On the surface, broad-based solutions to global warming appear to be emerging in Congress. But with even a meager scrubbing of the surface, Senators Lieberman and Warner’s “Climate Security Act” (S. 2191) - which is scheduled to be debated on the Senate floor in June - turns out to be perhaps the greatest greenwash of our generation.
Everyone who cares about the climate and a just energy future would do well to take a good, hard look at the Lieberman-Warner (L-W) bill. It will frame the climate debate in the US for our generation.
If we don’t stop L-W in it’s tracks and go back to the drawing board for real solutions, we risk our bold local efforts for climate protection being trumped and even overturned by deeply misguided and corrupt federal policies. Sadly, most of the national environmental groups are taking a pass on L-W, not publicly taking a strong stand against the bill despite misgivings. At the moment only Friends of the Earth and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service are taking strong stands against the bill. [some weak-willed environmental groups are even supporting this insane bill!]
Lest we be the victim of our success, the youth climate movement cannot afford to remain neutral and silent on this rapidly moving train. The time for demanding “action” on climate is over, we must define and demand “real action” and speak out against these deadly dangerous distractions.
A few highlights from the bill:
- Besides the inherent problems of carbon trading, the bill gives tradeable carbon permits valued at one trillion dollars to the fossil fuel industry for free.
- The revenue from the portion of carbon permits that are auction is directed straight back to back to polluters through hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies to the coal, oil and automobile industries, and nuclear power.
- According to an aide to Senator Lieberman, the bill “would be the most historic incentive for nuclear in the history of the US“. It is estimated that throughout various incentives in the bill $500 billion could go to nuclear power.
- Carbon permits are given first - before all other auctions - to NEW coal facilities, giving incentive to new coal construction before other forms of energy.
- The bills targets are well below what the UN recommends, especially the short term goals: virtually no national reductions in emissions would occur before 2020.
- The bill allows 30% of all emissions “reductions” to be achieved by carbon offsets. Carbon offsets, according to a recent analysis by Stanford “do not represent real emissions reductions” (amongst many other problems!)
Friends of the Earth provided one of the first analyses of the bill and kept examining the legislation as it changed. Read the updated analysis of the bill.
Here’s a chart showing who benefits from the bill:
Worse, a number of Nuclear amendments have been discussed on Capitol Hill may include some, or even all, of the following:
- more money for taxpayer loan guarantees for new reactors
- more money for “risk” insurance if reactors are delayed because of interventions or other licensing problems
- establishment of “interim” storage sites for high-level radioactive waste
- speed-up of Yucca Mountain licensing
- further restrictions on public participation in reactor licensing
- money for training nuclear engineers
- money for training skilled workers (like welders)
- money for security guards and improvements
- money for Hardened On-Site Storage
- money to build new factories to manufacture large reactor components
- money for new transmission lines
- money for transformers
Take a stand - contact Friends of the Earth or the Nuclear Information and Resource Service for more information.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
thanks a lot for pointing this out and explaining the details!
Lieberman-Warner is a pretty bad bill, but it’s a first step in the right direction. I agree that we should fight to make it what we want it, but this bill in no way will define the climate debate for our generation. WE define the climate debate for our generation, not the pandering Washington politicos.
True phil - we always have the power in theory, it’s important to remember.
This being said I don’t think the bill should be underestimated: the experience in Europe - which already has a cap-and-trade system similiar to L-W under Kyoto was that for the last decade most people have *thought* something was happening to protect the climate, while infact emissions were going up nearly as fast as the dirty energy industry profits, and real solutions stagnated.
We can not afford to have the experience of Europe: the appearance of action, the reality of inaction, with a decade for most of the general public to figure out which is which.
We also can’t afford to put money into sequestration. Once we start that, it will be SO MUCH HARDER to go back. A “good start” on green jobs isn’t worth much if we have to blow $515 billion on carbon sequestration to get it.
There is a group of six organizations opposing this bill or the nuclear amendments in it - NIRS and FOE as you mentioned plus Public Citizen, Greenpeace, Beyond Nuclear, and Environmental Working Group. Here at Beyond Nuclear we are opposing the bill outright because of both the nuclear and coal subsidies, neither of which belong in a bill meant to address climate change.
This is a VERY critical moment as I know you recognize. And there could be worse amendments coming that would given even more to nuclear power - hard to imagine more than half a trillion dollars but still……
So it’s essential that we get the media’s attention to what is coming down the pike. Once the senators decide which way they are voting on this - even though the bill will almost definitely not pass and Bush of course will never sign it - it sets the stage for a year from now when they vote again and when it will be a lot harder to get senators who voted the wrong way to change their minds.
The fact that Lieberman-Warner have hidden the nuclear subsidies in this bill - there is no mention of the word ‘nuclear’ anywhere in the bill - is especially heinous, and telling.
Keep in touch with us to join in further actions!
UPDATE:
Lieberman, Warner To Push Nuclear Energy In Carbon Bill
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cdp_20080521_1570.php
“We’re never going to achieve the goals [in the bill] unless we have a lot more nuclear power in the United States,” said Lieberman. Warner also said the nuclear provision, along with other changes incorporated in a substitute bill that he, Lieberman and Boxer unveiled this week, could bring along more support for the overall measure. The substitute would give the president discretion to pull back on the bill’s emission reduction goals in the face of economic woes, inadequate technology or to address national security or other emergencies.
Industrialized, chemical-intensive agriculture and our globalized system of distributing food and fiber are literally destroying the earth, driving two billion farmers off the land, and producing a product which is increasingly contaminated. That’s why the wave of the future is organic and sustainable, not GMO.
Only the environmental groups that would rather whine than get anything done are opposing this bill instead of lobbying to make it look more like what they want.
Whitney, that’s an odd comment since most of the groups opposing the bill are also lobbying to change it.
However most people on the ground in DC that I’ve heard from feel there is so much support from polluters that would benefit and from environmental groups that have put a decade into lobbying for this bill that the opposition - which is from the less funded, more grassroots groups - is very small by comparison.
Let’s keep in mind that lobbying isn’t exactly cheap and isn’t exactly an even playing field! Most communities living next to nuclear power plants and coal plants don’t have the resources of most people working for big environmental groups, let alone the nuclear industry or coal industry!
Especially if you are a group that focuses on justice issues and nuclear power, your work is focused on individual plants or bills to prevent nuclear energy or injust energy practices, not on washington legislation proposed under the name of climate legislation by so-called allies from the DC beltway green groups.
Lastly, bills that are a wolves in sheeps clothing are alays harder to mobilize on — think PATRIOT act or No Child Left Behind, etc.
Finally, when under your understanding of politics when does one get the right to complain? Are you supposed to call your senator to oppose a bill and then just shut up? What if you are opposed to the entire proposal from ground up - maybe you support a carbon tax or something else instead of carbon trading?
Last I checked people both take action (of all sorts) and then still complain when their voices aren’t heard, and that’s right or left, from education to the war to the environment. It’s “speaking out” and it’s the best part of democracy in my mind…
Whitney - you are are an employee for Pacific Gas and Electric.
[Your comment came from IP address: 131.89.192.112 - http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=131.89.192.112
You might have disclosed that you are working (perhaps on the clock?) for a major energy company very active in lobbying on L-W, with huge potential to benefit by receiving windfall profits (or be forced to change majorly change your business practices) from federal legislation.
Nice to know the energy industry is troubled by the views expressed here, although a bit disturbing that we can’t always seperate who is getting paid to write propaganda (ie, deceit by omission) and who is a part of the youth climate movement excercising their own free speach.
Brian. Please call me at your convenience to discuss carbon trading and CO2 emissions. My company is rendering used tires which I’m sure you know is a huge national problem. But I have the brief opportunity to do it in a climate friendly way and from my research you seem to be on the ground.
It’s on odd environmental problem. Tires are burned every day in cement kilns and added as coal fuel, etc, but my method turns them in a #6 fuel oil while capturing the off gases.
It’s a devil’s bargain. Sort of.
I would like to speak to you because I’m deeply involved in the Lieberman bill but I also have the power to affect my own company.
I was compelled by your writing and I want to do this correctly. I am on the 1 yard line to make it a federal specification that tires must be rendered. But the way they are is up for grabs and I have the capability, technically, to make it pretty green.
260.466.6769
Doug Kenna
Does anyone have any significant details on how much what changes with the substitution of the Boxer bill (S. 3036) as an amendment for S. 2191?
You need to understand that this congress is never going to be able to pass the PERFECT environmental bill. This bill would get things headed in a very positive direction. The fact that the environmental community hasn’t rallied around this bill is a shame. I encourage everyone who reads this to e-mail or call your senator in support of the climate security act. We can’t waste anymore time.
I agree that giving tradeable carbon dioxide permits worth billions of dollars to the fossil fuel industry is completely the wrong move. I agree that giving subsidies to the coal and petroleum industries is totally wrong and counterproductive.
But what’s with the dogma against nuclear energy?
Yes… there is money allocated through Liberman-Warner to low-or-no-greehouse gas emissions electricity generation technologies… and some of that money could be available to nuclear energy, just as it can be available to every other low-or-no-greehouse gas emissions electricity generation technology.
I thought we were here to discuss solutions to the problem of anthropogenic climate change?
Nuclear energy provides the largest share by far of greenhouse gas emissions free electricity in the United States. Obviously if that’s what we’re seriously discussing, then rational, educated discussion of nuclear energy is important.
Nuclear energy is a greenhouse gas emissions free means of electricity generation, and its use is to be encouraged, alongside every other means of greenhouse gas emissions free electricity generation that is available.
William - The opinion of science is that we need much more SERIOUS action on the climate than L-W. Simply put, if we can “never” get congress to take action needed on climate change, we can either give up on saving the planet or we’ll have to explore other options. Let’s focus on the latter and not get distracted by bogus solutions that will distract and delude an already less-than-fully-engaged public.
Luke - looking at your blog you are obviously an extremely pro-nuclear advocate, so I’m not going to bother trying to convert you. But for others who might be curious, here’s some background on why nukes can’t and shouldn’t save the climate:
http://www.energyjustice.net/nuclear/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/jan/17/nuclearindustry.energy
http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nukesclimatechangereport.pdf
http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm
gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/24/92132/7414
Hello CB..
Do you ever get the feeling we are pounding our collective heads against a wall?
I can’t believe all the poor misguided SOB’s getting behind this POS bill.
If you follow my trail you will see my tale of woe started with an action alert from Care2 and their petition in support of this bill. They actually had more than one with multiple sponsors.
I emailed them all. One response.. Not really a tale of woe just very frustrating with all the delusional pro nuke supporters.
I can appreciate that you are savvy enough to follow the comments and disclose the shills.
That’s pretty cool.