Friends of the Earth (my former employer when Dave Brower was alive) deserves high praise for not meekly accepting what this bill offers. We need to get it right the first time or we will be tricked by NRDC and ED who want to come out as the heroes on this, when they are the villains in the environmental community. In fact NONE of the bills in congress, including Boxer and Waxman and Sanders, come close to being commensurate with the risk, as I have repeatedly told the activist community. The 80% CO2 cut by 2050 is dangerously misleading and inadequate, when most credible scientists agree that we likely have ten to twenty years maximum to avoid the tipping point (2 degree C. rise in average global temperature, or 450 ppm of CO2). Most of the Washington groups know this, including NRDC and ED, but dont have the cojones to walk into congress and demand a bill that acknowledges the hard science and acts accordingly. But at least Friends of the Earth has moved ahead of the pack and deserves our praise and support for its courage and integrity.  Dave Brower would be proud of his organization were he alive.

Environmental Defense is once again revealing itself as less an environmental advocacy organization than a toady for corporate interests.

McKibben is right calling for no "half-measures," conservatives like that.  Problem is, even the best of the above proposals is a half-measure.  

Interesting the greens leach on to Lieberman-Warner, which isn't even bi-partisan, missing a Democrat, and supports two of the biggests boosters for Pentagon spending.  God grant us winners.

First of all, I'm reading McKibben's book "Maybe One" about one child per couple.   What ever happened to that idea?  I think that immediately getting all nations and continents to subscribe to the idea would be the best way to cut pollution no matter the technology.

Secondly, GM this week is market testing the Hydrogen Powered SUV, the Equinox (not that Grist readers would know).

Couple wind power to hydrogen generation and run our cars and businesses on H2.

Problem solved.

No more CO2.

So, instead of wafting around Washington start saving your pennies to convert your vehicle to a fuel celled one.

What's that?  Hard work?  Have to make money?

Yeah...it's like that.

... a veto-proof majority, what is the point of dealing away the principle of tracking the IPCC recommendations?

Get as many Republicans as possible on the record as being against progress on climate change, by bringing the strongest possible bill that can make it to the floor.

BruceMcF has it right.  This is a no brainer: Bush will not sign any bill with mandatory cuts in emissions, so environmentalists and their groups should only support a bill that reduces emissions by the amount needed in the time needed according to the worst case scenario projected by peer reviewed science.  The precautionary principle should rule here, not economics, or people's convenience or selfish desires.

Aside from the time and effort it takes to rewrite ineffective legislation in order to strengthen it to make it effective, the problem with supporting ineffective legislation is that it makes people think that the problem is solved, so they go back to their environmentally harmful behaviors.  THAT is the main reason to oppose ineffective legislation like that mentioned here.

While I'm personally for the strongest possible bill, I have to set aside my own personal preferences here. That is because much of the public is still woefully ignorant of the problem. Conditioned by years of Exxon-Mobil lies (when the time comes I hope that the states go after E-M they way they went after the tobacco cos.) they're still not sure there's even a problem. So a strong bill on which there isn't bipartisan support is simply not going to make it past both Houses. Given that Bush will veto it the first time round, its vital that it gets passed a second time round, so he'll have no choice but to sign it. That's where all-round support is more important than crafting a perfect bill. Believe me as the evidence comes pouring in over the next decade, the public is going to start clamouring to strengthen it. Meanwhile its important we get started on tackling the problem without delay.

I'm a radical environmentalist who says, you gotsta be kidding if you think any of these measures will do any good for the earth. It doesn't work. The Kyoto Protocol didn't work and none of it works, or   even when it does, the next bunch of thieves rushes in and hacks it all to pieces. Government intervention is being shown not to work right now. Isn't it kind of outstandingly clear?

What would work is boycott. Freedom of the press first and foremost, (which we don't have if you hadn't noticed), and then grassroots activism and boycott, and doing the right thing on a personal level. It would take a lot of hard work and plenty of self-sacrifice, but wouldn't it be worth it?

The dissension between environmental groups can truly cripple the process of getting something done quickly. The matter is urgent.  Essential priorities must be identifed and consensus agreement reached as soon as possible. Corporate and business groups routinely set aside differences in the pursuit of one goal which unifies them: profit. Conservation groups must find a similar unifying incentive. Remarkably, people forget that without a viable planet, few  complex organisms will have a 'right' to life.

CO2ls a major problem with the atmosphere, although there are some others.  But, the internal combustion engine is the main culprit in the proliferation of CO2, and its replacement by an all-electric motor for individual use is the only right and proper way to maintain our current way of life while restoring the balance between animals and plants, allowing animals to breathe in Oxygen, and out Carbon Dioxide and the opposite for plant life.

Small nuclear plants spread out widely across the countryside would generate enough heat to boil water, the pressure of the steam so produced would drive turbines which would make electric generation a steady and reliable source of power.Electric cars would 'fill-up' on electricity at the presently established 'service stations' after their conversion from gasoline supply depots to electricity supply depots.  Nanobatteries would allow re-charge from the stations at about the same speed as a car gastank can be filled now.  Think 'Buy a volt instead of a gallon.'  

Secondary advantages would include fireless auto accidents, fewer deaths and disabilities, reduced auto insurance, easier operation, less wear and tear on infrastructure, and on and on.  Above all, there would be no reliance on fossil fuels, all of which produce pollution and atmospheric imbalance.

Unfortunately, hydrogen remains difficult to make, to store, to compress into liquid form, and would make any accident at all into a major catastrophe. Its use would also allow the continuation of the production of the internal combustion engine which has remained relatively inefficient from its invention well over a hundred years ago.