Too bad you identify with the "all or nothing" crowd...as you will be lonely.
IN addition, it ain't over yet, so perhaps you can do what you can to
kill the bill. After all, some folks would prefer doing nothing than doing something.
So yet again I ask, what is up with Greenpeace?
I’m sure the group thinks it is doing something constructive; but I deeply question whether, given our current political and legislative realities, not to mention our modern media system, that’s really the case. There’s a left-radical mindset, according to which it’s always honorable to be protesting something, and trying to extend the limits of the possible in the John Lennon/”Imagine” direction. Yet this mentality clashes strongly with the modern need to build coalitions, stay on message, and achieve realistic goals. And unfortunately, it also burns up political energy, particularly in the young and idealistic among us.
I’m emphasizing this not because I hate Greenpeace, but because of my strong conviction that my allies often need a yank into the modern political and media moment.http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/05/18/the-climate-pragmatists-romm-and-krugman-vs-greenpeace/Every journey of a 1000 miles begins with a single step — including stopping human-caused global warming at “safe levels,” as close as possible to 2°C. Many people have asked me how I can reconcile my climate science realism, which demands far stronger action than the Waxman-Markey bill requires, and my climate politics realism, which has led me to strongly advocate passage of this flawed bill.
The short answer is that Waxman-Markey is the only game in town. If it fails, I see no chance whatsoever of stabilizing anywhere near 350 to 450 ppm since serious U.S. action would certainly be off the table for years, the effort to jumpstart the clean energy economy in this country would stall, the international negotiating process would fall apart, and any chance of a deal with China would be dead. Warming of 5°C or more by century’s end would be all but inevitable, with 850 to 1000+ ppm. If Waxman-Markey becomes law, then I see a genuine 10% to 20% chance of averting catastrophe — not high, but not zero.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/21/waxman-markey-approved-house-energy-and-commerce-committe/Today was the first genuine step that the U.S. House of Representatives has ever taken on climate. And since the Committee is stuffed with members representing traditional (i.e. polluting) energy industries, it shouldn’t be harder for the full House to pass this bill than it was for the committee. That said, the House GOP leadership is certainly much savvier than Joe Barton (see here) — and agricultural and other interest groups have yet to flex their muscle. Much work remains keep the bill as strong as possible even in the House.
For climate politics realists, it will be a staggering achievement if, in 12 months or so, an energy and climate bill that looks something like Waxman-Markey is signed into law by President Obama. After all, the United States hasn’t enacted a major economy-wide clean air bill since the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. And that bill had a cap-and-trade system where 97% of the permits were given to polluters. And it focused on direct, short-term health threats to Americans.
The forces that are lined up against serious climate action today are incredible:
The Congressional GOP are almost unanimous in their opposition to any serious climate bill or any clean energy bill (see “Hill conservatives reject all 3 climate strategies) — and they are committed to demagoguing the cost issue even to the point of embarrassing the outside-of-the-beltway GOP
http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/21/waxman-markey-approved-house-energy-and-commerce-committe/
on Comprehensive Clean Energy PlanBill Moves Us One Step Closer to Clean Energy Future;
Key Elements Must Be Strengthened As Plan Moves Forward
Statement of Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director "Moving a comprehensive clean energy jobs plan through a committee historically dominated by those with ties to the oil, coal, and other polluting industries is a laudable victory and truly historic accomplishment. Chairmen Waxman and Markey have led the way and it is certain that this feat never could have happened without their extraordinary leadership. They have long been champions for the environmental movement and we congratulate them on achieving this critically important milestone. This bill puts the U.S. on the path to slash the carbon emissions that cause global warming 80 percent by 2050, a signal accomplishment necessary to preserve the planet for future generations.
http://action.sierraclub.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=110801.0The vote fell largely along party lines, with only one Republican voting yes—Mary Bono Mack (Calif.)—and four Democrats voting no—John Barrow (Ga.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Charlie Melancon (La.), and Mike Ross (Ark.). But the Dems who did support the bill represent diverse constituencies—coal states, industrial districts, and agricultural areas, as well as coastal regions.As the bill was debated this week, Republicans on the committee offered dozens of amendments intended to weaken it or kill it entirely, but Democrats stood united behind the bill, approving only one insignificant GOP amendment. That’s thanks to hard work done ahead of time by Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and his bill coauthor, Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who negotiated at length with moderate Democrats to craft a bill they could support. (Most Republicans had made it clear that their opposition to the bill was nonnegotiable.)
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the ranking Republican on the committee and an outspoken climate skeptic, offered a substitute amendment that would have removed the cap-and-trade provision from the bill, invalidated the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v. EPA climate decision, and ramped up production of oil, gas, coal, and nuclear power. That went down in flames, with all Democrats and one Republican, George Radonovich of California, voting against it, plus two other Republicans, John Shadegg of Arizona and Greg Walden of Oregon, voting “present” rather than weighing in one way or another.
Democrats offered a number of their own amendments, most successful, but none of them significantly altered the bill. An amendment from John Dingell (D-Mich.) would create a program within the Energy Department to make loan guarantees for clean-energy technologies, and other amendments added tree-planting programs and a system of voluntary labeling to note the carbon content of consumer goods.
That’s just the beginningWhile the fight to pass the bill out of committee was tough, there are lots more hurdles to be jumped before the legislation can get to the House floor to be voted on by all representatives. And in the Senate, it will likely be even harder to push a climate bill through.
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-22-house-panel-oks-climate-bill ---------------
Nobelist Al Gore today issued the following statement on the passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee:I commend Chairmen Waxman and Markey for their leadership in this historic action by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The bill represents a crucial step forward in addressing the global climate crisis, the need for millions of new green jobs to end the recession, and the national security threats that have long been linked to our growing dependence on foreign oil and other fossil fuels.
I encourage Congress to further strengthen this excellent legislation during floor consideration and move to pass this bill in both the House and the Senate this year.
-----------
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
