So the House passed an actually-quite-decent energy bill, which would have included an improvement in the CAFE fuel efficiency standards to 35 MPG by 2020. But again, the Senate couldn't get cloture — in spite of getting 53 “yea” votes, the bill dies from another Republican filibuster. So while congratulations are indeed in order for Speaker Pelosi, Ed Markey and even John Dingell in the House … there's a lot of work yet to be done in the Senate.
- John Sununu (R-NH) voted to sustain the filibuster. He's going to get his clock deservedly and thoroughly cleaned in 2008 by Jean Shaheen, turned out by New Hampshirites who actually give a damn about their ski and snowmobile industries, not to mention global catastrophe.
- Judd Gregg (R-NH), I imagine, is also wearing out his welcome among genuinely moderate NH voters. Here's hoping he retires in 2010.
- On the other hand, Susan Collins (R-ME) wisely covered her bases by voting “yea” on cloture. She's still got a ton to answer for, but this was the right vote.
- Petro-crat Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Koal King Robert Byrd (D-WV) voted against cloture. Bayh for VP? Are you kidding me?
So what does this mean to the conferees in Bali, working on the next international climate change agreement? Does this say that the United States Congress is serious about global warming, or does it say that there's no hope without a 60-vote supermajority — therefore no hope at all?
Sen. Kerry jetted off to Bali yesterday for a very short period, apparently to remind everyone that the Bush era is almost over. (More coverage here.) Tonight his online coordinator Terri Buchman will be ducking in to this thread, so if you have anything to say about this, hold forth in the comments.
Voters don’t care enough about global warming to make that the only issue they’ll vote on, or even the primary issue, I suspect. Check out these poll results, including this one from earlier this year:
<
p>”How important is the issue of global warming to you personally: extremely important, very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not at all important?”
<
p>(Sadly, the results won’t format here, but click through)
People do care more about it when the issue is linked into other areas. The environment is tied into energy usuage which is also tied into the issue of national security. There are wars going on now that are at least partly about control of scarce water and resources and the world is likely to see more of this. The Pentagon has issued reports that have sounded an alarm on the effects of climate change and how it affects national security.
<
p>I agree with the larger point you are making though. Sadly, I think that the troubles that Georgia is experiencing with water resources is a harbinger of things to come. It’s hard to ignore the warning that a major American city might just run out of water. It’s also going to be hard for ratepayers in that area, and in other parts of the US to ignore the cost for fixing this problem. People tend to pay attention to problems when they start to affect them. Sadly, this is starting to happen in communities across the US.
<
p>BTW, the US is already trading carbons. It is on a voluntary basis right now, but the companies that are doing this enter into legally binding goals on the Chicago Climate Exchange. So far, about 17% of the Fortune 500 Companies are trading carbon on this exchange. This is also just a beginning for the US, but it was an effort brought about by US Companies who can see that carbon trading in some form or another is going to be part of the US response to the emissions problem. This issue is being pushed by activists, citizens and business. Government, in a sense, has to catch up to what is already happening.
Compare and contrast North Carolinian water policies with that of Georgia. While NC wasn’t great in foreseeing the problem and taking early action, they did take action when it was clear that there was a problem. They immediately restricted lawn watering and car washing, ratcheting up the restrictions as the problem worsened. Restaurants voluntarily stopped automatically serving water to customers, requiring instead that they ask for it. Some restaurants even went so far as to switch to paper/plastic plates to reduce the water needed to keep the dishes clean*.
<
p>Georgia had a prayer meeting on the steps of the Capitol.
<
p>
<
p>Water problems in the southeast are easy to mitigate for the next 20-40 years, accounting for the huge growth rates.
1. Change state law to render all neighborhood covenants requiring green lawns to be null and void.
2. Prohibit watering of lawns from 9am to 6pm, allowing exceptions where appropriate [I have no idea what these might be — ball fields, golf courses, …]
3. Implement a public policy that encourages rain capture for office parks or homes that water their lawn [as well as town and state owned property!]. This can be done through zoning bonuses, subsidies, university outreach [since most southern tech schools are land grant through the Morrill or similar acts], etc.
4. Use more trees, bushes, and native plantings in water runoff areas alongside many Southern roads, thereby reducing the flash runoff problems, allowing for the ground to absorb more water and erosion reduction.
<
p>This combination of carrot and stick for property owners as well as public infrastructure investment would make a substantial difference. It won’t be enough in the Southwest, but it would be enough in the Southeast.
<
p>
<
p>* Maybe not the best long term environmental policy, but it did demonstrate a commitment by the community to reduce usage in time of shortage.
The measures that Georgia still needs to take to deal with this emergency are not being taken. That crisis goes on. I have a friend who is moving to the Atlanta area and she is very worried about this situation. Stop-gap steps have been taken, but they are not the type of long-term measures that will actually begin to deal with the real problems.
Most people waste a lot more water than there is any good reason to. Changing laws to encourage people to install low-flow fictures can help a lot. Massachusetts recently (around 2005) made it so that landlords can charge tenants for water, but only if every fixture is low-flow. I’m not sure that it is making much of a difference, but it is probably helping. Subsidies for low-flow fixtures can also help.
<
p>Another useful policy choice would be encouraging widespread use of composting toilets. When water is scarce, it makes no sense to waste some of it capturing urine and feces that can be captured dry (and is easier to process if it isn’t mixed with toxic chemicals in the sewage system).
<
p>If you want to go really far, you can reprocess waste water and make it drinkable. NASA is working on recapturing as much water as possible. The design goal for the moon missions is 93% water recycling. Some things can’t be done as well on Earth, but we could certainly do better than we do now.
Extremely
ImportantVery
ImportantSomewhat
ImportantNot Too
ImportantNot at All
Important
Apr 5-10, 2007
18
34
30
8
9
Mar 9-14, 2006
17
33
32
10
8
It looks as if those for whom it was very or extremely important grew from 50% to a slim majority of 52%. The large percentage of “Somewhat Important” certainly indicates that there are a lot of Americans open to being convinced on this issue.
http://www.govtrack.us/congres…
Treasonous shredder of the US Constitution sponsor of the Satan inspired S 1959, the you are a terrorist bill!
First, let me state what the Bali talks are about, because they are only the beginning of a 2 year process that will lead to a new global treaty to replace the Rio/Kyoto Treaty that expires in 2012. Bali begins the two-year discussions among all the member nations on what terms and goals should be updated. As Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of the United Nationals Framework Convention on Climate Change (“UNFCCC”), the organization in charge of the talks put it in an interview with Reuters in November:
<
p>
<
p>Bali is about establishing the framework of the new treaty. That framework will coalesce around 4 main points; mitigation, adaptation, technology and finance. That is the work of the Bali conference; get an agreement on the framework of the problem and agree to begin negotiations on revising the treaty within those areas.
<
p>The Senate Observer Group, which includes Senators Kerry and Boxer, are going to Bali for just the reasons that the Grist article Charley cited in the OP state: to show the world that the US is taking this issue seriously and that action on long-delayed measures are coming. The US will not be the solitary figure on the world stage holding out for toothless measure to fight this urgent problem. Change is coming and the world community needs to know that the US will be a serious player in this fight in this fight.
I’d love to see Democrats negotiate on behalf of the USA, promising to implement whatever is agreed to once we win the presidency.
As we already have a political party that is excessively unconcerned with constitutional niceties.
…the Constitution does not authorize senators and representatives to negotiate treaties on behalf of the US. That is in the purview of the executive branch.
<
p>Apparently, Kerry and Boxer are going to Bali merely to observe. What they are observing and why is something of a mystery, though, since neither of them will be president in 2009.
He’s going to have plenty of time after next November.
<
p>Did he go over in the Flying Squirrel?
“The Seattle Post Intelligencer takes note of the obvious: The U.N. estimates 47,000 tons of carbon dioxide and other pollutants will be pumped into the atmosphere during the 12-day conference in Bali, mostly from plane flights but also from waste and electricity used by hotel air conditioners”
<
p>Article
<
p>”Family Values” Republicans are often pointed to as hypocrites when they are caught with their pants down, or with a wide stance. Their message is then discounted by many here because of their hypocrisy. Does the same standard apply to these environmental hypocrites?
…With modern communications techniques is is not necessary for conferees to “gather together” at one place to hold a conference.