I have to admit I'm pretty confused by the strategy used in this post and the accompanying video from enviros theclean.org:
Let's stipulate that yes, of course it's stupid to subsidize “carbon capture and sequestration” for coal plants to the tune of billions of dollars, since CCS doesn't exist, and just getting coal out of the ground is rotten business. Of course, we'd like a faster ramp-up to lower emissions.
But really, there's only one hard and fast concern: Lowering our greenhouse gas output to the point where we can end global warming and stave off a cataclysm. The fact that some sausage-making, fecklessness, parochialism and special-interest buyoffs are included … well gosh, that's just SOP for Congress. Always has been. And the important stuff probably can't pass without the, uh, “sweeteners.”
Al Gore says it's a go — knowing that once the framework is in place, it can be amended, and knowing that the real fight will be in the Senate. Enviro-blogger and former EPA official Joseph Romm contradictorily gives the bill a “B-” for a grade, but also calls it a “stunning legislative achievement”:
To repeat, whatever people imagine that this bill “threatens” to do, what it actually does is enact into law a sweeping clean energy revolution that puts the nation on a path to virtually eliminate global warming pollution from the entire economy in four decades.
So look, as far as “questioning the leadership” of Waxman and Markey … I'm not interested in wasting my energy attacking the guys who are actually trying to get it right. Even getting this bill through the Senate (including Bayh, Landrieu, Dorgan, Stabenow, and other enviro-nuisances) would be a heroic achievement. Otherwise … continued slide to disaster.
So, I assume the criticisms are in good faith. But I'm more interested in how to strengthen Waxman and Markey's hands in a.) getting better legislation, if possible, and b.) getting it through the House and Senate. I just don't know how dogging the good guys helps.
so we cannot expect a “silver bullet” solution. If we insist on all or nothing, we may well get nothing.
<
p>This policy must be combined with other policies and investments. It appears Obama will propose CAFE standards to reach 35 mpg by 2016. This also is a compromise, but one that allows the auto industry to achieve the reduction in a timeframe that won’t be an economic burden. The parallel investments in clean energy should allow these policies to harmonize over that time period.
<
p>As far as the carbon credits, there are still good incentives to reduce emissions, both to get value from the credits and to be better prepared as the limits are reduced over time.
Thanks for your thoughts and for promoting the discussion on the front page. You raise some interesting and thoughtful points about process, our organization, and the bill.
<
p>For theClean.org it is always difficult deciding what we want to say and to whom we want to say it. We aren’t a typical donor-built environmental organization that is top-down, but instead, we are a collaborative of 130 grassroots organizations across the country. Our member groups range from organizations fighting mountaintop removal in Appalacia, to groups in Indiana trying to stop the contruction of new coal-fired power plants at the expense of ratepayers, to groups promoting renewable energy projects and new energy-efficiency standards. Every one of these local groups are affected by the Waxman-Markey bill, and most of them are upset with its foundations. They know, first hand, that Waxman-Markey will not bring about the needed change to their communities. This bill will not stop their streams being filled with coal sludge and ruining their water supplies. It will not stop the gouging of ratepayers and taxpayers by the coal industry to pay for the highly-speculative technology of CCS so the industry can keep burning their coal. It will not stop the building of coal plants in their back yards, stop new tarsand pipelines being built across their farms. It will not bring efficiency and standards to the fore-front in the public mind in the way that is needed. Further, it puts in place a weakened, near useless cap-and-trade system, which David Sokol in yesterday’s Washington Post bluntly described as: “If you liked what credit default swaps did to our economy, you’re going to love cap-and-trade.”
<
p>So while the bill might be “good enough” for some people, it isn’t nearly good enough for our members.
<
p>As to your questions of process, these discussions can quickly enter murky and muddied territory, filled with questions of the role of advocates, politicians, and people–how the system works. That said, we believe our role is not to make it easier to pass legislation for the sake of getting something passed, especially a bill that could be so essential. Our role is to advocate. Our role is to educate, to push for what we believe is right, and then make sure that politicians are held accountable for their actions, both when they get it right and when they don’t. Further, as an MA blog, you know first hand that Congressman Markey is willing to bend to all types of pressure–some good, some bad. For example, where’s that Cape Wind project? Who’s pressuring him on that?
<
p>Currently, it is Waxman and Markey who control this process. It is their name on the bill. They are the ones currently in the fore-front. They are the ones who ultimately have to get this right. For us, they haven’t and they will hear it. “Make me do it.”
<
p>Pam Solo
http://theCLEAN.org
By the way, I wanted to post this yesterday, but the 24 hour moratorium that keeps new accounts from posting stopped me. I’m not sure if you guys have a way for a legitimate new user to request quicker access.
<
p>Pam Solo
http://theCLEAN.org