Greenpeace has sent a letter to Senator Barbara Boxer expressing their support for Friends of the Earth effort calling on the Senate to Fix or Ditch the Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Bill. Senator Boxer jabbed back at FoE
"They’re sort of the defeatist group out there. They’ve been defeatists from day one. And it’s unfortunate. They’re isolated among the environmental groups."
Well, Greenpeace's letter makes it clear that, contrary to Senator Boxer's statement, FoE doesn't stand alone.
I also strong disagree with your sentiment that Friends of the Earth stands isolated its position. As I travel across the country, I meet people looking for leadership on this issue, but not just any leadership. As ice caps continue to melt, seas continue to rise adn weather gets more and more extreme, they are not looking for government action simply for action's sake. I find it difficult to locate any citizen concerned about global warming does doesn't want the same result as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace.
This letter is a strong endorsement of the FoE effort, calling on Senator Boxer to either Fix Lieberman-Warner or Ditch It.
Not Just Greenpeace
Now, Greenpeace speaking out showed that, despite Senator Boxer's words, Friends of the Earth (FoE) didn't stand alone, in isolation, in their call to <font>Fix or Ditch the Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Bill. Others are also voicing their perspectives. From the LATimes (The climate may be right for a global warming bill), we see that there are those who agree with Boxer, such as NWF and ED, who think that the time to act is now. But, from the Sierra Club,
"This bill doesn't do the job that science tells us we need to do," said Melinda Pierce, a Sierra Club lobbyist.
Clean Air Watch
Environmental groups hope to strengthen the measure. But that is likely to be difficult in the narrowly divided Senate. And some fear that the bill's sponsors will make "further concessions to an already compromised bill," said Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch.
Rather than "Fix It" in line with climate change requirements, the "Fix" might be in to weaken the bill to foster even more climate change.
"The political reality is -- and I think it's unfortunate -- today in the United States Senate, we do not have a 60-vote majority on a strong global warming bill," said Chris Miller, director of Greenpeace USA's global warming campaign. "The only way you move anywhere close to getting the 60 votes you need is to weaken the bill even further."
What are the societal implications of political reality?
Political reality and political implications matter. From the LATimes, the battle seems between those who want anything, ASAP, and those who (a) want a good bill and, from the far other spectrum, (b) those who seek to demolish any attempt to deal with Global Warming. Note that opposite spectrum:
William Kovacs, vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, dared Democrats to pass a bill he said would drive up utility costs at a time of high economic anxiety.
"Go for it," he said, warning that lawmakers could expect their votes to become a campaign issue.
Thus, FoE is attacking L-W due to its undercutting the Democratic Presidential candidates.
The US Chamber of Commerce is saying that they will go after Democrats if they push the bill.
The Lieberman-Warner Coal Subsidy Act is dangerous as it is
- Inadequate on scientific grounds.
- Dangerous economically, as it would greatly increase the cost for effectively dealing with global warming due to its profligacy of pollution permit giveaways (and, even with those giveaways, a major industry mouthpiece says that they will attack Ds over it).
- Dangerous socially, as it would undermine the Green-Blue coalition, taking money from the pockets of average Americans to hand over as windfall profits to serial polluters.
- Potentially, a reckless bill when it comes to Democratic electoral prospects come November?
Can anyone remind me why we are supposed to be wholeheartedly supporting Lieberman-Warner?
The Politico is also reporting potential fast movement on Lieberman-Warner even while noting that
The liberal blogosphere has also set upon the bill, calling it a giveaway to coal companies. The more moderate Environmental Defense responded by sending a letter to Boxer suggesting she take out ads on the blogs and offering to broker a truce of sorts.
But the letter leaked, only further infuriating the bloggers, many of whom would like to see the bill killed and brought up again under a Democratic president.
Remember Greenpeace?
Now, back to the Greenpeace letter to Senator Barbara BoxerThis is an extremely well-written letter, one that speaks beyond the controversy of the day to larger principles. It opens with a direct call to Senator Boxer's long-held positions re Global Warming.
I write to express my profound disappointment in your reaction to Friends of the Earth's Fix It or Ditch It campaign. I was surprised to read your reaction because in my mind, their Fix It or Ditch It campaign represents the principles I thought you stood for, having authored teh strongest climate bill in the Senate with Senator Bernie Sanders.
That bill, with its targets for 80% reductions in US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 1990 by 2050, fit with core science. It hits with what is viewed as minimum requirements to provide a 50 percent chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change, unlike the far weaker targets (and other problems) of the Lieberman-Warner Coal Subsidy Act.
The letter then turns to the political environment.
As you know, Friends of the Eart is correct in saying that both Democratic presidential candidates support porposals that would achieve significantly deeper emissions reductions than would the Lieberman-Warner bill. In addition, both Democrats in the presidential race support auctioning 100% of the allocations while avoiding the multi-hundred billion-dollar giveaway to the fossil fuel industry. Starting from a position in the Democratic-led United States Senate that is well short of the Democrats running for president lowers instead of raises the bar on what will ultimately be passed and signed into law.
Senator Boxer argues that there is a requirement to test the waters, see where the votes lie when it comes to Global Warming legislation. Is it normal practice to test one's feet with hotter waters (e.g, in this case, less) than what the (next) President would want to see come to the Oval Office?
As per the first quotation, the letter than reinforces that Greenpeace stands with Friends of the Earth (as do Americans across this country concerned with Global Warming) in calling for the Senate to "Fix It or Ditch It".
The letter concludes with a heartfelt appeal.
As your comittee works through this issue over the course of 2008 and beyond, it is my sincere hope that y ou will will, in fact, Fix It or Ditch It. That you will lead your colleagues to "fix" any proposal that falls short of the emissions reductions that scientists say are required to avoid the impending climate crisis. That you will work to "ditch" any proposal that gives away hundreds of billions of dollars to the fossil fuel industry. And, that you will be driven by the need to protect the planet for future generations, instead of protecting profits for the fossil fuel industry.
"Fix" the bill to make sure that it meets the science. "Ditch" absurd subsidies and giveaways to serial polluters, who have poisoned our airs and seas for free for far too long. And, yes, think seven generations for all humanity, rather than seven years for the balance sheets for Exxon-Mobil and Peabody Energy, in your deliberations.
And, Madame Chairperson, if you take this path,
We stand ready to support you in these efforts.
Yes, WE do.