How, specifically, can we help the Senate to strengthen ACES, the American Clean Energy & Security Act (aka Waxman-Markey, aka HR 2454, aka cap & trade)? The starting point is simple:
Pass a reality-based bill.
The bill should, as much as possible, reflect scientific reality, not earmarks or a coal porkfest.
And that reality is 350 ppm, or 350 parts per million carbon dioxide in the atmosphere...although rumor has it that the Colbert Nation will be demanding 349 ppm.
Why we need 350 ppm, or was that 349 ppm?
Don't take my word for it, listen here (sorry, can't embed): Bill McKibben on Colbert Report
Or, if you prefer the non-video version, more background on 350:
Accelerating arctic warming and other early climate impacts have led scientists to conclude that we are already above the safe zone at our current 390ppm, and that unless we are able to rapidly return to 350 ppm this century, we risk reaching tipping points and irreversible impacts such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and major methane releases from increased permafrost melt.
For all of human history until about 200 years ago, our atmosphere contained 275 parts per million of carbon dioxide. Parts per million is simply a way of measuring the concentration of different gases, and means the ratio of the number of carbon dioxide molecules per million other molecules in the atmosphere. 275 ppm CO2 is a useful amount -- without some CO2 and other greenhouse gases that trap heat in our atmosphere, our planet would be too cold for humans to inhabit.
Right now we're rising 2 ppm per year from 390 ppm, although very recent, alarming developments show that we are beginning a positive feedback loop that would cause ppm to accelerate faster. As recently as two years ago, the Nobel Prize winning United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change insinsuated that 450 ppm was safe. Since then, however, the head of the IPCC has reconsidered:
"As chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) I cannot take a position because we do not make recommendations," said Rajendra Pachauri when asked if he supported calls to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below 350 parts per million (ppm).
"But as a human being I am fully supportive of that goal. What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target."
Who doesn't respect science?
Anti-evolutionists, creationists, fundamentalists, and...the United States Chamber of Commerce. From the "Their Reality Has Lapped Our Satire" department, the Chamber of Commerce has petitioned, with a straight face,
the Environmental Protection Agency to hold a rare public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change.
Chamber officials say it would be "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" -- complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect.
"It would be evolution versus creationism," said William Kovacs, the chamber's senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs. "It would be the science of climate change on trial."
Yes, Mr. Kovacs. Let's put science on trial. James Inhofe, Michelle Bachmann, and Sarah Palin can be your expert witnesses. What better way than a media circus of a trial to link your organization with people who believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago? The strategy goes back at least six years. In 2003, Frank Luntz explained that "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," to then-President Bush, and ever since then Republicans have been desperately searching for meteorologists to challenge overwhelming scientific authority. Global warming denial is straight from the creationists' playbook: manufacture a controversy, demand that both sides of the controversy be presented, and watch as reporters print both sides without bothering to explain that one side is reality-based and the other side is delusional.
Scientists voted for Obama because Bush put politics above science, and Obama promised to correct that. Obama's signature science-based domestic policy should reflect the reality of science.
How can netroots activists ensure that ACES is reality-based?
During the debate on Waxman-Markey, House Republicans and Blue Dogs offered hundreds of amendments. Most were rejected, but the Blue Dogs' amendments weakened the House bill to the point where Henry Waxman wants to see the Senate bill improved over his own bill. We can help Henry Waxman take pride in the bill bearing his name.
Senators Boxer and Kerry will be introducing a draft bill very shortly, rumored to be September 8. The good news is that several Senators are already working to strengthen the bill, but bad amendments will also be offered. A competing bill being advocated by conservative Democrats, S. 1462, the American Clean Energy Leadership Act is devoted solely to renewable energy but leaves off the cap and trade requirements; in other words, it's nice, but will not bring the world down to 350.
We, as activists, need to look at each amendment being offered and before we start calling Senators, ask one question:
Is the amendment reality based?
Will it help bring carbon emissions down to 350 ppm, or not?
To help separate -- and influence! -- the Senators who favor reality-based legislation from those who do not, I've begun a variation on a whip, Adopt A Senator For ACES, Win Friends, Influence Senate! So far, 18 Senators have been adopted. Interested? Click the link, reply in the comments or by email, and check out the FAQ on DK GreenRoots.