts would threaten the fragile coalition of green-state, coal-state, oil-state, and farm-state Dems needed to attain a majority.

Is this a helpful debate to have right now?

To answer that, first answer this question: do we need a stronger bill with fewer concessions to carbon-polluting industries?

Look at this way. Duke University professor Prasad Kasibhatla concluded that if the rest of world follows our lead after the House bill approach is implemented, we would keep carbon pollution below 450 parts per million. Some scientists say that’s enough to avert a climate crisis, while some say we need to reach 350.

In other words, we don’t know for sure, but a stronger bill would be the safer route.

So, how best to do that?

Anyone who has closely followed the legislative sausage being made knows the following:

1. Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey had to do Herculean wheelin’-and-dealin’ with fossil-fuel lovin’ Dems to painstakingly piece together this compromise.

2. They did it without having any grassroots intensity in support of a strong carbon cap to hold skittish congresspeople’s feet to the fire. In fact, Waxman and Markey had to do these deals precisely because they had no grassroots political leverage.

Which means pursuing last-minute amendments is futile.

There is zero reason to believe that the coalition could hold if any changes were made to the bill at this point. (Or to be more direct, there is zero reason to believe any amendment that would strengthen the bill would pass in the first place.)

Berating the Big Green groups for being strategic realists is not a useful internal debate to have. Their political calculations are not why the bill required multiple compromises.

The missing ingredient throughout this process has always been grassroots intensity, which has been depressed thanks to the fractured environmental community and lack of attention from both traditional media and progressive media.

You want to set the stage to strengthen the bill? Add that ingredient. Call Congress. Call 877-9-REPOWER. Pass the bill with a burst of grassroots momentum.

Don’t sit on your hands and let Waxman and Speaker Pelosi drag the bill over the finish line with a whimper. Let Congress know that voters are watching this vote, and will reward congresspeople who had the vision to combat global warming.

From a political perspective, the details of the compromise don’t matter right now. It’s simply a global warming bill. And congresspeople are listening to find out if their constituents want a global warming bill, don’t want a global warming bill, or don’t care one way or another.

The best thing to do right now, is to give Congress the right answer.

Bill Scher is online campaign manager at Campaign for America’s Future, host of the LiberalOasis Radio Show on WHMP in western Massachusetts, and executive editor of LiberalOasis.com. He is the author of Wait! Don’t Move To Canada!: A Stay-and-Fight Strategy to Win Back America, and a regular contributor to Bloggingheads.tv and The Huffington Post.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Gar Lipow's avatar

    Gar Lipow Posted 11:33 pm
    24 Jun 2009

    This is nuts! Pass a bill regardless of content? As long as it is called a climate bill, the actual effect on the climate does not matter? And you are literally supporting it blindly. The page count has changed drastically since the last public release. You are going to get hundreds of new pages Thursday in a bill to be voted on Friday And further mods can take place between Thursday and Friday.  So any congresscritter who votes for this literally does not care what is in it.   For those of you who say "trust Waxman"  liberals always claimed to be the "reality based community". "Faith based politics" was to be left to consevatives.

    Permalink

    1. Bill Scher's avatar

      Bill Scher Posted 12:23 am
      25 Jun 2009

      Thanks! Those words you put in my mouth were quite tasty. Much more so than what I actually wrote.I do not believe that the most recent deal-making has altered the bottom line question whether or not the approach, if globally adopted, has a reasonable chance of keeping us below 450. (There is no correlation between number of pages and parts per million!) And I made an argument mid-way in the post that the bill passes a basic threshold in regards to substance: not necessarily perfect, but well enough in the ballpark that it moves us forward.My final, perhaps counter-inituive, point was that at this moment in the process, "from a political perspective" the final-final details of the House compromise (read: the most recent changes) don't matter, that passing this version on a wave of grassroots support (as opposed to grumbling) will provide fresh political leverage that can be used to substantively improve the bill later in the legislative process.If you would like to disagree with my actual analysis of the political dynamics, please do so.

      Permalink

      1. setb Posted 8:05 am
        25 Jun 2009

        I think Gar's main point was if you had read the bill--have you?

        Permalink

    2. Bill Scher's avatar

      Bill Scher Posted 8:27 am
      25 Jun 2009

      SETB, no I have not read the full bill. I am not a policy expert and do not claim to be. Like most citizen-activists, I rely on policy experts to help me make judgments on complex legislation. My understanding of these final compromises, and new pages yet to be released is that they are basically on the margins and would not fundamentally alter the bill's ability to get us under 450.

      Permalink

      1. setb Posted 8:43 am
        25 Jun 2009

        I just wish these that so many of these conversations weren't examples of modern jackass: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=modern+jackassI mean it's only the most important bill for the future of our planet & economy...That's not pointed at you Bill--you're a smart guy & I like your writing--I just would bet that only about .05% of the people pushing for passage of the bill (or against it) have read the actual bill. In general, 1200 page bills aren't democratic. 

        Permalink

  2. randino Posted 5:03 am
    25 Jun 2009

    This is the part I found interesting, "2. They did it without having any grassroots intensity in support of a strong carbon cap to hold skittish congresspeople’s feet to the fire. In fact, Waxman and Markey had to do these deals precisely because they had no grassroots political leverage."Ever since the Dean campaign in 2004, the punditocracy have been falling all over themselves celebrating the power of the netroots.  Is that power real, or is the power of the netroots one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the activist community? I suggest that what we are seeing with the climate bill, and with health care, and with so many other issues is the Netroots Emperor parading down the street in his underwear. The Netroots - all bark, no bite.  The Netroots - the Bernie Madoff of American activism.Randy Cunningham     Cleveland OH 

    Permalink

    1. Jon Rynn's avatar

      Jon Rynn Posted 6:17 am
      25 Jun 2009

      Randy, maybe the netsroots, and the rest of the grassroots (nonnetgrassroots?  nonnetroots?) aren't that into cap-and-trade because they're not into cap-and-trade.  Maybe if we were talking about a huge package of interurban rail, national wind networks, hundreds of billions for retrofitting, you know, that sort of thing, people would be in the streets.  But I'm just talking off the top of my head, I don't know if that sort of thing resonates.

      Permalink

      1. randino Posted 1:01 pm
        25 Jun 2009

        Jon,  I just think that if activists had had the internet in the 1960s, and been as web dependant as we all are today for our activism, there would still be a half a million troops in Vietnam, and there would still be White and Colored signs up at public accomodations.  I have this real free floating angst about whether the way we are going about things now is the right way.  It is why I enjoy Ken Ward's stuff.  I think he knows that there is a big problem out there with contemporary activism. People need to quit hiding behind their computers.  Randy Cunningham

        Permalink

  3. veritone Posted 6:52 am
    25 Jun 2009

    Not to diminish your thoughtful input in past columns, Gar, but I think you lose the forest for the trees with your remarks today. I agree with Bill Scher. (I could imagine Gar railing against Lincoln when the details of the Emancipation Proclamation made it clear that slaves in border states would be unaffected.) The big fight will be in the Senate this fall and we have all summer to build grass roots support for that far more significant struggle.As much as I would have them disappear from the political stage, corporations and their congressional servants remain powerful. Indeed without a veritable tidal wave of grassroots support, they will continue to be the dominant force in all these deliberations. The forces opposing significant climate/energy legislation are quite unified and we gain little benefit from being so fractured. At the same time I believe it is essential to fight to strengthen the bill, but not if it becomes like Hue in Vietnam: "We had to destroy Hue to save it." We have to strike a balance.I believe this struggle will go much further than W-M and we need to build the grass roots for the long haul. I think environmental groups bailing on W-M take a very short-sighted view of things that is worse than counterproductive. It will defeat us. We need to be inspiring the grassroots, not confusing them.This is the defining struggle of our era and we are in it for the long haul. I am devoted to building a grass roots movement equal to this daunting task. Let's hope all this "sturm und drang" is just a bump along the way as we traverse our collective learning curve. 

    Permalink

  4. setb Posted 8:02 am
    25 Jun 2009

    I love it when pundits criticize the grassroots with their "analysis".  "Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey had to do Herculean wheelin’-and-dealin’ with fossil-fuel lovin’ Dems to painstakingly piece together this compromise. "They did it without having any grassroots intensity in support of
    a strong carbon cap to hold skittish congresspeople’s feet to the fire.
    In fact, Waxman and Markey had to do these deals precisely because they had no grassroots political leverage."    It's hard--maybe impossible--to build grassroots intensity for a crappy bill. Activists don't get excited about crappy bills. The grassroots won't get excited about crappy bills--just like they don't get excited about crappy candidates or crappy products. Waxman and Markey had a pretty clear blueprint from the most popular man in the world--President Obama laid out a clear policy outline: 100% auction, return most of the revenue to consumers and invest the rest in clean energy infrastructure. This is a policy framework that most progressive organizations and activists (assuming strong emission reductions) could/would get excited about. In fact they would work their a$$ off to pass that bill. Instead they decided to go with a strategy (the same since 1993!--developed by McCain & Lieberman!) of buying off polluters & anyone else they could with free allocations and offsets. They acted like nothing had changed politically. Not surprising their bill has been met with ambivalence from the grassroots.  The bottom line is that the bill Waxman introduced forced him to work the inside game. Instead of D's using their new power to weaken the chokehold that utilities and dirty power have over the political process--they introduced a bill that strengthened dirty power's power.    We'll never no what might have happened if they hadn't used this polluter friendly policy framework & strategy--but blaming the grassroots on this is cynical & callow.    

    Permalink

    1. Bill Scher's avatar

      Bill Scher Posted 8:14 am
      25 Jun 2009

      1. I'm not criticizng the grassroots. It's just a fact they were not engaged early in the process, which I attributed to the lack of coordination/agreement among environmental orgs (giving the grassroots a clear focus for their energy), and lack of attention paid by the traditional and liberal media (letting the grassroots know when their energy would be most productive).2. I don't expect anyone to get behind any bill s/he deems to be "crappy." My point there is we in the grassroots need to be engaged BEFORE the deals get done, if we ever want to avoid grappling with tepid compromises, and trying to discern if they constitute incremental progress or woeful crappiness. I don't think that is an easy problem to solve (see #1), but that is the missing piece in my view.

      Permalink

      1. setb Posted 8:31 am
        25 Jun 2009

        Not engaged early enough in the process? What do you mean? Enviros have been lobbying on this for like 30 years--just about every environmental group supported Obama's campaign policy. How much earlier could they get involved? But Waxman takes his shiny new majority, super majority in the Senate & 60+ popular President and comes out with this? The same basic policy framework developed back in the 90's in McCain-Lieberman.

        Permalink

      2. Bill Scher's avatar

        Bill Scher Posted 8:48 am
        25 Jun 2009

        When I say "grassroots," I am not referring to the work of enviro groups, I mean literal grassroots, individual citizens. Congresspeople were not feeling the heat from constituents en masse making calls and sending letters demanding a strong global warming bill, during the legislative process. They rarely do. But if you want to counter the influence of special interests during the legislative process, maximizing grassroots pressure is the only way, because that lets congresspeople know they have a significant number of constitutents passionate about the issue who are watching their vote, and may not vote for their re-election based on their position.I have no complaint with the efforts of any particular enviro group. I only note that their lack of coordination with each other on matters of policy substance makes it harder to maximize grassroots pressure earlier in the process. 

        Permalink

    2. davescott Posted 9:29 am
      25 Jun 2009

      Scher writes that Congress was not hearing from individual constituents.  I think that's a valid statement.   If there's an obvious failing here, it is the failure to create enough constituent demand.  That task is made immensely more difficult by poor US science education and successful propaganda that made the science contested territory, even when it isn't.  And the US media has not given this crisis the urgency it deserves.  But in my view Scher makes a valid point: you overcome special interests with constituent demand.  That needs to happen in the Senate if there is hope to fix the flaws in this bill.

      Permalink

      1. setb Posted 12:23 pm
        25 Jun 2009

        I'm not sure that I understand your position.There was an election held less than one year ago. The guy who won laid out a clear climate and energy policy--he was supported by every enviro group that legally could and he won the election.  The public wants action on energy and climate-they voted for it, it's polled well, there are dozens of organizations that have been pushing congress to act for a long, long time. They want real action on climate. How many phone calls, emails, lobby days, press conferences, etc. happened in the last 20 years on climate? I would guess it's in the millions.During that time some clear lines emerged 80 by 2050, 25 by 2020, no new coal, 100% auction, etc, etc, etc.I'm not sure why you've decided to blame the people. It makes sense why Waxman would say it--it makes him out to be a hero. He had to battle against the forces of evil, if only the public would have spoken up, he could have done so much better!Anyway, Obama's PC today makes it moot.

        Permalink

  5. domjoel Posted 8:04 am
    25 Jun 2009

    I always wanted to have a good, clean environment with the right climate. I just don't want our environment to be destroyed due to irresponsible individuals. It is just right that the climate bill must be passed. I hope they'll focus on this as the priority rather than thinking of their personal benefits. http://www.howtogettallersecrets.com

    Permalink

  6. enviroperk Posted 9:23 am
    25 Jun 2009

    I just finished my 3rd reading of the newly revised House version (you can find it here, but a newer revision is due out today).If you haven't read it, don't draw any conclusion on the merits of the bill. Frankly, if you have only read it once, it is difficult too! By my 3rd reading i am still a little fuzzy.I would be curious to hear the general opinion of those that have read the Bill.Much that was blogged, has little basis in fact in the bill, on both sides of the issue.One interesting piece of information that is missing from the bill:What is the total CO2 footprint of this bill? The new agencies to administer it at Federal, State and industry levels are going to be substantial. From tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of commuting workers, and cars, labs, trucks, paper, computers, buildings, just to measure and enforce the provisions .... just thinking out loud.Just seems like a straight carbon tax is a straight forward way to get the results, I see nothing that assures me that we will meet 450 PPM over the long term.   

    Permalink

  7. Dave from Canada Posted 9:57 am
    25 Jun 2009

    Peeps, just get the bill passed!If it's voted down, there is a good chance it will be too politically toxic to raise for the next 7 1/2 years, and then it's back to Republican Denier-Decider time again... Maybe make that 3 1/2 years.Is the bill perfect?  No.Will any climate bill ever be perfect?  No.Can it be amended later?  Yes.Get on with it.  Sheesh.

    Permalink

  8. Ken Ward's avatar

    Ken Ward Posted 12:18 pm
    25 Jun 2009

    "Berating the Big Green groups for being strategic realists is not a
    useful internal debate to have. Their political calculations are not
    why the bill required multiple compromises."    I don't get this argument at all. We've had, what, 15 years? and how many billions to spend on climate action in the US? Far more time and money then we've ever had on any other environmental matter. Given this, how can we not share significant responsibility for the fact that the most important matter facing the world is being dealt with as a second-rate issue, that environmentalists haven't even deemed important enough to figure out some strategy other than accept a policy tailor-made for Enron and advanced as the easiest way out of a tricky situation by a cohort of major international corporation and corporate-minded environmental organizations. OK... enough ranting, now for the serious question for Bill and other Waxman-Markey advocates above. This is not a win/lose situation. Defeat of W-M does not, as you all seem to imply, mean that the US will not or cannot take aggressive action, as the Obama adminstration is posturing to do, through the Clean Air Act. If we defeat a terrible bill on the grounds that it's insufficient to avert cataclysm, demand something functional (which I think means something much stronger than any form of cap & trade), and put the President in the position of doing something under fairly rigorous regulation, why does that not leave us in a much better position then passing a bill that – ah come-on now, no way in hell is going to be strengthened in the Senate, and is riddled with enough loopholes and implementation problems that trying to make it functional by administrative action or followup legislation will be a nightmare. In my view, it's a lose/lose less worse situation.

    Permalink

    1. Bill Scher's avatar

      Bill Scher Posted 1:12 pm
      25 Jun 2009

      The bill's defeat would not leave us in a stronger position because a hypothetical defeat would largely be the result of hesitancy to do anything significant on climate from right-leaning Blue Dog Dems, not because of mass defection from the Progressive Caucus. That would leave Blue Dogs with the increased leverage, not us.
      I suppose your dream scenario would be such a mass defection, but I would argue that would not negate the Blue Dog dynamic. It would just add to it, and leave us at a stalemate.

      Permalink

      1. Ken Ward's avatar

        Ken Ward Posted 1:33 pm
        25 Jun 2009

        Bill, I suppose that makes sense, but only if you believe that cap & trade in some form is functional. I don't. I spent 13 years of my life on implementation of the Clean Water Act – which is scads easier to enforce than cap & trade at it's best could possibly be – in NJ where we had, pound per polluter, more citizen enforcement resources than anywhere in the nation, and we still lost. I'll probably write about this soon... but I don't understand how anyone at all cognizant of our own recent history can think that cap & trade, no matter how W-M is strengthened is anything other than a shuck.

        Permalink

      2. Ken Ward's avatar

        Ken Ward Posted 1:33 pm
        25 Jun 2009

        Bill, I suppose that makes sense, but only if you believe that cap & trade in some form is functional. I don't. I spent 13 years of my life on implementation of the Clean Water Act – which is scads easier to enforce than cap & trade at it's best could possibly be – in NJ where we had, pound per polluter, more citizen enforcement resources than anywhere in the nation, and we still lost. I'll probably write about this soon... but I don't understand how anyone at all cognizant of our own recent history can think that cap & trade, no matter how W-M is strengthened is anything other than a shuck.

        Permalink

  9. randino Posted 12:53 pm
    25 Jun 2009

    I have admitted to having had a bi-polar experience with this damned bill.  I think I speak for a lot of enviros that one moment I feel one way about it, and the next I feel the other.  Ken speaks to my heart.  Romm to my head.  I just got the word that Dennis Kucinich - my rep - is going to vote against it.  Too weak, and Dennis takes his shots straight up.  I e-mailed him in support of the bill today.  Then went to his site and saw the announcement of his intended vote.  Had a good laugh and shook my head.  Most people I know have to put up with shit head conservatives for their reps.  I have a rep who is always outflanking me on my left.  Dennis drives me nuts at times, but I love him. So, I am in a que sera, sera mood.  It will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow, however the votes fall.Randy Cunningham     Cleveland, OH 

    Permalink

    1. Ken Ward's avatar

      Ken Ward Posted 1:43 pm
      25 Jun 2009

      Ahhh, Randy. Say it isn't so! You can still call Kucinich and change your mind. As to who is speaking to what part of you, I'd argue you've got it mixed up. Opposition to Waxman-Markey is an act of reason, support is based on emotion. There is no way in hell that the bill I've heard called "Whacky Marksman" is going to come even faintly close to what Joe Romm, among others, has eloquently laid out is required. At the top list of the reasons for this is that US environmentalists chose not to tell the truth a long ways back. Now, on the brink, we have neither a solution nor the troops (for whom honesty is a requirement) to make a fuss. Since we've been playing the same game for decades, when exactly do we stop and try something else, liking telling the truth? Like I say, I think think this is an intellectual conclusion because I can sure say that I wish like hell I could be supporting the damned thing.

      Permalink

  10. enviroperk Posted 7:51 pm
    25 Jun 2009

    Now the old bill has been replaced with a new bill! Wow!http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/06/25/cap-and-trade-underpants-gnomes/Read some 224 proposed amendments submitted this afternoon! Wait, the vote is TOMMORROW!http://www.rules.house.gov/amendment_details.aspx?NewsID=4341Bottom line:WE will not KNOW WHAT THE BILL CONTAINS UNTIL AFTER THE VOTE! Do you still think it is wise to "just get this one passed"? 

    Permalink

  11. Tr2828 Posted 12:02 pm
    26 Jun 2009

    I think a true friend kabin of the project, says great deil.kabin The world to come to head güvenlik kabini  a team everyone tells political wc kabini lies. My english bekçi kabini  may be bad Tell me150x150 kabin  what.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement