In the face of these inadequacies, Environmental Defense seems determine to lavish praise on "Senators Liebermann and Warner for their leadership", according to a 31 Oct letter sent to all members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW).
It is vitally important that the Senate have a full and open debate on global warming action. We therefore ask all members of the Environment and Public Works Committee and its subcommittee of jurisdiction to work together to deliver a strong, bipartisan bill to the full Senate this year.
Is this what matters? "Bipartisan"? To have a "full and open debate"?
Now, to a certain extent, this is perhaps unfair criticism. 
First off, Environmental Defense is not the only organization that signed this letter and has given strong praise to the bill. Major names in the environmental community are signed onto this letter: National Environmental Trust; National Wildlife Federation; Natural Resources Defense Council; The Nature Conservancy; Union of Concerned Scientists; and The Wilderness Society. Thus, 'calling out' ED is, well, a bit unfair. There are others that can (should) be in the crosshairs on this.
Perhaps ED is (and the others are) just trying to keep the door open, so that it (they) can continue to participate in discussions on the Hill. And, ED does praise "Senators Sanders and Lautenberg and other members of the subcommittee and committee who are working to strengthen the bill as it moves through the process."
Okay, great.
But what are the weaknesses in the bill that require improving ...
This letter wouldn't tell you or, well, the Senators it was addressed to.
On 1 November, ED celebratedpassage of that bill with its unnamed problems by the subcommittee.
"This is much more than a milestone," said Elizabeth Thompson, legislative director at Environmental Defense. "With this bill we have a real chance of enacting a mandatory cap on emissions in this Congress. Today the U.S. Congress begins its leadership on climate at home and abroad."
One just needs to read between the lines of thepress release to see problems:
S. 2191 would put the U.S. on a path that is consistent with achieving the roughly 80 percent reductions scientists say we need by the middle of the century. The bill puts a mandatory cap on emissions from the electric power, transportation, and manufacturing sectors of the economy. It also contains energy efficiency provisions that, when combined with the cap, would according to the sponsors, produce overall reductions of roughly 19 percent by 2020, and 63 percent in 2050, compared to 2005 levels.
We require getting to 80% reductions by 2050, yet the bill only gets us (US) to 63%. Note a problem. Oh, and by the way, the target is 80% below 1990 levels, not 80% below the 2005 levels.
Furthermore, read this:
The bill also contains a sensible and important provision for managing costs – without busting the emissions cap like alternative "safety valve" proposals. America’s Climate Security Act would allow companies to bank and borrow emissions allowances for future compliance, without compromising the integrity of the overall emissions limit.
Hmm ... let's buy emission permits when they're cheap to then use to magnify our emissions when more expensive. Or, let's promise to pollute less tomorrow for authority to pollute more today?
And, well, there are many problems: open and somewhat conceled. As an example of the horse-trading that has gone on (somewhat) behind the scenes to move this inadequate bill forward, Senators Warner and Baucus have have put in special provisions to allow Rural Electric Cooperatives (RECs) in their states to be able to burn coal for significantly longer periods without penalty.
In their 31 October letter, ED emphasized "the mounting urgency of action on global warming" and then praises effusely a provision that would enable a process for putting off near term action.
Sadly, it seems that ED has not recognized
fully the magnitude of public change when it comes to Global Warming. Every single Democratic Presidential candidate has more serious Global Warming goals in their energy plans than what exists in Lieberman-Warner. And, the Democratic Party position is likely to be getting stronger (not weaker) in the year ahead (that is if those who know and understand Global Warming and Energy keep pushing for what is necessary and possible and desireable rather than lavishingly praising inadequacies). And, well, the "base" is calling for real leadership and real action. And, that base includes those, like the 5000+ who participated in Power Shift just this past weekend, activists from campuses around the nation working hard on Global Warming issues.
And, well, one has to seriously question whether Environmental Defense is really about defending the environment when one reads such strong praise of a dangerous piece of legislation. And, this praise, by definition, undercuts the ability to get stronger legislation through Congress when we have a President who works in reality-based policy-making.
A note to conclude
I am frustrated. I know people at Environmental Defense that I respect and admire. Environmental Defense has (and the other signatories to this letter have) achieved much for "the environment", for the nation, for the global community. But, sometimes being an admirer, sometimes being a friend means telling those you admire, your friends the truth, to hold the mirror to their faces and ask "do you realize what you are doing"?
There is a debate ongoing: Is it better to have 'any' Global Warming bill, to have the debate, to have the discussion, to be able to claim progress? Or, is it better to focus on passing good pieces of legislation that will help foster a Prosperous, Climate-Friendly Society by setting the stage for comprehensive, serious Global Warming legislation
Let us face facts: As it stands now, the Climate Security Act, if passed,
Fact: Will not Secure the Climate, it leaves us extremely vulnerable to Catastrophic Climate Change.
Fact: Will not Secure the United States (and the globe) from catastrophic impacts from Global Warming.
Fact: Will not provide a more prosperous society for all Americans nor seize the opportunities created by needing to change our energy system for a stronger society.
Fact: Will give away $100s of billions (perhaps $trillions) to the very polluters who have been profiting off polluting our common property: the air we breathe, the water we drink.
Some argue that any legislation is better than none. That this sets the stage for progress in coming years.
Think of those $100s of billions ... how hard will it be to get those back if they have been enshrined as the property of polluters?
Think of the legislative process ... how many priorities are there for action? How many (important) other legislative items will demand attention in the post-Bush Administration era?
Think of the legislative process ... how hard might it be to get "moderates" to revisit Global Warming if a bill praised by environmental stalwarts like Environmental Defense gets passed?
And, well, the praise. Do we really think that an adequate Global Warming bill will survive this Senate and get signed by Bush?
Are our (are these organizations) efforts better spent on fighting for (knowningly) inadequate legislative activity or fighting for legislation that will help set the stage for the critical battle (and critical victory) in 2009?
Some believe that we can drink at the fountain of Global Warming legislation many times.
I do not.
We have one chance to get this right.
Everything ...
Everything depends on that.
NOTE: These are my personal views, not representing any organizational affiliation.
Comments are closed on this story.