You might not agree with the National Wildlife Federation’s stance on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, but you don’t have to take it out on Ranger Rick!
There’s a lot of debate going on right now about the Climate Act, and I think it’s important for people to be informed, so I’m glad that we are addressing this bills strengths and weaknesses on this blog. But the fact remains that there is no realistic alternative to this bill right now. Do we want to pass a bill that will start taking the right steps (even if they are baby steps) towards addressing climate change, or do we want to shoot it down and continue on doing nothing at the federal level?
Unfortunately, even within the environmental community, we are probably never going to all agree on everything. But we can also get our message across without attacking each other. Ultimately, we all care about this Earth and are invested in how we can minimize our impact on the planet. We might not agree on which direction to go in, but we are all passionate about our own individual beliefs and that is part of what makes this movement so unique. And maybe we can all agree not to do anymore raccoon bashing!
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Not to sound snarky, but how is giving the fossil fuel industry a trillion dollars (yes, that a TRILLION) a step in the right direction to stopping global warming?
That seems like a trillion steps in the wrong direction.
Here are Lieberman-warner’s highlights from Brian’s post a couple of days ago:
* 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.
I’d like to hear justifications as to why these are good for the climate, good for communities exposed to long term fossil fuel extraction (that fuels climate change) and good for raccoons.
peace
FINALLY someone I agree with. I have to say that this blog is turning into an extremist left wing forum that is alienating us ‘regular’ liberals.
Oh, and ’sparki’ - if you didn’t want to sound snarky you totally failed. I am so sick of you people preaching from your soap boxes. Fine, you don’t like the CSA. What are you proposing? Instead of just shooting something down, why don’t you actually tell me about something going on in Congress that actually might pass? Until you have something to SUPPORT, shut up.
I am personally shocked and very sadden by all the bashing going on right now. This coalition was formed to give students and young people a voice and now we are resorting to mud slinging even at each other? All of you can throw around numbers and dollar amounts all you want, but the attitude has got to go! Can’t you agree to disagree? Insulting ‘kids’ or Ranger Rick (who I personally have some wonderful memories of) isn’t going to help anybody.
In the 1970’s there was a great movement to abolish strip mining. Community groups from all over Appalachia made enough noise that the Big Greens started paying attention and an Anti-Strip Mining bill was introduced at the federal level under Nixon. Year after year of Republican control lead to the gradual weakening of the bill. When Carter got in office he wanted a strong Anti-Strip Mining bill as did the grassroots community groups. The big greens said they knew best and we ended up with the Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. When Pres. Carter signed it, he said he was disappointed with the weak bill and hoped it was just the first step. 30 years later mountaintop removal and other forms of strip mining are destroying Appalachia.
I just got back from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, one of the state agencies created after SMCRA to permit strip mining. I was looking at a permit for part of a 6000+ acre surface mine complex where I live. If the big greens had listened to the community groups, who arguably knew a whole lot more about strip mining than they did, I wouldn’t be worried about losing this mountain.
If you want to be fighting global climate change in 30 years, take that good first step the industry is offering. Personally, I’d prefer take one more year, build our power just a bit more, and get legislation that actually creates change instead of awarding the very industry that has murdered and oppressed people for over 100 years.
It’s easy to choose the path of least resistance and just go with what the “Professionals” in Washington say is best when they promise a quick victory. Some of these same big greens (and I don’t know if NWF is included in this group) have actively fought against community groups fighting new coal-fired power plants. They may be well-intentioned, but they don’t know about the reality of what is happening on the ground and they need to be told. Everything looks fine from DC, but it does not from my home.
And the Ranger Rick I knew from my youth does not support half-measures that will leave us fighting the same battle 30 years from now.
Hi Sarah- so disagreeing with a massive payout to the fossil fuel industry in a bill supposedly aimed at alleviating global warming is “extremist left wing.” it seems like a pretty rational response to corporate welfare. what exactly is left wing and liberal in your mind? that sounds like something i’d hear on rush limbaugh, not from a regular ordinary liberal.
i for one am tired of paying massive amounts of taxes so that corporations can profit. exxon, chevron, halliburton and lots of other companies all get crazy amounts of subsidies already and now we want to give them more so they can continue with the infrastructure that’s burning the world. the thought of that violates my sense of reality.
i have an idea of something congress could pass: how about a trillion dollars to renewable energy and energy efficiency instead of oil, coal and gas? how about a trillion dollars to a massive public transportation system. that makes sense to me. others? Sarah?
why aren’t renewables, energy efficiency and public transportation sectors getting the trillion dollars? i suspect it has something to do with fossil fuel’s spending on lobbyists and campaign donations.
organizations like NWF have a lot of money to hire PR and online media people. i’d love to see them begin a debate about why lieberman-warner is a good idea (something better than what has already been posted). the burden is them to prove it’s value and they aren’t doing a good job of convincing us that corporate welfare is the solution.
also please instead of insulting me and others, please debate the content of my post, not delve into a personal attack.
xo, sparki
Umm…some perspective here, please? Saying that an organization is “undermining grassroots groups and setting back community struggles for renewable energy” by acitvely campaigning for clean coal is not an “attack.” It’s a fair critique. We have to be allowed to critique each other, or we just end up with lowest-common-denominator party politics. Which is what got us into this climate crisis in the first place.
“Attacking a beloved childhood icon?” Lighten up, people. First the passionate defense of Thomas Friedman, now an anthropomorphic raccoon who doesn’t really exist? I didn’t see anyone attacking the raccoon, and even if they did - jeez, so what?
As for “getting our message across without attacking each other,” let’s keep those words in mind next time someone throws a pie or torches a bulldozer. Some solidarity would, in fact, be great.
It’s nice to see so many people voicing their opinions about this topic! I think it’s so important for us to continue this dialogue. A lot of us NWF staffers are actually very involved in our annual meeting right now, but starting next week, we will start getting more information out there for everyone about why we support the Lieberman-Warner bill and what the benefits are for passing that type of legislature. I look forward to continuing this discussion next week! Until then, I hope you all have a wonderful weekend and continue to question what you don’t believe and voice your own opinions!
Kristin Kranendonk
National Campus Ecology Coordinator
did you actually ask a raccoon? does raccoon want the liebermann-warner bill passed?
methinks raccoon just doesn’t want people destroying raccoon’s home. raccoon lives there for very long time, since the beginning. don’t you see? you cannot have any of raccoon’s home. raccoon doesn’t know what this coal and electricity business is, doesn’t know “clean coal” from “dirty coal,” just knows that the woods and the mountains are home and that the homewreckers with their machines are coming closer every day. raccoon doesn’t care for coal or electricity. raccoon agrees with bear that that’s a silly human problem. raccoon and bear lived happy for long, long time before humans believed that electricity was everything. raccoon really doesn’t care about technology, doesn’t really care about politics, doesn’t care about policy, doesn’t care about thinktanks, raccoon just doesn’t want raccoon’s home destroyed. no, not any of it. raccoon won’t compromise for politics, for what humans think they need or are entitled too. raccoon thinks that’s silly human hubris again. raccoon just wants raccoon’s home safe and beautiful, like it always has been, like it always was before coal and electricity.
from the forest,
kodama
[Ok, not to get the discussion of the issues off track here...but is it just me who didn't feel Ranger Rick is being attacked here? It seems the opposite!! Ranger Rick (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3201/2476379285_0892c382ce.jpg?v=0) was speaking out against the clean coal myth...NWF might not like the appropriation, but Ranger Rick was speaking up for what is right so far as I can tell: Go ranger rick!]
For folks who think this is just a debate between leftwingers and everyone else, the whole of the environmental movement is having it out over this right now…check out any other website on environmental politics…IGHIH is not alone…Furthermore, there are many groups like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the anti-nuclear movement, etc. who are on the other side of the fence from National Wildlife federation, Environmental Defense, and NRDC. The idea that those opposed to L-W are somehow a lunatic fringe is baseless.
And seriously, lay off the personal attacks people. We should critique each others views, but telling people to “shut up” is extremely rude and distracts from the content of the debate here.
Hi Folks,
Stimulating debate and completely necessary. Unfortunately it does point uncomfortably to a rift appearing in the environmental community. I would also like to say that the Werner-Lieberman Bill does not get us where SCIENCE says we need to be and is a dangerous distraction. For Sarah H, there is a Bill called the Safe Climate Act ( http://www.house.gov/waxman/safeclimate/ ) that currently has 153 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives. This is where we need to focus efforts. In my mind its about focus and energy that the movement has, if we could all focus on the house for the upcoming elections we could make sure that the new reps support this piece of legislation. We need to work on real solutions that create a 2% reduction every year to achieve 80% by 2050. This isn’t far-fetched–we have the technology and resources, we just need the political will. CCS is a waste of our time and money, we have a 7 year window to act, and CCS just won’t deliver. It has been mentioned already, but please take a look at Greenpeace’s CCS report: http://us.greenpeace.org/site/PageNavigator/CCS_is_a_dangerous_distraction
also, Greenpeace’s Energy revolution report that details how we can get there with efficiency and renewables: http://us.greenpeace.org/site/PageServer?pagename=PHS_Get_the_Facts
Thanks Guys, and I know it’s frustrating, but lets keep the dialogue clean, passion is good, just don’t dump on other people, that’s not what we are about and we can’t afford to let heated emotions get in the way of all the good work we’re doing. Part of what makes the youth so powerful and effective is our solidarity.
Green and Peaceful, John Deans
Global Warming Field Organizer
Greenpeace
I have two questions about the political process around this bill as opposed to its policy merits.
1) How much of a chance is there that Lieberman-Warner could be improved before it gets voted on in terms of getting greater reductions, auctions instead of allocation, and getting rid of nuclear and “clean coal” handouts? Could it be fixed in committee or on the floor?
2) Let’s say the Lieberman-Warner bill passes as is. (I guess it matters whether it ends up on Bush’s desk or that of the next president, but let’s forget about that forget a second). How long would it take for Congress to make the emissions targets more ambitious? It seems that after Congress passes hallmark legislation like this that it takes a while to amend and improve it. Granted we need to start reductions as soon as possible, but if amendments to Lieberman-Warner to make it stricter didn’t come about for a few years, couldn’t that be problematic give that the L-W’s emissions reductions are not very great over the short term when they’re needed the most? Also could we be permanently stuck with a low percentage of auctions? I’m worried about the Democratic leadership passing something like this and then sitting back satisfied that they can say they passed climate legislation, but perhaps those worries are unfounded.
Thanks,
Alex
Hi Alex,
I wrote this article (http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/05/13/lieberman-warner-bill-dirty-energy-in-the-name-of-climate-protection/) on L-W a few days back…
I’m not an expert on the legislative process - I would suggest getting in touch with Friends of the Earth on these questions.
This being said my guess on #1 is that there is always a chance, but that the bill is REALLY far away from being half-way decent and it’d be more useful to go back to the drawing board.
#2 is really more freightening. I think there will be enoromous pressure from industry - much of whom is supporting lieberman-warner - to “stick with the plan” if it passes and not “re-write the rules during the game”: especially as they apply to auctions. Obviously there will be enormous industry pressure no matter what, but I think the grassroots will be less mobilized to alter a weak bill after passage then to create a stronger intital bill. Our first chance at comprehensive climate policy may be our best chance to avoid pitfalls: let’s not blow it.