I'm a little confused about your reasoning. You're criticizing ED for NOT supporting the Energy Bill because, although it doesn't do enough, the bill does something good. But in previous posts, you've been criticizing ED for supporting the climate bill, even though it's the same situation - it would do something, though not enough.

It seems like the other green groups are contradicting themselves - when is it ok to accept an imperfect bill? If neither bill does enough, why support one and not another?

Passing the 2007 energy bill has required enormous resources for what will take us off the business as usual path but will allow for a continual rise in emissions.

Lieberman-Warner will REDUCE carbon emissions by at least 70% by 2050. Getting this bill passed now will provide huge dividends for the global climate (much, much, much more than the energy bill).

Here are some of my other thoughts:

-If we wait for the "perfect" bill until 2009-2010, several more years will have passed where we continue to emit and the planet continues to warm. Guess what? The emissions that we will continue to emit until the "perfect" bill passes will be in the atmosphere far longer than 2050

-If this bill passes now, a great deal of the groundwork will already be completed for the Bali COP and the US can initiate meaningful conversations.

Why do we quarrel over the 2050 target? The most important point to take away is that it matches Boxer-Sanders early on. Is there any reason to believe that a piece of environmental legislation will NEVER be amended for 43 years? Of course it will be, and in 2030.... Lieberman, Warner, Boxer, Sanders, Inhofe, and all will have retired.

Why is anyone listening to these other environmental groups about how we should implement an economic policy (that's quite complicated)? You do know that most of these groups do not have a SINGLE economist on staff. In any other scenario, these groups are willing to publish polemical diatribes against the "market-based" system, but for climate change, we're going to rely on them to tell the public what is the best "market-based" approach for reducing emissions, huh? Is there rational behind this?

While I do think groups like the Sierra Club or Earth Action Network have done meaningful work in the past, attempting to prevent this bill from passing is counter-productive. Sure this bill isn't perfect, but it's likely the best we're going to pass in this country for quite some time, and it's better to do it now then later.

Seems like all the weight in your argument is on this:Sure this bill isn't perfect, but it's likely the best we're going to pass in this country for quite some time ...I'm not sure why you'd expect green advocacy organizations to accept that as fact. How do you know we couldn't get something better this session, or radically better next session? Most of the groups support the bill, but want it strengthened -- couldn't that happen between now and the time it's passed? Point is, there are plenty of people out there pushing for a weaker bill. It's greens' job to push the other way.

That said, I do think ED plays a unique and not entirely malign role in the environmental world -- something I should probably put in a separate post.

grist.org

First, ED's and the other groups' positions are not that different.

Second, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that any meaningful climate legislation will be signed by president Bush and there will not be enough votes in congress to override a veto.

What's the difference between a great bill, a mediocre bill, and a bad bill if none of them will be enacted?

All of the enviro's current legislative work is just practice. It is a good exercise to see what can be done when the next president is in office, but until that happens its just practice.

If there has to be fighting within the environmentalist community maybe it should wait until something is really on the line.

You're right that the green advocacy groups play an imporant role right now and that this bill can still be strengthened. I also think it's a great sign that L-W after releasing their initial draft, sought feedback, and came back with a stronger bill.

To me, there is little doubt that this is an honest attempt to address climate change and they really want the best bill to pass. Lieberman has a bad reputation today due to his positions on the war and Iran, but remember that McIntosh was just at NRDC.

Given the nasty climate on the hill, it's the only big bill (climate or otherwise) right now that has bipartisan support. If anyone knows what can pass, it is L-W because they have more information on where other members of congress stand than you, me, or any green group.

As for the role of green groups, I would be interested to hear your own opinions about EDF. To me, the USCAP groups have played an essential role and if this bill is to still improve, I think they will continue to be the most important players (for good or for worse).