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.

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

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

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.

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

Kristin Kranendonk
National Campus Ecology Coordinator

“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.

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

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.